Project Veritas Sues James O’Keefe

[Timber Rattler]

The self-immolation is now complete...

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/31/project-veritas-sues-james-okeefe/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=sbZ7GHhZOqYF1qmcqCu4EouK4U2vSp9ud.CgmvV4tBFmvLgXetecF33_piXgiLbjD79fGF3j4g

Project Veritas sued its founder James O’Keefe on Wednesday, months after he was ousted from the company.

The outlet filed a complaint against O’Keefe in federal court in the southern district of New York.

“Being known as the founder of an organization does not entitle that person to run amok and put his own interests ahead of that organization,” the suit states.

The suit argues the board became aware of “serious allegations by Project Veritas employees about incredibly troubling workplace and financial misconduct by O’Keefe.” The suit cited allegations of screaming at coworkers, “targeting” female employees and creating “strained” relationships with donors.

O’Keefe is also accused of misusing funds from Project Veritas for needs such as laundry, cleaning his boat and other errands.

The suit comes after board members weighed O’Keefe‘s removal in February and placed him on paid leave, according to a previous report. Employees claimed they were dissatisfied with O’Keefe’s management and alleged he wasted money and was “outright cruel” to his staff, The Daily Beast reported.

Project Veritas claims they had “no intention of terminating Mr. O’Keefe when the Board convened February 6, 2023.”

“In fact, he wasn’t terminated until May 15, 2023. Rather, the goal was always to achieve an amicable solution to the personnel mismanagement and expenditures for the organization experiencing significant recent growth.”

Project Veritas also claims O’Keefe missed several  board meetings.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

NY State seems to have a lot of lawsuits. Do they have loser pays there?

[Kamaji]

NY State seems to have a lot of lawsuits. Do they have loser pays there?

No.  NY is a big state, a lot of people have nexus with the state, or their transactions do, and they have a well-developed commercial law system.  That's why a lot of commercial contracts make NY law the governing law.

[Free Vulcan]

And let me guess - he didn't close the refrigerator door, left the toilet seat up, and didn't say 'Bless you' when someone sneezed.

Sounds like whiney retaliation to me.

[Smokin Joe]

And let me guess - he didn't close the refrigerator door, left the toilet seat up, and didn't say 'Bless you' when someone sneezed.

Sounds like whiney retaliation to me.

He, under the 'brand' OMG (IIRC, O'Keefe Media Group), continues to be effective at ferreting out the machinations of the Left and capturing that on video. You think a board that would edge him out of Project Veritas isn't in sympathy with the Left at some point?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

O'Keefe wouldn't be the first guy to wrongfully use business funds for personal expenses.

Not saying that it happened in his case, but just because he's done a lot of good work doesn't mean he can't have misappropriated funds.

I'd like to hear what the evidence is before reaching an opinion either way.

[roamer_1]

O'Keefe wouldn't be the first guy to wrongfully use business funds for personal expenses.

Not saying that it happened in his case, but just because he's done a lot of good work doesn't mean he can't have misappropriated funds.

I'd like to hear what the evidence is before reaching an opinion either way.

I used to drive my bookkeeper crazy since I pretty much lived out of my business checkbook. It's just how it worked, since I was working 7 days a week, over 10 hours a day...

But it is really a bookkeeper's stunt to make it a problem... All she had to do was to change the category and dump it into personal draw... Which got deducted from my monthly employment check including the regular withholding.

The same I assume, could be done against dividends... A bother for the bookkeeper, no doubt, as I was many times informed... But not wrong.

[DB]

O'Keefe wouldn't be the first guy to wrongfully use business funds for personal expenses.

Not saying that it happened in his case, but just because he's done a lot of good work doesn't mean he can't have misappropriated funds.

I'd like to hear what the evidence is before reaching an opinion either way.

When you live on the road conducting your business it is pretty easy to see how "personal" expenses become business expenses.

[catfish1957]

And let me guess - he didn't close the refrigerator door, left the toilet seat up, and didn't say 'Bless you' when someone sneezed.

Sounds like whiney retaliation to me.

Maybe the ultimate of indignation......

First....  YOU'RE Fired
Second....  And we are going to sue you to boot.

I don't how much of this is true,  but I do find it incredibly odd and coincidental that the 3 loudest voices trying to expose the Swamp....   O'Keefe, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, have all gotten massive legal attacks as the '24 elections are approaching 

[Smokin Joe]

Maybe the ultimate of indignation......

First....  YOU'RE Fired
Second....  And we are going to sue you to boot.

I don't how much of this is true,  but I do find it incredibly odd and coincidental that the 3 loudest voices trying to expose the Swamp....   O'Keefe, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, have all gotten massive legal attacks as the '24 elections are approaching

LAWFARE. Democrats use it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I used to drive my bookkeeper crazy since I pretty much lived out of my business checkbook. It's just how it worked, since I was working 7 days a week, over 10 hours a day...

But it is really a bookkeeper's stunt to make it a problem... All she had to do was to change the category and dump it into personal draw... Which got deducted from my monthly employment check including the regular withholding.

The same I assume, could be done against dividends... A bother for the bookkeeper, no doubt, as I was many times informed... But not wrong.

As long as the person making the expenditures reports them accurately, and whomever is tracking expenses is told about the practice, has the authority to make deductions from pay, and actually does so, that wouldn't be a problem.

But if all of that doesn't happen properly, then it is a big problem.  And "the bookkeeper must have forgotten to do it" isn't going to wash as an excuse.

But again, that's why we need more facts before knowing if these accusations are fair or not.

[Smokin Joe]

There seems to be an across the board to shut down alternate media just in time for the 2024 election.

Coinkydink?

Gibbs' Rule 39...(There are no coincidences.)

[Kamaji]

As long as the person making the expenditures reports them accurately, and whomever is tracking expenses is told about the practice, has the authority to make deductions from pay, and actually does so, that wouldn't be a problem.

But if all of that doesn't happen properly, then it is a big problem.  And "the bookkeeper must have forgotten to do it" isn't going to wash as an excuse.

But again, that's why we need more facts before knowing if these accusations are fair or not.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There seems to be an across the board to shut down alternate media just in time for the 2024 election.

Coinkydink?

Gibbs' Rule 39...(There are no coincidences.)

I just read the Complaint, and there isn't any demand that he stop competing against Project Veritas.  So there's nothing saying he can't keep investigating/publishing.

There is a demand that he stop soliciting PV's employees and donors, but I read the relevant portion of the Employment Agreement he signed, and that's well within their rights.  Honestly, I was kind of surprised he handed over that much control over the organization that he more or less created.  But that's on him - he signed it.  It also contained a non-disparagement provision, and he may have violated that also with all the public statements he made.

He remains free to solicit donors that aren't PV donors, and there's nothing saying he can't accept donations from PV donors as long as he didn't/doesn't actively solicit them.  But they are asking for damages, and based on that Agreement and the public statements he's made already, their case isn't going to be laughed out of court.  Obviously, we have to wait and see how he responds to that lawsuit because perhaps are facts and details that give him a stronger case.

There are ways he could have done this without putting himself in so much potential hot water.  So he either got bad advice, got good advice but didn't listen, or just started doing stuff without seeking any legal advice at all before he began.

[Kamaji]

I just read the Complaint, and there isn't any demand that he stop competing against Project Veritas.  So there's nothing saying he can't keep investigating/publishing.

There is a demand that he stop soliciting PV's employees and donors, but I read the relevant portion of the Employment Agreement he signed, and that's well within their rights.  Honestly, I was kind of surprised he handed over that much control over the organization that he more or less created.  But that's on him - he signed it.  It also contained a non-disparagement provision, and he may have violated that also with all the public statements he made.

He remains free to solicit donors that aren't PV donors, and there's nothing saying he can't accept donations from PV donors as long as he didn't/doesn't actively solicit them.  But they are asking for damages, and based on that Agreement and the public statements he's made already, their case isn't going to be laughed out of court.  Obviously, we have to wait and see how he responds to that lawsuit because perhaps are facts and details that give him a stronger case.

There are ways he could have done this without putting himself in so much potential hot water.  So he either got bad advice, got good advice but didn't listen, or just started doing stuff without seeking any legal advice at all before he began.

Interesting.  No noncompete provisions at all?

[roamer_1]

As long as the person making the expenditures reports them accurately, and whomever is tracking expenses is told about the practice, has the authority to make deductions from pay, and actually does so, that wouldn't be a problem.

That's right.

But if all of that doesn't happen properly, then it is a big problem.  And "the bookkeeper must have forgotten to do it" isn't going to wash as an excuse.

That's right too, but hardly fair. I make sh*t. I manage sh*t. Bookkeeping ain't my affair. When you are jammin a big deal, you can't keep your finger on ALL of it. You have to delegate. That was why I had a battleaxe girl Friday... That's why I had a drill sergeant for a shop foreman. That's why I had a bulletproof bookkeeper in the first place. I did my due diligence. I assigned that effectively. The incompetence was not mine.

But the buck always stops at the top, and I get to take the hit. I get it.
Even though many others are excused.

But again, that's why we need more facts before knowing if these accusations are fair or not.

That's right.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Interesting.  No noncompete provisions at all?

Nope. Non-disparagement, protections against the use of confidential information, no solicitation of donors or employees...but no actual non-compete.  That's becoming a bit more common nowadays because courts are becoming less willing to enforce them.   I know that in Ohio, the "fourth prong" for seeking injunctive relief is whether or not the enforcement would serve the public interest.  Here, enforcement of a non-compete would mean prohibiting someone from engaging in investigative journalism, which may well not pass muster.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's right.

That's right too, but hardly fair. I make sh*t. I manage sh*t. Bookkeeping ain't my affair. When you are jammin a big deal, you can't keep your finger on ALL of it. You have to delegate. That was why I had a battleaxe girl Friday... That's why I had a drill sergeant for a shop foreman. That's why I had a bulletproof bookkeeper in the first place. I did my due diligence. I assigned that effectively. The incompetence was not mine.

I'm thinking more of a scenario where the amounts are relatively significant, and someone would/should notice that their paycheck has been docked substantially.  That would put you on constructive notice that you weren't being docked.  Especially if you're the head honcho.

[roamer_1]

I'm thinking more of a scenario where the amounts are relatively significant, and someone would/should notice that their paycheck has been docked substantially.  That would put you on constructive notice that you weren't being docked.  Especially if you're the head honcho.

That brings it right back around to my point... Small company, to be sure... But I literally had no idea what I'd be paid month to month. Some of it was reimbursable, some was not. It was all magic bananas to me. And I did not have time to learn and understand it.

And I was pretty attentive. I always knew where the company was at in round numbers, say within 500 bucks. I knew what I was putting out in materials, what I was likely to bring in... I could even tell you pretty much what was on the shelf at the shop day to day.

But i don't do books and I don't do taxes.
Even though I get to take the hit like I am expected to.
Jussayin.