“On June 22, 2010, O’Keefe entered into the Employment Agreement with Plaintiffs, with the operative version being the Employment Agreement as amended on September 20, 2022, which O’Keefe and Project Veritas signed on September 30, 2022,” the suit states. “As part of the Employment Agreement, O’Keefe agreed to certain terms and conditions, both during and after the term of his employment. In Paragraph 1(B) of the Employment Agreement, O’Keefe agreed that he, identified as ‘Employee’ thereunder, ‘shall devote Employee’s full working time and attention
and best efforts to the performance of Employee’s job’.”
They fired him. He's not an employee. This lawsuit is one of those attempts of the big guy to bully the one with less funds. Surely it's illegal to ask someone to never work again when you fire them? This isn't even an agreement not to work for others. This is a frivolous lawsuit.
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that he signed some form of non-compete. they're very prevalent in the tech industry where companies get employees to agree to not work for a competing organization for x amount of time after their employment ends. It's a very shitty practice, but I would be very surprised if O'Keefe himself signed one of these given how much power he had over Veritas during its inception.
Where did you find it? I'm very curious because legalese nitpicks words, and everyday words have different a meaning in legal contexts. As it stands, suing a person into compliance because they can't afford any more legal fees is what I see when I look at this case. And, that's a tried and true legal method.
I'd like to understand why you see something different.
u/#Clownworld
They fired him. He's not an employee. This lawsuit is one of those attempts of the big guy to bully the one with less funds. Surely it's illegal to ask someone to never work again when you fire them? This isn't even an agreement not to work for others. This is a frivolous lawsuit.
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that he signed some form of non-compete. they're very prevalent in the tech industry where companies get employees to agree to not work for a competing organization for x amount of time after their employment ends. It's a very shitty practice, but I would be very surprised if O'Keefe himself signed one of these given how much power he had over Veritas during its inception.
I thought of that, but that's not what they sued for.
He wasn't fired. He resigned, so he would be beholden to any non competition agreement he signed.
That's not what the article says.
Yeah but those are the facts.
Where did you find it? I'm very curious because legalese nitpicks words, and everyday words have different a meaning in legal contexts. As it stands, suing a person into compliance because they can't afford any more legal fees is what I see when I look at this case. And, that's a tried and true legal method.
I'd like to understand why you see something different.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=james+o%27keefe+resigns
Facts are facts no matter how much you deny them.
So, you have no facts to explain your OPINION. Meanwhile the rest of us are using, and sharing the facts we have to understand this case.
Go take your bullshit somewhere else. If you continue to refuse to cite your imaginings it will not be taken into consideration.
What the fuck are you blabbering about. I linked you to plenty of articles that show that he resigned.
When they fired him, I deleted all links to PV and refuse to acknowledge them in any way.
Figures