BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Mr. Luddite[_4_]

On 4/13/2018 8:23 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/12/18 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:12:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/11/18 10:55 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:39:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/11/2018 12:55 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:30:35 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 7:02 PM, Keyser SÃ¶ze wrote:
True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles....

"At least he did no use taxpayer money to pay off the bimbo.
Unlike
Congress."

Are you sure "he did no use taxpayer money"?

Bilious bought the cheap spellchecker

Oh, and speaking of Stormy...she's cooperating with federal
prosecutors.
Â*Â*Â*Â* "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his
own petar."
Hamlet

//////

Does that mean sheâ€™s gonna blow herself up?

My â€œnotâ€ missed the T, what is Harryâ€™s excuse.Â*Â* Not enough money
to buy a
spell checker?Â* I assume you required a â€œdâ€ on petar.
Sure she is cooperating, no choice.Â*Â* When is she going to have
to return
the $130 large for breaking the legal agreement?

Â*Â* From what I have heard it is up to a million every time she speaks
about it. If nothing else comes out of this, I bet we find out more
than we wanted to know about the enforceability of NDAs.
As I said in the other note CBS was pursuing this too although I
doubt
they are going to the mat for Charley. They do have other NDAs like
most big companies, usually surrounding business practices and
intellectual property. If Stormy can invalidate hers, just because
she
wants to, it will send a shudder down the spine of a lot of
companies.

We had NDAs for some people at the company I had that were designed to
protect intellectual property and other proprietary company
information.

I only had to enforce it once.Â* We had a sales guy who's
responsibility
was to coordinate the generation of technical proposals by the
engineering department and our price bid for contracts and present
them
to the customer.Â* At one point we had submitted a proposal for a major
contract and the sales person suddenly left the company to join a
competitor.Â* I knew the president of the competitor ... we actually
were
friends from past mutual employments ... and when I found out that he
was bidding on the same contract I called foul.Â* When I told him
that I
had a copy of our proposal with our price, signed by his new salesman,
he said he'd get back to me.Â*Â* He did, within an hour, apologized and
told me he had withdrawn his bid for the contract.

It was so blatant that I didn't even need to get lawyers involved.

That is why we should be taking this stormy thing seriously. If she
can get away with breaking her NDA with no consequences it might
create a precedent that actually affects something important.
IBM had a blanket NDA that you signed but until you got up into plant
level hardware support most guys did not really have any sensitive
material beyond inventories and customer lists.
When I got the source code listings for the microcode in the 4300s and
other related docs, I had to sign another, more specific NDA. They
also tried to enforce a no compete on the guys who were separated with
a "package" but that did not survive a challenge.

Yawn, yawn, and yawn. You seem overly concerned about Ms. Daniels and
the Trump NDA. There are major questions about the legality of that NDA,
and I really doubt Ms. Daniels will face any consequences. But Trump
will.Â*

What would those be about this? The campaign contribution deal does
not even pass the laugh test. Other than that they paid off a
blackmailer and she still told the story. It certainly sounds like
breach of contract if not a blackmail charge. She breached her
contract with Cohen,not Trump. That is still a contract.

Too funny. Only you and lawyer Michael Cohen seem intent on seeing Ms.
Daniels faces "consequences," and at the moment, it seems Cohen has far
more serious issues on his plate.

A NDA is a contract regardless of who it is with, even more so in this
case because there are demonstrable "consideration" given to the parties
involved.