6

Take option #2. Your concern in that scenario is not realistic: A lawyer who "reported" you to the counterparty of your settlement for such a consultation would be disbarred so quickly and harshly that it might actually give you faith in the Bar Associations. Consultations with lawyers are privileged, and lawyers have a duty to maintain client ...


4

There is actually more than one law covering whistleblowers, so the other answer is only partially correct. According to the NYT, the case in question here is also covered by the Inspector General Act of 1978 Do whistle-blowers have a right to remain anonymous? Only in a limited way. Another part of the Inspector General Act says that agency ...


3

The first paragraph on the nature of the concern in the ICIG letter to McGuire clarifies what the alleged violation of the law is: Here, the Complainant's Letter alleged, among other things, that the President of the United States, in a telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, “sought to pressure the Ukrainian ...


3

Defamation laws do not distinguish between charitable organizations and others: however, in the US there are special considerations for "public figures" (they are not afforded as much protection). The medium does not matter -- texting, blogging, letter-writing, whatever. The defamatory statement need not have been received by a wide audience – it suffices ...


2

There are no negative legal consequences for the person writing about these acts, assuming that what is written is true, and also assuming the writer is in the US or similar nation where First Amendment protection exists. If the statements are false, then the author is liable under a defamation suit, and the author would want to consult with an attorney to ...


2

The medium you use to defame is irrelevant, however, Defamation requires disclosure to a third-party. An employee or agent of an organisation (and acting in that capacity) is not a third-party. If your message was sent to the organisation only there is no defamation; if they choose to disclose it then that is not defamation either. If you had included enough ...


1

The protection enjoyed by a "whistleblower" w.r.t. federal law is in 5 USC 2302, specifically (b)(8) which refers to "whistleblowers" (by what they do, not by the popular phrase). Nothing prohibits disclosing the name of a person who has reported suspicion of a crime. The point of the law is that even if you know the person's name, you are prohibited from ...


1

In the US, sellers are supposed to pay the state sales tax on a retail sale (the obligation is on the seller, not the buyers). Of course, sellers almost always – but not always – pass that cost on to the buyer. Sometimes the retailer pays the tax for the buyer, as a promotional deal. If a buyer presents a reseller permit, the seller does not incur a tax ...


1

Oh f***. The whole thing looks very much like tax evasion. And your problem is that you know about it, so if this is found out, you are part of it. You will most likely be in legal trouble yourself. Before you proceed, you probably want to consult a lawyer, and/or post on workplace.stackexchange.com (which may be able to give advice how to keep your job ...


1

A person can report a breach of contract, if there actually is one: the risk is that they are mistaken and they make a false claim, in which case they may be sued for defamation. This would almost certainly fall under the rubric of defamation against public figure, where one must show "actual malice" (such as knowing that the claim is false, or having ...


1

Generally speaking, you can publish what you want, thanks to the First Amendment. You would indeed expect there to be technical discussion of computer vulnerabilities, once they are discovered (you don't always get what you expect, though). Doe might be contractually required to not divulge information about the company (he signed an NDA with Acme). If Doe ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible