Definition of LEGAL: le·gal (lē′gəl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers. 2. a. Established or recognized by law: a legal right. b. Authorized by law: the legal owner. c. Established legally other than by statute, as by a judicial opinion: a legal authority. 3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations. 4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity. 5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense. 6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession. 7. Acceptable or allowable under official rules: a legal forward pass. n. 1. Slang a. A person who is legally authorized to live and work in a country. b. A person or department providing legal assistance. 2. A legal notice, especially an advertisement. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation, http://what-when-how.com/sociology/law-and-legal-systems/ If you've ever, EVER worked with the courts, you'd discover all too quickly that the scope of things that can be considered under the term 'legal' is horrifyingly flexible. WINNING is not required. Justification is not required. Actual CAUSE is not required. In civil court in the US, you can file a lawsuit for any reason you can write on a piece of paper. The younger lawyers would have meetings tossing around various ideas - anything from suing suppliers that had angered someone in the company for reasons ranging from contract disputes to straight-up frivolous nonsense, to threatening employees with Horrible Consequences if they tried suing over unpaid overtime or wrongful termination. They did a damn good job of fulfilling those threats, too, which is why I keep telling people that nobody ever wins in court except the lawyers. I recall one instance in early 2000's where a field engineers laptop was found to have a search history of transgender medication and surgical information, and the employee was fired for 'Porn on work machine' because the computer deployment center manager was a ultra-religious prick (who still happily stole things and bore false witness; so religious hypocrite prick). Legal gleefully stepped in when the former employee complained and threatened to get a lawyer, and basically drove him to bankruptcy and suicide with almost 2 years of back-and-forth consisting of false threats and fake offers without a single actual court filing being made by either side. Archiving those docs fell on me, and practically caused my skin to crawl right off when I read them. They did, however, manage to accrue more than 2000 billable hours on that 'case'. They were quite happy with that.
You're scaring the ge-be-out of me with the detail. But yes I am quite aware of what you're talking about. An internet activist, Aaron Hillel Swartz, was pushed to commit suicide in a different but relate-able situation. What do you mean they accure 2000 billable hours? Who is going to pay them? How could an offer be faked? Can't the person record or keep evidence of the threat and harassment to court?
You've posted a lot of information without much context or supporting arguments to guide me through how it applies to this discussion. Let me reply as coherently as I can. All of the definitions you've provided are binary. Go through each one and test them. Either a thing is legal by that definition or it isn't. So you can debate which definition applies (which is not the discussion we're having) but, all of them are still binary. As for the links you've provided, it seems that your argument is, again, how laws are decided, which legal system is used, and what constitutes law. There is mention of how "The term law is surprisingly difficult to define". But, that piece is about defining the term law; not legal. It doesn't apply to this discussion because the original post sets the scope of our discussion to the laws that govern his/her workplace - not every kind of real and hypothetical law in existence ever. Also, even if you argue outside the scope of this conversation e.g., about contradictory laws in international waters or hypothetical Laws on Mars - whatever system is decided on, a thing will still be legal or illegal in regards to that system. It can be legal according to A and illegal according to B but, it can't be more or less legal. I am not arguing that the legality of a thing can't change depending on various factors surrounding it but, that thing is still a binary once the specifics are determined. The complexities of the law are not lost on me. That's not what this discussion is about. No matter which definition you choose, it is still grammatically incorrect to say more/less legal. In the same way, people might argue at which stage a person is "technically" pregnant or technically dead. One group may reach a consensus and say - at this pont- we will consider it to have happened for our purposes. Others may disagree and say it occurs earlier or later. That is another debate. It doesn't change the fact that a person is either in that state or not by the definition being employed. They are not more/less pregnant. They are not deader. The definition of Law can be debated. The legal system being used can be debated. But, the grammar cannot be. It is binary.
They had an $8 million budget to spend every year, that they had to spend, or find a creative way to 'waste'. That was ~2000 hours at more than $1 / minute (lawyers bill in 6 minute intervals - decimal time) they could bill against the budget and say they were working for the company, while being gleefully sadistic jerks to someone they could bully. As for the documentation, that hinges on two fine lines that they didn't cross: (1) torts take into account motive and damages, contract law does not, and (2) a contract must be preceded by an accepted offer. 'Good' Corporate lawyers are very precise at phrasing things, and get the victim to (1) agree to contractually resolve the dispute, and then (2) never actually present a completely valid, binding, or acceptable offer. Then add in the careful legal 'threats': such as 'discussing' (not threatening!) to have the victim 'give up' their professional certification (PE) for 'misconduct' or other civil regulatory bullshit (ex: involving Utah DCFS), and sending multiple cease-and-desist letters for fictional events that accuses the victim of immorality, theft, or conspiracy (push poll equivalent - ex: sending a c&d for intellectual property theft to this poor guy), etc. Reading about these peoples work really brought out my terror of the abuses possible in our corrupt legal system. A powerful, wealthy team of lawyers will ALWAYS destroy their target. You have no hope of victory, unless you too are rich.
Some movie whose title I forgets said... “English is the result of Norman men-at-arm trying to cozy up to Saxon barmaids after the conquest.” The Loli post...