BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker (buzzfeed.com) 156
One day in 2011 a 26-year-old approached Peter Thiel and said "Look, I think if we datamined Gawker's history, we could find weak points that we could exploit in the court of law," according to the author of a new book. An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed News:
Peter Thiel's campaign to ruin Gawker Media was conceived and orchestrated by a previously unknown associate who served as a middleman, allowing the billionaire to conceal his involvement in the bankrolling of lawsuits that eventually drove the New York media outlet into bankruptcy. BuzzFeed News has confirmed the identity of that mystery conspirator, known in Thiel's inner circle as "Mr. A," with multiple sources who said that he provided the venture capitalist and Facebook board member with a blueprint to covertly attack Gawker in court. That man, an Oxford-educated Australian citizen named Aron D'Souza, has few known connections to Thiel, but approached him in 2011 with an elaborate proposal to use a legal strategy to wipe out the media organization. That plot ultimately succeeded... D'Souza was aware of Thiel's public comments likening Valleywag to al-Qaeda, and presented a brazen idea: Pay someone or create a company to hire lawyers to go after Gawker.
TechCrunch reported earlier this month that Gawker's old posts "will be captured and saved by the non-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation," which was co-founded in 2012 by the late John Perry Barlow. But in addition, the Gawker estate "continues to threaten possible legal action against Thiel, and hopes to begin discovery to examine the billionaire's motivations for secretly funding his legal war," the article concludes. If a New York bankruptcy court approves, and if the process "unearths anything of meaning, the estate may have grounds to sue Thiel on the grounds of tortious interference, the use of legal means to purposely disrupt a business.
"To head that off, Thiel bid for the remaining Gawker assets -- including the flapship domain Gawker.com, its archive, and outstanding legal claims, like those against himself -- though Holden has made it known that he may block any sale to Thiel, no matter how much the venture capitalist is willing to bid."
TechCrunch reported earlier this month that Gawker's old posts "will be captured and saved by the non-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation," which was co-founded in 2012 by the late John Perry Barlow. But in addition, the Gawker estate "continues to threaten possible legal action against Thiel, and hopes to begin discovery to examine the billionaire's motivations for secretly funding his legal war," the article concludes. If a New York bankruptcy court approves, and if the process "unearths anything of meaning, the estate may have grounds to sue Thiel on the grounds of tortious interference, the use of legal means to purposely disrupt a business.
"To head that off, Thiel bid for the remaining Gawker assets -- including the flapship domain Gawker.com, its archive, and outstanding legal claims, like those against himself -- though Holden has made it known that he may block any sale to Thiel, no matter how much the venture capitalist is willing to bid."
Same basic concern remains (Score:3, Interesting)
The same basic concerns are the same as at the beginning of this process. On the one hand, Gawker was terrible, and we haven't really lost much by losing them. On the other hand, a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech. And in the case of the Hulk Hogan lawsuit, the jury should at least have been made aware that Hogan was being bankrolled by Thiel (since it goes to Hogan's credibility and sincerity as a witness), although I imagine that that wouldn't have actually impacted that decision at all since Gawker's behavior was unambiguously terrible. But, a general rule that people should have to disclose in a lawsuit when they are being paid by someone else to run it isn't crazy.
Also the idea that Gawker didn't know why Thiel doesn't like them( as sort of implied in the summary) is ridiculous. Thiel doesn't like Gawker because they wrote articles outing him as gay and then repeatedly writing more articles with it in the headline: http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people [gawker.com].
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like Wikileaks?
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:4, Insightful)
Go steal some government property and then tell the judge that it's OK because it's public property. See how that works out for you.
Also, Wikileaks doesn't only post stolen public property. Most of what they're famous for was actually private property.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks most famous leaks have been of stolen private property. So, no.
If someone is using their considerable money and power to support an anti-gay political agenda, then yes. the fact that Peter Thiel is gay is of public interest.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:4, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Thiel, who himself is gay, has supported gay rights causes such as the American Foundation for Equal Rights and GOProud. He invited conservative columnist Ann Coulter, who is a friend of his, to Homocon 2010 as a guest speaker. Coulter later dedicated her 2011 book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, to Thiel. Thiel is also mentioned in the acknowledgments of Coulter's "Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole". In 2012, Thiel donated $10,000 to Minnesotans United for All Families, in order to fight Minnesota Amendment 1.
He's was anti gay marriage in 2012, but he's not anti gay. Wasn't Obama still denying he supported gay marriage back in 2008?
http://time.com/3816952/obama-... [time.com]
2008: As a presidential candidate, Obama pledges to repeal DOMA and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which banned the service of openly gay troops in the U.S. military
He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian - for me - for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix," he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum in April.
So Thiel's great sin was not coming round to supporting gay marriage as opposed to civil partnerships quickly enough. So clearly he has to be outed and shamed publicly. After all we can't have those filthy homos straying off the vote plantation and thinking they're allowed to not change their opinion when the Democrats tell them to.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:4, Interesting)
Gawker was just engaging in some low grade homophobia for cheap laughs and mud slinging against a guy they didn't like. Schoolyard stuff, and indefensible.
Re: Same basic concern remains (Score:2)
I'm against (gay) marriage as well but not because I'm anti-gay, I'm just against the involvement of religious tenets in government and government involvement in personal life.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting story about GOProud.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly the post above you is literally comparing him to people who supported the Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
My fans write poems for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, we know it's you. Don't play. I appreciate the time it took you to paste my name into the poem.
Slashdot has become a toilet (Score:1)
The "editors" have time to post Democrat Party propaganda but apparently no time to clean up all the vulgar flame comments.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as we know, Hogan filed and continued the suit because he wanted to, and not due to any coercion or renumeration. Thiel merely allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyway.
If Thiel hadn't, it may be that Gawker would have forced Hogan to settle because Hogan couldn't afford to continue the suit - but that would be Gawker using financial advantage to prevent justice, not Thiel or Hogan...
All in all, the tactic of funding poor applicants to achieve a verdict is common and used by all civil rights organizations - and trying to limit it because this time the loser was a well connected media-liberal organization (which richly deserved it) is regressive and will backfire.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, the issue here isn't disclosure. The supposed problem here is "[some rich entity] can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits". Disclosure won't do anything here to stop it - they can just keeping funding lawsuits. Obviously, the endgame is either declaring this to be a non-problem (which I support - the courts and existing SLAPP laws can handle this), or apply actual remedies to prevent external funding - the latter will hit poor people and civil rights organizations too.
B
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an interesting comparison Breitbart. I visit Breitbart from time to time (I consider myself independent/center-right), partly for fun partly to get the pulse of the far right. I wouldn't want it bankrupted. But I wouldn't want a far-left publication such as alternet or Vox to be bankrupted either.
But I'm still glad Gawker went down. I think the difference is that Breitbart/alternet fight for what they see as better future by whatever means. Gawker on the other hand seemed to just want exploit misery
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only civil right Peter Thiel cares about is his right to inject himself with the blood of teenage boys..
https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
And no, that story has not been debunked.
https://gizmodo.com/someone-is... [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming arguendo that the rumors are true there's pretty convincing science that it has a rejuvenating effect on the mind in studies on mice. Nothing concrete on humans yet, but as he's rich as Croesus and can afford to pay healthy teenagers for their blood, why the fuck wouldn't he be doing it? I sure as fuck know that I would if I had that sort of spare cash lying around. Worst case scenario all that he gets is a placebo effect while a couple of healthy young people get some spending cash they wouldn't o
Re: (Score:2)
Gadflys use any source they can obtain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider the lawsuit in the context of anti-SLAPP [wikipedia.org] laws. We an individual whose net worth is an order of magnitude many times that of his target secretly bankrolling lawsuits intended to bankrupt an entity who said something he didn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker outed Thiel as gay and refused a court order to take down the Hogan sex tape because it was "public interest". Meanwhile they ran stories that viewing stolen nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence was the equivalent as sexual assault.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:5, Insightful)
"The reason Thiel hated Gawker was that they outed him as gay while he was on a business trip in Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Gawker almost git him killed"
Bullshit. He's not a Saudi citizen and unless he's caught in Riyadh cocksmoking a young buff Arab, they have no legal grounds.
Execute a wealthy foreigner based on hearsay? Not fucking likely.
By the way, Thiel who is now KNOWN to be gay, has been back to Saudi Arabia since being outed.
Tim Cook had been reported to be gay since 2011 and when he officially acknowledged it, he didn't merely say "yes I'm gay", he wrote in Bloomberg Business in 2014 " I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me"
How does a blunt statement like that play in the militantly religious atmosphere of Saudi Arabia?
Cook has been to the region several times since coming out and has met with members of the Saudi royal family.
Re: (Score:2)
You ever wonder why the rich westerners in Saudi Arabia live in compounds and if you're female you can't even walk outside? I'll give you a hint, even if you're rolling around in cash there's a limit to exactly how far they'll put up with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would Thiel - or Cook - go there at all?
Thiel's sexual orientation was an open secret to his friends, colleagues, competitors & biz partners. It would have been very easy for someone to cause him serious trouble without needing Gawker's hit piece.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would Thiel - or Cook - go there at all?
The same reason you'd travel to China if you were looking to manufacture something cheap on the fly. Or you went to Laos or the Philippines if you want clothing made. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch of the imagination and if you have capital to be rolling into a country, they're far more likely to "ignore what they consider harmful or illegal" then one of their own citizens which would end up with them being executed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would Thiel - or Cook - go there at all?
The same reason you'd travel to China if you were looking to manufacture something cheap on the fly. Or you went to Laos or the Philippines if you want clothing made. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch of the imagination and if you have capital to be rolling into a country, they're far more likely to "ignore what they consider harmful or illegal" then one of their own citizens which would end up with them being executed.
Then the prextext that Gawker nearly got him killed as I've already stated, is & was bullshit
Calling bullshit on your calling bullshit (Score:1)
This is the country that thinks nothing of kidnapping [washingtonpost.com] a sitting prime minister of another country and forcing him to read a pre-written confession. If you were gay in the head-chopping capital of the word, you'd be shitting your pants if you got outed no matter how many billions you had, or how chummy Tim Cook is with some of the royals.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the country that thinks nothing of kidnapping [washingtonpost.com] a sitting prime minister of another country and forcing him to read a pre-written confession. If you were gay in the head-chopping capital of the word, you'd be shitting your pants if you got outed no matter how many billions you had, or how chummy Tim Cook is with some of the royals.
I'm aware of that bit of extreme weirdness involving Saudi Arabia & the PM of Lebanon.
It's curious that Hariri is a dual Saudi-Lebanese citizen.
But the Saudis consider themselves to be the power in the region, a title that only Iran has the power to dispute on an equal footing.
And the only Middle East nation whose leader gets to hold hands and play kissy-face with the POTUS.
They're not going to jeopardize that relationship just because they're offended that a very wealthy American who's willing to do bu
Re: (Score:2)
Their faith and politics led to wealthy Saudi's (if not the Saudi government itself) funding the 9/11 attacks. And the consequence for that was....the U.S. went to war on Iraq and the people who offered to hand over Bin Laddin. [theguardian.com] So if you were
Re: (Score:2)
So if you were a gay man suddenly outed - even a rich assed one - would be blase about it if you were in a country that funded 911, is virulently anti-gay, and chops people's heads off for sorcery?"
Thiel's orientation was well known in his circles and Silicon Valley. It's naive to think that no one among the Saudi authorities had a clue, especially since he'd met with members of the royal family. And he continued to visit the kingdom even after being "outed". That's not what one would expect of someone afr
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:5, Insightful)
We haven't lost Gawker though. Nick Denton got bankrupted. Gawker Media got sold to Univision. Univision shut down Gawker.com but the other verticals are still running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#Univision_Communications_acquisition_and_subsidiary_era_(2016-present) [wikipedia.org]
On August 16, 2016, Univision Communications paid $135 million at auction to acquire all of Gawker Media and its brands. This ends Gawker Media's fourteen years of independence, as going forward it will become a unit of Univision.
On August 18, 2016, it was announced that Gawker Media's flagship site Gawker would be ceasing operations the week after. Univision continues to operate Gawker Media's six other websites, Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, and Lifehacker. Gawker's article archive remains online, and its employees were transferred to the remaining six websites or elsewhere in Univision. On August 22, 2016, at 22:33 GMT, Denton posted Gawker's final article.
And as people are fond of telling me here when conservatives get silenced : "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Also if it's not the government censoring you it's not a violation of the First Amendment".
Nick Denton could start a site and put up all the stolen sex tapes he likes. And if, like The Daily Stormer, he gets his site pulled by his ISP for doing it, that's also not a First Amendment violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, Gawker didn't get shut down for their speech, they got shut down for disobeying a court order.
They have nobody but themselves to blame for that. It's hard to see how being subject to court orders creates a chilling effect on speech here. There are SLAPP suits available to protect against truly frivolous uses of lawsuits to silence speech.
Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about those who use physical violence to prevent people from speaking, like Antifa.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't it become a 1st admendment issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a freedom of speech issue, it's a transparency in law and justice issue. It's an issue with the rich having greater access to the legal system, and being able to use it in ways that others cannot, e.g. bankrupting their victims regardless of the legal merits.
As JoshuaZ says (and was modded a troll for), it probably wouldn't have made much difference in the end, but that's not the point.
Re: (Score:1)
True that, but in this case the issue goes the other way. Gawker's entire argument is that without Thiel, they'd have forced Hogan into a settlement because Hogan would have trouble paying for his lawsuit. i.e. It was Gawker that planned to use their financial might to twist the legal system.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech...
That might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
... might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.
Which media sources "deserve to be shut down"? Which don't? What constitutes "bad behaviour"? Those decisions must be made ONLY by those charged with enforcing laws currently in effect - not by you, me, or some random politician or billionaire who feels that his or her moral sense, common sense, taste, or whatever, can or should be substituted for the law.
Re:Same basic concern remains (Score:5, Insightful)
...Those decisions must be made ONLY by those charged with enforcing laws currently in effect...
Like a court and a jury?
Re: (Score:3)
Had the shit for brains Daulerio taken the lawsuit seriously in the first place it is likely that even if he lost, the amount of money that the payout would have consisted of would have been well within the ability of Gawker to pay. But when you say in a legal deposition that you are willing to publish a child sex tape in a flat, bored tone, people are not going to look upon you kindly.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech.
And if they stuck to issues that pertained to free speech then said billionaire would never have had a chance.
Exploit in court? Gawker was wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, they kinda did (Score:4, Interesting)
I keep saying this, but Theil didn't hate Gawker for outing him (he's a billionaire, at his level there are no consequences actual crimes let alone legal behavior), he hated them for writing stories about his shady business dealings. Gawker did a lot of tabloid journalism but they used it to fund a lot of real journalism; a tradition as old as journalism itself. What we old folk used to call muckracking.
Re: (Score:1)
Theil didn't hate Gawker for outing him (he's a billionaire, at his level there are no consequences actual crimes let alone legal behavior)
When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.
I can see why he was pissed at Gawker.
You can't honestly believe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of naivete, this is the same country known for kidnapping sitting prime ministers of other nations and forcing them into signing confessions. If you were gay and outed while in Saudi Arabia, you'd be shitting your pants no matter how many billions you had.
Re: (Score:2)
When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.
If it was such a risk putting out such a rumour (he hadn't confirmed it then) then how come back after it was no longer a rumour but a fact confirmed by Thiel himself.
Thiels own actions show your reasoning to be false.
Re:Yeah, they kinda did (Score:5, Insightful)
Gawker's mistake was not knowing Thiel was gunning for them.
Or you could say that their mistake was refusing to take down a sex tape after being ordered to by the court. It doesn't matter how much someone is gunning for you if you don't do stupid shit to piss off a judge.
That happens all the time (Score:1, Offtopic)
Again, they thought it was a standard show trial. It wasn't. It was a well planned hit piece against one of the largest muckrackers in the business. Those muckrackers are generally the only ones
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker knew what they were doing. It was a huge part of their job. Again, what they _didn't_ know is that Thiel was out for blood.
They didn't even know what the opposition wanted? Sounds to me like they didn't know what they were doing.
They didn't know the opposition existed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All gawker had to do was follow what the judge ordered.
Thiel bankrolling the whole thing has nothing to do with why they lost; it was their hubris and arrogance is why.
Re:Yeah, they kinda did (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a hell of a lame dodge. You don't even have the guts to make the (risible) claim that Gawker faced a show trial. They faced a fair trial, dug their own grave, jumped it in, and dared the court not to bury them.
If Gakwer did not commit serious torts, then aggravate those by defying legitimate court orders, they would not have faced the damages verdict that bankrupted them. Instead, they made it clear they didn't care who they wronged or what they got wrong as long as they got clicks.
Re: (Score:1)
You ignore the fact that Gawker was effectively denied the opportunity to appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? If they could have put up a bond for the damages, they could spend the rest of their money on appeals. How many parties get to spend money on an appeal without putting anything away to pay the damages they already owe?
Re: (Score:2)
a tradition as old as journalism itself. What we old folk used to call muckracking.
Indeed. And a tradition which has rightfully downed many journalists in the process.
No tears shed.
Re: (Score:2)
Buzzfeed's not doing too well and they've got an IPO coming up.
https://www.inc.com/erik-sherm... [inc.com]
https://nypost.com/2017/03/29/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the point. The point is that if every rich asshole is capable to run a media company into the ground "just because", we are in deep trouble.
So far it’s only one media company — the one full of assholes that couldn't be bothered to follow any rules. It turned out that following at least one rule was important.
Re: (Score:1)
Gawker didn't get run into the ground "just because". They committed corporate suicide by publishing Bollea's sex tape against his will then publishing an article gloating about how they were going to ignore the court order to take it down.
The Gawker court case narrowly avoided "money rules everything". If it was simply Bollea vs Gawker, then Bollea wouldn't have been able to get ju
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.
I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.
Re: (Score:1)
For most people, not returning lost goods is called dishonorable. Lack of honor and integrity is what makes those "buzz" media so despised.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is sad that this got modded up as informative.
Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.
I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.
Point of fact, one finding lost property doesn't make one the true owner of said property.
Looking at California law, http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/pe... [findlaw.com], it is clear that in this case the person who found the iPhone and didn't return it is guilty of theft, and consequently Gawker was handling stolen property.
On this point, jcr is 100% correct, and dirk is 0% correct.
Re:GOOD. (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, they received stolen property [findlaw.com].
Considering that Gizmodo paid $5000 cash for it, it easily exceeded the $950 threshold below which "receiving stolen property" is a misdemeanor.
hmm... (Score:2)
is there any link with a certain "Dinesh D'Souza" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
In February 2018, D'Souza was widely criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[56][57] In response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D'Souza tweeted "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs".[57] D'Souza's comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Jonathan M. Katz wrote "Let it never be said that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about the law. They're on the side of whatever is fashionable. If TV comedians and Barack Obama and other cultural leaders promote something, they'll be for it, regardless of how evil it is or who gets hurt.
If lots of people are terribly hurt, then you'll hear that "they had it coming" and a couple days later it'll be completely forgotten, just like when that Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on 20 congressmen at a charity baseball game last summer.
Re: (Score:2)
conflating the opinions of individuals (submitters and/or editors) with the "opinion" of the organization, 5 yards.
Tortious interference (Score:4)
A tortious interference claim is for wrongful and improper actions. Funding a lawsuit can hardly be considered wrongful or improper. Close all the courthouses forever if it is.
Gawker's conduct was wrongful and improper. That's why they lost.
Also, in a bankruptcy you can't just decide not to sell to someone you’re prejudiced against. There's are legal responsibilities. If he bid the highest and has the most credible plan for the assets, it will be very hard to justify (in court) not selling them to him.
Re: (Score:2)
How could they avoid selling to him legally, unless they expect to be able to raise the full amount owed to him for the legal judgment by selling to someone else?
It is a problem when the asset itself is the future result of a lawsuit against the person buying it.
Just like Cult Awareness Network and Scientology (Score:1)
We've seen this play out before. Cult Awareness Network was legally "slapped" into bankruptcy by Scientology, which did not like the group's open explanations of Scientology's inner secrets to new members, or the exposure of the secrets about the god Xenu and how all your bad thoughts and inner demons are the rejoined souls or "thetans" of slaughtered citizens of the Galactic Federation, killed by a thermonuke dropped on Hawaii millions of years ago. So Scientology sued them to death with money from Lisa Ma
Thiel likes spending money on lawyers (Score:2)
Apparently there are people who want to make sure he keeps spending. And spending.
So it's all good. He has lots of money, they should be able to keep him at it for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your contribution, Ivan.
Re: (Score:3)
No, not a spy, a paid troll. I'd never mistake you for a spy. It take balls to be a spy.
Re: (Score:2)
The more you respond the more it costs the people paying for you, so be my guest.
I wish I had mod points. (Score:2)
A lot of the repub idiots I know are finally realizing they've been had.
Spring should be Awesome this year...
Re: (Score:2)