Posted on 03/31/2021 8:52:20 AM PDT by Red Badger
Federal judge ruled Trump can't enforce non-disclosure agreement he required his campaign aides to sign U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the language was too broad and unenforceable 'The non-disclosure provision is thus much broader than what the Campaign asserts is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and, therefore, is not reasonable,' he ruled Issue came about when Jessica Denson, a Hispanic outreach director for Trump in 2016, accused the campaign of sex discrimination in a separate lawsuit In return, the campaign accused her of violating the non-disclosure
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Hilary would and does get away with the same damn agreements.
As long as President Trump is breathing, he’ll continue to get the special Deep State treatment.
They want to enforce no outsider ever getting insider their insider Swamp game.
No one would dare to violate a non-disclosure agreement they signed with Hillary!.
Nice, everybody and his brother can try and make bank talking chit in a book but Trump can’t be heard and is pretty much blacklisted.
That beast doesn’t have to rely on contracts to enforce her will. She has a wet work team that will do it for her and her employees know it.
Might as well have said an appointee of Bowbama or Bubba!
Total B.S.
These agreements are signed all the time, and to act like one
person can’t demand they be observed is to nullify every single
one of them.
People don’t have to sign them. Just decline the job offer, or
to participate in the activity that the other party wants to
keep a lid on.
Vince Foster agrees.
Does this mean that corporate NDA’s are null and void as well?...............
Yeah, Trump will have to take this to the next level...although ALL federal judges will rule against him or else they’ll get a visit from the deep state!
Actually I think the law requires that such agreements cannot be overly broad and should be drafted narrowly in order to protect a recognized interest (proprietary data, trade secrets, confidential communications, etc.). I know nothing about this particular agreement though.
Another lousy politician in a black robe.
Our justice system has devolved into a twisted legal system to be used by those in power against those they are afraid of.
Until a lamp post or two are decorated, nothing will change.
Probably not since corporate NDAs are fairly specific as to what you cannot disclose to prevent this problem: for example, inventions, code, revenue projections, research projects, etc.
You appear to be right on the face of it.
I’d have to know more also.
It would seem to me it would be pretty darned clear that
anything related to her work would be within the scope of
the agreement.
Seems everyone is looking for a buck...
If this agreement WAS too overly broad, I would not think it
would jeopardize other agreements.
I’m not an attorney, but I did sleep at a... oh wait, I didn’t.
Former Hillary associate now angling for book deal contract about her: "Didn't you ever have people break those agreements before?"
Hillary, laughing (cackling): "Sure, take some of the cemetery tours and read their names off the tombstones. Get my drift?"
If it’s boilerplate then it’s possible everyone signed the same agreement. But, just because it may be overly broad for one person doesn’t mean it is for another.
Quickly followed by ...”Gee whiz, can’t anybody crack a joke anymore? I was obviously being ironic!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.