The idea that you could sue someone for enticing your employees to break their contracts and go work somewhere else is new and surprising to me. Don't companies compete for talent all the time? I feel like I'm missing some nuance of when a line is crossed.
Could you explain how moving assets to an entity called “trump organization II” can help you “hide” assets? Doesn’t seem to be hard to find. Although, probably still better than running a scam through a company called fraud guarantee.
Man has long-term affair with married woman. Woman asks man to go to her house and feed the cat. Husband shows up while cat is being fed and attacks man with a knife. Man shoots husband, injuring him, and flees.
Man is charged with burglary and aggravated assault.
At trial, judge does not allow man's attorney to discuss self-defense at any stage during the trial and does not allow man to mention the affair or any evidence that the husband may have known about it prior to trying to gut man like fish.
re: Twitter’s current uphill battle with advertisers.. it is absurd for Elon to blame anyone for “forcing” or “pressuring” advertisers to pause their ad spend. The advertisers care solely about getting expected returns on ad spend. That’s it.
If they could get away with advertising various illegal things, they’d do it. Not for a second do I think NAACP (or any other group)
succeeded in pressuring advertisers to do anything (new, different or otherwise).
Instead, the advertisers run the numbers, look at expected returns of putting $X on platform A vs platform B, and decide from there. Ad spend on Twitter has been (for years) a relatively small spend for any of them (vs Facebook, Pinterest, etc). I think Elon’s batshit behavior has simplified the equation for them (and the answer is: put ad dollars somewhere else).
Just want to say I love this podcast, and listen to each episode multiple times. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the law, so your explanations are enlightening to me.
In this episode you mentioned how smartmatic and dominion are most likely considered “public figures” for 1st amendment lawsuits. I was curious about that because it seems they are exceptionally unwilling about being so well known, and it seems like that could be a catch 22 if they’re public figures because of all of the negative things that were said about them: if you don’t like a company, create a shitstorm about them and then it becomes legally harder for them to counter defamation arising from the shitstorm because the shitstorm caused them to be public figures.
For the record I did not write this episode title
The idea that you could sue someone for enticing your employees to break their contracts and go work somewhere else is new and surprising to me. Don't companies compete for talent all the time? I feel like I'm missing some nuance of when a line is crossed.
“About as effect as suing the AG... in a food court”. I’m dying ☠️😂
I never heard the word "venue". What up?
Could you explain how moving assets to an entity called “trump organization II” can help you “hide” assets? Doesn’t seem to be hard to find. Although, probably still better than running a scam through a company called fraud guarantee.
hey gang. Having trouble logging in plus curious to know how regularly or not episodes are planned?
An item - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.175.1_2.pdf
So, accusing Dearie of ethics violations for asking NARA about their standard practices with respect to the PRA: good move or bad move?
This isn't really in your wheelhouse, but I wanted to bring it to your attention nevertheless.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1972621.html
Quick summary:
Man has long-term affair with married woman. Woman asks man to go to her house and feed the cat. Husband shows up while cat is being fed and attacks man with a knife. Man shoots husband, injuring him, and flees.
Man is charged with burglary and aggravated assault.
At trial, judge does not allow man's attorney to discuss self-defense at any stage during the trial and does not allow man to mention the affair or any evidence that the husband may have known about it prior to trying to gut man like fish.
re: Twitter’s current uphill battle with advertisers.. it is absurd for Elon to blame anyone for “forcing” or “pressuring” advertisers to pause their ad spend. The advertisers care solely about getting expected returns on ad spend. That’s it.
If they could get away with advertising various illegal things, they’d do it. Not for a second do I think NAACP (or any other group)
succeeded in pressuring advertisers to do anything (new, different or otherwise).
Instead, the advertisers run the numbers, look at expected returns of putting $X on platform A vs platform B, and decide from there. Ad spend on Twitter has been (for years) a relatively small spend for any of them (vs Facebook, Pinterest, etc). I think Elon’s batshit behavior has simplified the equation for them (and the answer is: put ad dollars somewhere else).
Just want to say I love this podcast, and listen to each episode multiple times. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the law, so your explanations are enlightening to me.
In this episode you mentioned how smartmatic and dominion are most likely considered “public figures” for 1st amendment lawsuits. I was curious about that because it seems they are exceptionally unwilling about being so well known, and it seems like that could be a catch 22 if they’re public figures because of all of the negative things that were said about them: if you don’t like a company, create a shitstorm about them and then it becomes legally harder for them to counter defamation arising from the shitstorm because the shitstorm caused them to be public figures.