Trump NDAs Scrapped: Hundreds Of 2016 Campaign Staffers Can Now Publicly Criticize Him As Court Finalizes Settlement

[EVENKEEL]

42 minutes ago, placeholder said:

False:

Who first mentioned women with balls?

 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Who first mentioned women with balls?

 

Actually it was "cojones" and you took that literally, did you? More evidence of obsession.

[EVENKEEL]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually it was "cojones" and you took that literally, did you? More evidence of obsession.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't speak Spanish so balls for me. He started it, not me. 

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm not a mind reader. I don't speak Spanish so balls for me. He started it, not me. 

Well you must be a mind reader if you don't speak Spanish yet knew Chomper Higgott meant "balls" when he wrote "cojones".

And your grasp of English also seems to be imperfect since you don't understand the idiomatic use of either "cojones" or "balls" in this context.

[EVENKEEL]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well you must be a mind reader if you don't speak Spanish yet knew Chomper Higgott meant "balls" when he wrote "cojones".

And your grasp of English also seems to be imperfect since you don't understand the idiomatic use of either "cojones" or "balls" in this context.

This is what happens when you butt in and you're caught being wrong. Your buddy is very quiet. 

[scottiejohn]

24 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Your buddy is very quiet.

He has a buddy? 😃

[herfiehandbag]

On 10/20/2023 at 8:05 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Excellent news.

 

And well done Jessica Denson, once again demonstrating its women who have the cojones to face down Trump.

 

Trump will of course be delighted that hundreds of his former staff have had their freedom of speech returned to them.

Absolutely right and proper, especially for one who is proving to be such a doughty defender of the First Amendment rights!

[heybruce]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they signed them they agreed to abide by them. If they didn't agree they should have gone elsewhere to work.

I'm not aware that anyone was forced to work in a Trump business.

Have you ever been required to sign an employment agreement in order to work?  Were you given the option of taking it home for a few days to study it and get a lawyer to review it?

 

People routinely agree to User Agreements and Privacy Policies containing pages of densely written legalese without understanding them.  That's the world we live in.  When we think we have been abused we go to the courts to see if it was legal.  In the case of these NDA's they weren't.

[Skipalongcassidy]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Have you ever been required to sign an employment agreement in order to work?  Were you given the option of taking it home for a few days to study it and get a lawyer to review it?

 

People routinely agree to User Agreements and Privacy Policies containing pages of densely written legalese without understanding them.  That's the world we live in.  When we think we have been abused we go to the courts to see if it was legal.  In the case of these NDA's they weren't.

 you were not required to sign anything... you could have taken your ass down to the jobs fair and joined a company that did not require an NDA... your choice.  

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

On a side note... NDA's wouldn't even be needed ever except for people like you who only in it for themselves... ie find a job where you are trusted without one.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Typical democrap outlook... you were not required to sign anything... you could have taken your ass down to the jobs fair and joined a company that did not require an NDA... your choice.  

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

On a side note... NDA's wouldn't even be needed ever except for people like you who only in it for themselves... ie find a job where you are trusted without one.

Overly restrictive therefore not legal. Really easy concept to understand.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You brought up the subject, I merely responded to your obsession.

The ‘cojones’ I referred to a figurative.

 

Nothing to do with your hair triggered transphobia.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

you were not required to sign anything... you could have taken your ass down to the jobs fair and joined a company that did not require an NDA... your choice.  

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

On a side note... NDA's wouldn't even be needed ever except for people like you who only in it for themselves... ie find a job where you are trusted without one.

The Trump’s NDA’s have been ruled not legally enforceable.

 

There are many legitimate reasons why NDA’s might be required, I’ve signed well over a dozen in my life time, all restricted to the legitimate commercial business information of the clients I was working for,  none restricted my rights to redress under any employment or criminal law.

 

You might want to spend some time reading up on the abuse of NDA’s.

 

 

 

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

 

They were declared void as they were illegal, don't lie.

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

This is what happens when you butt in and you're caught being wrong. Your buddy is very quiet. 

What was that about my "buddy" being very quiet?

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

 

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

 

I don't know what you mean by the "were not ruled to be not legal" but they were certainly judged to be invalid.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

 you were not required to sign anything... you could have taken your ass down to the jobs fair and joined a company that did not require an NDA... your choice.  

In this case the NDA's  have been ruled overly restrictive by one judge... they were not ruled to be not legal as you have implied.

On a side note... NDA's wouldn't even be needed ever except for people like you who only in it for themselves... ie find a job where you are trusted without one.

My guess is that you have never been young, ambitious, in debt, and eager to land a promising job with the possibility of a good future.  I suspect a lot of these staffers needed the job and assumed that such a broad disclosure would only be enforced in exceptional circumstances.  When they learned that it would be enforced as broadly as possible they had every right to see if it was legal, which the subject ruling says it isn't.

[Skipalongcassidy]

21 hours ago, stevenl said:

Overly restrictive therefore not legal. Really easy concept to understand.

Not at all what the court ruled... it's not black and white as you suggest... how, pray tell do you get from overly restrictive to not legal... ?

[Skipalongcassidy]

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Trump’s NDA’s have been ruled not legally enforceable.

 

There are many legitimate reasons why NDA’s might be required, I’ve signed well over a dozen in my life time, all restricted to the legitimate commercial business information of the clients I was working for,  none restricted my rights to redress under any employment or criminal law.

 

You might want to spend some time reading up on the abuse of NDA’s.

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that you are not forced to sign... it's your own choice to work for a company that requires that you do... what part of "freedom" of choice are you missing?  If you are "free" to choose whether to sign or not work for a company... exactly where is the abuse?

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Not at all what the court ruled... it's not black and white as you suggest... how, pray tell do you get from overly restrictive to not legal... ?

Ask the judge that declared the NDA's overly restrictive therefore not legal.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The point is that you are not forced to sign... it's your own choice to work for a company that requires that you do... what part of "freedom" of choice are you missing?  If you are "free" to choose whether to sign or not work for a company... exactly where is the abuse?

"The settlement voids non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements included in employment contracts for Trump 2016 staffers, barring the Trump campaign and any third parties from taking any action to enforce the agreements.

The settlement—which also involved the Trump campaign paying $450,000 to resolve the claims—was initially reached in January and preliminarily approved in June, but Wednesday’s order finalizes the agreement, and gives ex-staffers more legal protections after the campaign informed them last year they were no longer bound by the agreements."

 

The Trump team would not have agreed to the settlement and to the $450,000 payment if they had not known that the NDA's and non-disparagement clauses were illegal and had no chance of holding up in court.

 

The people who signed these contracts assumed they would not be enforced in an illegal manner.  When extreme enforcement was attempted they sought legal remedies and won.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The point is that you are not forced to sign... it's your own choice to work for a company that requires that you do... what part of "freedom" of choice are you missing?  If you are "free" to choose whether to sign or not work for a company... exactly where is the abuse?

There are very many reasons why people might sign an NDA that is not legally enforceable.

 

Why a lawyer should draft and an employer should require employees to sign such an NDA is also a question deserving of an answer.

 

But you miss a point, NDA’s are contracts and the final arbiter of a contract is a court of law.

 

The court gets to consider all the questions and the wording of the contract as it relates to the law. 
 

———

Just like marriage is a contract that people freely enter into but frequently want out of.

 

The courts decide in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Ask the judge that declared the NDA's overly restrictive therefore not legal.

All that will happen is that highly paid people will work out how to get the same restrictions on such activity by means that are legal, even if not very nice.

 

BTW, why would people want to work for an organisation that they wanted to criticize in public. When I had a serious problem with my employer I left. Unlike in some parts of the world, most of us on here had that ability.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All that will happen is that highly paid people will work out how to get the same restrictions on such activity by means that are legal, even if not very nice.

 

BTW, why would people want to work for an organisation that they wanted to criticize in public. When I had a serious problem with my employer I left. Unlike in some parts of the world, most of us on here had that ability.

Getting paid a lot of money doesn’t give some magical ability to circumvent the law.

 

Perhaps people have no idea what an organization is like to work for until they’ve actually worked there.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All that will happen is that highly paid people will work out how to get the same restrictions on such activity by means that are legal, even if not very nice.

 

BTW, why would people want to work for an organisation that they wanted to criticize in public. When I had a serious problem with my employer I left. Unlike in some parts of the world, most of us on here had that ability.

You might want to do a little further research on the subject. Among other things, employers use NDAs to keep employees from leaving.

 

"NDAs chill competition, through expansive definitions of what must remain confidential and proprietary, reducing the ability of a discontent employee or an employee working in a hostile work environment to go elsewhere. Importantly, as recent studies show clearly, preventing workers from using their knowledge and skills beyond a single workplace is harmful not simply to the worker but to entrepreneurship, competition, and economic growth.

NDAs thus often attempt to achieve two things simultaneously: silence a worker during employment and confine them to their current job."

https://hbr.org/2018/01/ndas-are-out-of-control-heres-what-needs-to-change