4 ms·

"Wong also claims knowledge of a large swath of Levandowski’s personal and business dealings. She does so in great detail, including dozens of overheard names,

"Wong also claims knowledge of a large swath of Levandowski’s personal and business dealings. She does so in great detail, including dozens of overheard names, the license-plate numbers of cars she observed at a Levandowski property, and an extensive list of the BDSM gear she claims he kept in his bedroom." This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything.

Waterluvian 9y ago
The only reason to ever publicise stuff like that is to smear someone. Its low and it undermines any legitimate claim. I'm sure a defense would point out the vexacious nature of those publications.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- crag 9y ago
  It will never reach a courtroom. He will settle long before that. He has too much at stake for her to take the stand and be questioned.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Blazespinnaker 9y ago
    Legal way to blackmail. Cool! But, alas, she can be subpoenaed which overrides any gag clause.
    - vkou 9y ago
      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.
      - eganist 9y ago
        > 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 with an implication to settle in order to avoid more getting out. That sounds like "legal blackmail" to most laypeople.
        jimrandomh 9y ago
        The key words in that sentence are "criminal prosecution". This is a civil suit.
        vkou 9y ago
        Again, how is this different from a threat to sue? Should out-of-court civil settlements be made illegal? All of them are coercive in nature, and a lawsuit almost always results in a lot of dirty laundry being aired. Does this make every settled lawsuit 'legal blackmail'? If so, does the word even have any meaning?
  - samfisher83 9y ago
    It might be too late for it at this point. Some of that information is pretty much saying he did some illegal things. A prosecutor could just subpoena her and she has to tell the truth or risk going to jail.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      At this point, either all of the allegations she made about him are true or he has a very good defamation lawsuit against her. Whether or not the BDSM claim is true, he has an invasion of privacy claim he can pursue. Time will tell. Most likely, they'll settle for much less than $6 million.
- sorokod 9y ago
  Well, it can be a reason but not the only reason.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything. Without access to the actual complaint, there's little basis for the first sentence and none for the second.
- cantrip 9y ago
  The complaint, "Wong v. Levandowski" is available online.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Well, it's available in the sense that all federal court filings are available at a fee through PACER; it's not linked in the article, nor available anywhere I can readily find other than PACER or pay sites that charge more than PACER for documents plus a monthly fee. If you’d like to provide a link, that would actually contribute a lot to the discussion. Suggesting that it's out there somewhere does not.
    - cantrip 9y ago
      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 license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual. Would you also say that without access to a rocket ship or the personal ability to do advanced astrological calculations that there is no basis to the statement that the earth is round?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > 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 characterizing the material in it after reading it in context, that was a very poor presentation. > While I know that the news media will give it their own biased slant, certain things, like her saying that she has the license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual. Perhaps, but the characterization of their relevance to the legal causes of action at the center of the case would require knowing, for instance, the details of the alleged manner of intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether or not the arsenal of BDSM equipment was integral to that. Which you could not get from the news article at the head of the thread; you could, presumably, from the complaint, but I see no evidence that you have seen it.
rdiddly 9y ago
It's relevant to getting revenge. It worked. Will it be thrown out of court? It was never intended for court.
Fricken 9y ago
>the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything Only if we presume that HN's fascination with Waymo vs Uber and the man at the centre of it all serves as something other than a tech world surrogate for lurid celebrity gossip.
- pwaai 9y ago
  > the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything Sums up the level of horseplay when they examined the power relationships involving contractual bondages offered by a competing corporate interest through the submission to a liquid asset.
rayiner 9y ago
It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.
- cantrip 9y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    What he keeps in his BDSM drawer can be verified directly.

Waterluvian 9y ago

The only reason to ever publicise stuff like that is to smear someone. Its low and it undermines any legitimate claim. I'm sure a defense would point out the vexacious nature of those publications.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
crag 9y ago
It will never reach a courtroom. He will settle long before that. He has too much at stake for her to take the stand and be questioned.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Blazespinnaker 9y ago
  Legal way to blackmail. Cool! But, alas, she can be subpoenaed which overrides any gag clause.
  - vkou 9y ago
    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.
    - eganist 9y ago
      > 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 with an implication to settle in order to avoid more getting out. That sounds like "legal blackmail" to most laypeople.
      - jimrandomh 9y ago
        The key words in that sentence are "criminal prosecution". This is a civil suit.
      - vkou 9y ago
        Again, how is this different from a threat to sue? Should out-of-court civil settlements be made illegal? All of them are coercive in nature, and a lawsuit almost always results in a lot of dirty laundry being aired. Does this make every settled lawsuit 'legal blackmail'? If so, does the word even have any meaning?
- samfisher83 9y ago
  It might be too late for it at this point. Some of that information is pretty much saying he did some illegal things. A prosecutor could just subpoena her and she has to tell the truth or risk going to jail.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    At this point, either all of the allegations she made about him are true or he has a very good defamation lawsuit against her. Whether or not the BDSM claim is true, he has an invasion of privacy claim he can pursue. Time will tell. Most likely, they'll settle for much less than $6 million.
sorokod 9y ago
Well, it can be a reason but not the only reason.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything. Without access to the actual complaint, there's little basis for the first sentence and none for the second.

cantrip 9y ago
The complaint, "Wong v. Levandowski" is available online.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Well, it's available in the sense that all federal court filings are available at a fee through PACER; it's not linked in the article, nor available anywhere I can readily find other than PACER or pay sites that charge more than PACER for documents plus a monthly fee. If you’d like to provide a link, that would actually contribute a lot to the discussion. Suggesting that it's out there somewhere does not.
  - cantrip 9y ago
    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 license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual. Would you also say that without access to a rocket ship or the personal ability to do advanced astrological calculations that there is no basis to the statement that the earth is round?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > 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 characterizing the material in it after reading it in context, that was a very poor presentation. > While I know that the news media will give it their own biased slant, certain things, like her saying that she has the license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual. Perhaps, but the characterization of their relevance to the legal causes of action at the center of the case would require knowing, for instance, the details of the alleged manner of intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether or not the arsenal of BDSM equipment was integral to that. Which you could not get from the news article at the head of the thread; you could, presumably, from the complaint, but I see no evidence that you have seen it.

rdiddly 9y ago

It's relevant to getting revenge. It worked. Will it be thrown out of court? It was never intended for court.

Fricken 9y ago

>the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything Only if we presume that HN's fascination with Waymo vs Uber and the man at the centre of it all serves as something other than a tech world surrogate for lurid celebrity gossip.

pwaai 9y ago
> the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything Sums up the level of horseplay when they examined the power relationships involving contractual bondages offered by a competing corporate interest through the submission to a liquid asset.

rayiner 9y ago

It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.

cantrip 9y ago
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.
- rayiner 9y ago
  What he keeps in his BDSM drawer can be verified directly.