New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Confidentiality Agreements "stop worryin bout what people say, aint gunna stop em anyway"
open discussion... r they necessary if so why.. do they work / pros cons etc..  " the embassy shut to keep the fools out " - as above, so below. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
they do work within reason.
because alot can be said of what is been said when what was said wasn't what was being said. News: Prince pulls his head out his ass in the last moment.
Bad News: Prince wasted too much quality time doing so. You have those internalized issues because you want to, you like to, stop. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Seems to work for Tom Cruise. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moreover if Prince said something to me in confidents, I wouldn't tell another, but brother, I am one and only one. Others may say they can be taken into Prince's Confidents, but then can't be, and the legally binding agreement makes it lawful in a world such as we are living in. News: Prince pulls his head out his ass in the last moment.
Bad News: Prince wasted too much quality time doing so. You have those internalized issues because you want to, you like to, stop. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
stop the press!
does a C.A. physically prevent a person from opening their mouth and speaking thru it.... or is it merely a threat > " if u talk imma sue yo butt " at what point does one decide whether it really matters or not? what determines whether or not it matters? how much time would YOU be prepared to spend in court over gossip either true or false? guess i'm wondrin whats worth hiding and if so why.. when someone tells me something, it feels like everyone knows anyway, on some level, doesnt mean i go round blabbing, whats the point, but dont truth b known in everyone sooner or later, consciously or otherwise? to me, newpapers and magazines and radio and tv news r like tiny little capsules way down there somewhere releasing pods of info that can b interpreted in many different ways.....poetically, literally, metaphysically etc... the fact that those tiny little pods of info can invite the popping of a covert camera flare, and others to twist and turn a 'story' inside out... is of little relevance, when u stand on the moon and look at the earth. is there ever a point when everything that could b said, has already been said? " the embassy shut to keep the fools out " - as above, so below. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
but the only thing is that if somebody really wanteed 2 say somethin they could and it wouldnt matter how much u sue them 4 u cant erase what ppl have alreasy heard and said...i guess its just suppose 2 scare them tho  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sacredwarrior said: stop the press!?
Come and See News: Prince pulls his head out his ass in the last moment.
Bad News: Prince wasted too much quality time doing so. You have those internalized issues because you want to, you like to, stop. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sacredwarrior said: stop the press!
does a C.A. physically prevent a person from opening their mouth and speaking thru it.... or is it merely a threat > " if u talk imma sue yo butt " at what point does one decide whether it really matters or not? what determines whether or not it matters? how much time would YOU be prepared to spend in court over gossip either true or false? guess i'm wondrin whats worth hiding and if so why.. when someone tells me something, it feels like everyone knows anyway, on some level, doesnt mean i go round blabbing, whats the point, but dont truth b known in everyone sooner or later, consciously or otherwise? to me, newpapers and magazines and radio and tv news r like tiny little capsules way down there somewhere releasing pods of info that can b interpreted in many different ways.....poetically, literally, metaphysically etc... the fact that those tiny little pods of info can invite the popping of a covert camera flare, and others to twist and turn a 'story' inside out... is of little relevance, when u stand on the moon and look at the earth. is there ever a point when everything that could b said, has already been said? Yes, a contract ageement DOES prevent an individual from revealing unwanted details. It clearly matters to the party requesting one be signed. It's not a matter of hiding anything, it's a matter of privacy. If the agreement is breeched there are repercusions from the court. There was one celebrity couple where the ex-wife made a statement in an interview....she retracted it the next week. With a contract, both parties agree to terms and conditions. Sometimes it involves $$ that needs to be returned if the contract is breeched, along with whatever the judge decides is appropriate legal punishment. [Edited 7/27/06 20:12pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
like any civil contract they only work in so far as the person held to one is willing to honor it and thus risk civil action.
these of course do NOT have anything to do with a person being compelled by a court to give testimony under oath. so say prince cheated on Mani... and one of the body guards saw him in the act, the CA would NOT save the body guard from having to tell the court what he saw. if he refused to testify he could be held in contempt. Even if he KNEW he would get fired for doing so. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SlamGlam said: like any civil contract they only work in so far as the person held to one is willing to honor it and thus risk civil action.
these of course do NOT have anything to do with a person being compelled by a court to give testimony under oath. so say prince cheated on Mani... and one of the body guards saw him in the act, the CA would NOT save the body guard from having to tell the court what he saw. if he refused to testify he could be held in contempt. Even if he KNEW he would get fired for doing so. lol @ 'peeping-tom bodyguard' . xplnyrslf: is anything private if ur surrounded by bodyguards anyway? his musical expression seems pretty private to me, yet it is shared with the whole world.....dont take a brain surgeon to figure who and what he's referring to in some of his songs.....r they details that others have agreed not to reveal by signing C.A.'s? i dont get this. " the embassy shut to keep the fools out " - as above, so below. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sacredwarrior said: lol @ 'peeping-tom bodyguard' . just like Clinton and the Secret Service agents ... they may not have seen anything but they had info about time spent alone. there was a hot debate at the time over if they should be forced to testify and Clinton's camp tried to invent a privilege into being an agent. so it is possible that if prince did cheat, or was in a position to cheat that his body guards would have seen it. and if called they could be made to testify irregardless of the CA. EVEN if it meant they would get fired. also, what info to be made public is totally up to the one getting the CA (in this case Prince). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SlamGlam said: sacredwarrior said: lol @ 'peeping-tom bodyguard' . just like Clinton and the Secret Service agents ... they may not have seen anything but they had info about time spent alone. there was a hot debate at the time over if they should be forced to testify and Clinton's camp tried to invent a privilege into being an agent. so it is possible that if prince did cheat, or was in a position to cheat that his body guards would have seen it. and if called they could be made to testify irregardless of the CA. EVEN if it meant they would get fired. also, what info to be made public is totally up to the one getting the CA (in this case Prince). thanks, intresting. i guess being a bodyguard isnt at the top of the most-wanted-jobs list then.  " the embassy shut to keep the fools out " - as above, so below. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sacredwarrior said: SlamGlam said: like any civil contract they only work in so far as the person held to one is willing to honor it and thus risk civil action.
these of course do NOT have anything to do with a person being compelled by a court to give testimony under oath. so say prince cheated on Mani... and one of the body guards saw him in the act, the CA would NOT save the body guard from having to tell the court what he saw. if he refused to testify he could be held in contempt. Even if he KNEW he would get fired for doing so. lol @ 'peeping-tom bodyguard' . xplnyrslf: is anything private if ur surrounded by bodyguards anyway? his musical expression seems pretty private to me, yet it is shared with the whole world.....dont take a brain surgeon to figure who and what he's referring to in some of his songs.....r they details that others have agreed not to reveal by signing C.A.'s? i dont get this. It's control over what info the media has access to. A famous novelist was asked if his book symbolized what the interviewer thought it represented and the novelist responded; It means whatever you want it to mean. He quit giving interviews after that.(i think it was JD Salinger) Same with P's music. You can interpret it anyway you want. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: Seems to work for Tom Cruise.
Click pic for further documentation:  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BananaCologne said: xplnyrslf said: Seems to work for Tom Cruise.
Click pic for further documentation: I've seen this before, maybe smoking gun? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |