Fogbow

Uninformed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:18 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:25 pm All of them, or they weren't hired.

Perhaps I was obtuse but I see no reason to believe that the DFO’s campaign NDAs would be substantially, if at all, different from those he used/uses for all his affairs.

Do you mean ‘affairs’ in more than a sexual sense? He certainly had plenty of those.

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:15 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:06 pm I wonder how many people signed what has been judged to be an invalid NDA?

One person.

Emphasis mine:

the Employment Agreement’s non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions (Employment Agreement (Dkt.No.22-1) ¶¶ 1-2) are declared invalid and unenforceable as to Denson

I would suspect that, if this ruling were to survive, the door may be open for others.

Well there is something called unilateral collateral estoppel. Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813. Under the doctrine once an issue is found against a party who is subject to additional litigation of the same issue, the loss estops the loser from asserting his or her defense in future cases. (Bernhard is my favorite case of all time.)

Always there to help MAGA out!





Here's the HARD HITTING Lara & Donald Trump interview. Lara really makes him sweat! This is his first on-camera interview (18 minutes) since he left office (hadn't realized that but they have all been phoners). Haven't put myself through watching him in a long time. He's just as full of lies and ridiculous (although more soft-spoken) as ever. They spent 3 minutes on the West Point ramp.





The only maybe news -- Lara tried to lead him into announcing his new social media platform. Instead, he talked about how much "elegant" putting his press releases out. He said he doesn't really need a social media platform because "they're corrupt". He also said most of the possible platforms, "have no people". He absolutely sounded like he wasn't interested in doing it. Hmmm. There are going to be a lot of tears from the grifters who wanted a golden ticket.

He's still calling it a, "corrupt, fraudulent election". He can't have lost cause RALLIES. Absolutely no awareness, just like he was stuck on his 2016 maps, now he's stuck on his fraud fantasy. He's extremely orange and the sound and lighting isn't very good. Again, as mentioned in previous comments:

SAD.

Dump has a new website where he lies about his record, and you can also hire him for recorded wishes to your loved ones. TO avoid giving clicks to it, I'l post Guardian articles about it. I haven't clicked the site myself and I have no intention to.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... presidency

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ite-events

Sunrise wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:19 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:18 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:25 pm All of them, or they weren't hired.

Perhaps I was obtuse but I see no reason to believe that the DFO’s campaign NDAs would be substantially, if at all, different from those he used/uses for all his affairs.

Do you mean ‘affairs’ in more than a sexual sense? He certainly had plenty of those.

A good/bad choice of word, I used it in it’s widest sense. It would be enjoyable if “all” his NDAs suffered from the same flaw(s).

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:16 pm Well there is something called unilateral collateral estoppel. Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813. Under the doctrine once an issue is found against a party who is subject to additional litigation of the same issue, the loss estops the loser from asserting his or her defense in future cases. (Bernhard is my favorite case of all time.)

Thanks Stern. I was wondering if there was something like this available that could benefit others later on. I figured one of our lawyers would mention it.

We talked last night on the Virtual Meetup about his new website, 45office.com. Someone noted that he claimed his administration led to the greatest reduction in carbon emissions of any president.

I said that's exactly right. Because of him, people stopped driving cars and stopped traveling in airplanes, and there was probably a YUUUUGE reduction in carbon emissions in 2020.

Good job, thanks Trump!

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:16 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:15 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:06 pm I wonder how many people signed what has been judged to be an invalid NDA?

One person.

Emphasis mine:

the Employment Agreement’s non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions (Employment Agreement (Dkt.No.22-1) ¶¶ 1-2) are declared invalid and unenforceable as to Denson

I would suspect that, if this ruling were to survive, the door may be open for others.

Well there is something called unilateral collateral estoppel. Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813. Under the doctrine once an issue is found against a party who is subject to additional litigation of the same issue, the loss estops the loser from asserting his or her defense in future cases. (Bernhard is my favorite case of all time.)

IANAL, but, if I am reading this case correctly, it was about Ms. Denson reporting alleged sexual discrimination. I don't believe that an NDA can be used to prevent someone from reporting a crime, which, under certain circumstances, includes sexual discrimination or harassment.

If that is the reasoning behind the judge's decision, then it might not be a broad repudiation of Trump's commonly used NDA's.

Note that the ruling says that the NDA "is unenforceable as to Denson". Perhaps the judge was simply being cautious, but that sounds like he was trying to limit the scope of his ruling.

Let the floodgates open

"The non-disclosure provision's vague, overbroad, and undefined terms also render it unduly burdensome," the ruling said.

The ruling said it was "difficult if not impossible" for campaign employees "to know whether any speech might be covered by one of the broad categories of restricted information" or "whether that speech might relate to one of the several hundred potential subjects of the non-disclosure provision."

The ruling came in a case brought by Jessica Denson, who was the campaign's Hispanic outreach director. She argued that the nondisclosure agreement violated her First Amendment rights by preventing her from criticizing Trump "forever," Insider's Oma Seddiq reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/court-v ... nts-2021-3

noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:55 am IANAL, but, if I am reading this case correctly, it was about Ms. Denson reporting alleged sexual discrimination. I don't believe that an NDA can be used to prevent someone from reporting a crime, which, under certain circumstances, includes sexual discrimination or harassment.

If that is the reasoning behind the judge's decision, then it might not be a broad repudiation of Trump's commonly used NDA's.

Note that the ruling says that the NDA "is unenforceable as to Denson". Perhaps the judge was simply being cautious, but that sounds like he was trying to limit the scope of his ruling.

IANAL but my takeaway was that the agreements were way, way, way, overly broad (instead of the company strategies or product creation, it was anything Trump declared was confidential) regarding a public figure and had no end time limit. The NDA would allow Trump to decide somebody's sexual harassment was confidential business and thus, NDA kicks in. You could also rip on one of his companies, and that would apply as well. There was no specificity whatsoever.

As for only applying to Denson, I assume the judge was making sure that he was staying within his limited jurisdiction and the actual parties to the case. However, besides Stern's message, I assume others could include his reasoning in their own attempts to toss the NDAs.

I think the judge was a little annoyed with the Trump lawyers when they claimed that there was no real imminent danger, thus no standing, because they had no intention to enforce the NDAs strictly, while during the last couple of years, Trump has been saying how he will go after these former employees who violate the NDA (and that they pushed the issue on the Denson in the first place).

Basically, we wont know till someone else breaks the NDAs. I'm surprised they held this long, to be honest. I have no doubt that Trump generated a LOT of grudges squatting in the whitehouse.

Suranis wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:45 pm Basically, we wont know till someone else breaks the NDAs.

That's how my IANALness sees it.

Suranis wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:45 pm Basically, we wont know till someone else breaks the NDAs. I'm surprised they held this long, to be honest. I have no doubt that Trump generated a LOT of grudges squatting in the whitehouse.

I think there's a lot of books waiting to be written before 2024 that publishers will use this to get published.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:58 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:45 pm Basically, we wont know till someone else breaks the NDAs.

That's how my IANALness sees it.

And it won't take long--the first one out of the box gets the big money for spilling the beans.

Also, there aren't enough lawyers to file lawsuits against all those people breaking the NDA since they all know they'd be fools to think they'd get paid for doing the job.

His pathological narcissism is really getting out of control now that he's not in office. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but my armchair guess is that he's decompensating pretty rapidly.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:02 pm His pathological narcissism is really getting out of control now that he's not in office. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but my armchair guess is that he's decompensating pretty rapidly.

I don't have any degree on my wall in that science either -- but, yeah, his decompensation is increasing.
And I don't give a F. (does that make me a bad person?)

N_O. No.

Azastan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:11 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:58 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:45 pm Basically, we wont know till someone else breaks the NDAs.

That's how my IANALness sees it.

And it won't take long--the first one out of the box gets the big money for spilling the beans.

Also, there aren't enough lawyers to file lawsuits against all those people breaking the NDA since they all know they'd be fools to think they'd get paid for doing the job.

I think it’s a class action so we will go on down the line.

Everybody sing!

Fleecing of the sheep
Fleecing of the sheep
Altogether rejoicing
Fleecing of the sheep

That is pure evil.

I wonder what excuses pro-Trumpers can possibly come up with for that.

Because there's always an excuse.

much ado wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:54 pm I wonder what excuses pro-Trumpers can possibly come up with for that.

Because there's always an excuse.

Maybe something like 'there was a minor clerical error that the LEFT is blowing out of proportion, and we fixed it as quickly as we were legally required to do!'

Or simply 'This is made up' Which, given how few details are available, is not that unreasonable to jump to.