191–200 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Family court telling a father not to tweet mean things and any court telling a journalist, with a track record of publishing, not to publish, are clear and separate things.
Yes, one violates freedom of the press, and the other violates freedom of speech. Both are protected by the first amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
Is J&J the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order b…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.
Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them g…
I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least with Hollywood accounting, the subsidiary is usually created up front. This reads like J&J created the subsidiary after the fact, which IMO, shouldn’t be allowed.
It's also not uncommon to purchase an existing company, move debt over to it, and then kill it off. Late stage capitalism is an interesting phenomenon.
Let’s ignore the attempt to use the court to silence the press and look at the other part: why are businesses allowed to create subsidiaries that are just debt vehicles to be placed in bankruptcy? If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?
Let’s ignore the attempt to use the court to silence the press and look at the other part: why are businesses allowed to create subsidiaries that are just debt vehicles to be placed in bankruptcy? If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?
Because you don't have enough money to lobby (bribe) the people who make these kinds of decisions.
1. You have to have an LLC that actually does business. What you don't say is you're also running all your personal stuff through the LLC for business purposes. AFAIK this isn't illegal since the stuff is the company's and you're just "using" it. A good example is a mercedes benz "company car" that, should you fail to make payments (through the company), is now the company's problem and not yours. The other REALLY big nuance here is that the money can't come from you TO your company. It must be company money. Otherwise you pierce the veil.
2. You have to make the LLC before bad stuff happens.
The difference is here J&J is trying to make a subsidiary after the fact. I don't think they can legally do this. Hollywood accounting has the subsidiaries made purpose built as fall guys. This is some "remember how we provided all those vaccines" level bribery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was about to say something similar. FISA court orders, family court, settlement agreements, arbitration, civil lawsuits, criminal trials, etc There are so many different ways you can be “gagged” it’s very common. There’s a reason they tried to get the publication stopped - because it often works.
And then you publish anyway to prove you are a "real American." (TM)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.
Yeah, I'm trying to understand how this is allowed? It seems like it's in incredibly bad faith. Can anyone explain how this can happen? Taking this to it's extreme, can't you just buy some property so that you owe 1 million dollars, put that debt into it's own company and then say "sorry, that company is bankrupt, I can't pay". Is that not what's happening here? I feel like I must be missing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you really blame the people that are spoon fed fearporn from the media everyday and in a constant state of stockholm syndrome, while also being led to believe we live in a two-party state (right vs left), from picking a side? They are victims too but just don't know it yet.
I agree with you on this. People can also choose not to be spoon-fed fearporn from the media though...