81–90 of 95 posts
There are so many allegations of wrongdoing that have nothing to do with her main complaint (unpaid wages and mistreatment) that I wonder if this is a tactic to get him to settle quickly, in order to get her to shut up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.
But her claims about his business dealings and his sexual fetishes are both unverified claims, so it's circular reasoning to say one helps prove the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying there's no basis for these claims. The basis is the legal complaint, which is publicly accessible. The whole reason the news media is reporting on this is because they now have access to a public legal filing. Without being a news reporter myself, I must rely on what is reported to me. While I know that the news media will give it their own biased slant, certain things, like her saying that she has the…
> You're saying there's no basis for these claims I'm saying that there is no basis that has been cited for the specific characterizations made in the comment I first responded to upthread, correct. > The basis is the legal complaint, which is publicly accessible. Your post in which you made the characterization quoted text from the news article, not the complaint. If you actually have read the complaint and were cha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see crimes being committed and instead of calling the authorities, you continue to collect data (license plate numbers, phone calls, conversations).
It might have only become clear to her at a later point that it's actually criminal rather than just unethical - if she was able to tell from the beginning it is illegal, she would probably be a lawyer or a paralegal, rather than a nanny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking, when you sue someone, it's often in your best interests to give them an opportunity to settle, instead of going to trial. You often do this by listing all the awful shit about the other person that you're going to air at trial. We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this.
> We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this I mean, if we're just going by Wikipedia, my non-lawyerly brain would parse this: > It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true [...] information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of [...] criminal prosecution. as being precisely what's happening here. Breadcrumbs were thrown out in public wit…
Complaint at https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23428507/Wong_v_Lev... but it's paywalled. Anyone have a non-paywalled link?
Somehow that Levandowski would doesn't surprise me very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're saying there's no basis for these claims I'm saying that there is no basis that has been cited for the specific characterizations made in the comment I first responded to upthread, correct. > The basis is the legal complaint, which is publicly accessible. Your post in which you made the characterization quoted text from the news article, not the complaint. If you actually have read the complaint and were cha…
Please respond to the point about the earth being round.
But, in any case, even ignoring that, the analogy was inapt.