Mark Zaid, a Washington lawyer who has offered to represent anyone who has signed an NDA at the White House for free and now wants to invalidate it, said no one had approached him about the offer. But in cases where a former White House official had already signed an NDA with the campaign or a company linked to Trump, the campaign sometimes filed a lawsuit against them. For decades, Trump has demanded such non-disclosure agreements from his personal employees and employees of his companies. As he entered the presidential race in 2016, his lawyers continued to demand NDAs that appeared to be modeled on those he had previously used in his personal and business affairs. A federal judge on Tuesday overturned a non-disclosure agreement signed in 2016 by members of Donald Trump`s presidential campaign. The case is just one of many lawsuits in which the campaign or the Justice Department is trying to punish people it believes violated the NDAs or prevent future disclosures. NDAs are usually part of a private employment contract, so it`s unclear how many people have signed them directly with Trump, his company, his campaign, or other entities with whom he is allied. In its response to Denson`s request for a summary ruling, Trump`s legal team said Denson`s lawsuit was an attempt to break out of a “standard trade secrets deal” and that the deal did not prevent Denson from criticizing Trump. The court also noted that Denson had previously sued the campaign in 2017 for harassment, sex discrimination and defamation. Then, about a month later, the campaign filed an arbitration lawsuit against Denson, claiming it had violated the secrecy and non-severability clauses of the employment contract. An adviser to the former president disagreed with the decision, saying Trump`s lawyers were considering their options. Alan Garfield, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School: “Wealthy and powerful people have abused non-disclosure agreements for too long to suppress information of critical public importance, including information about dangerously defective products, violent sexual predators and, in the case of Trump`s extremely excessive non-disclosure agreements, on a candidate for the highest office in the country. It is time for the courts to put an end to these abuses.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday by another former employee, political adviser Sam Nunberg, one of the confidentiality agreements was filed as evidence of the lawsuit. The Trump campaign has been battling Denson for more than two years, paying nearly $1 million to a law firm involved in the case, according to federal election records, though it`s unclear how much is related to the lawsuit or other legal advice. A representative of the company, LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg, did not respond to a request for comment. The Trump campaign also did not respond to a request for comment. Trump`s family tried to prevent the publication of a Tell All book by his niece Mary Trump this summer. President Trump told Axios that his niece was “not authorized” to write the book, and his lawyer Charles submitted pleadings on behalf of Trump`s younger brother, Robert, to block it. Robert Trump said in court documents that Mary Trump was banned from publishing such memoirs because she signed a confidentiality agreement in an inheritance case in 2001. did not respond to a request for comment. During the 2016 campaign, actress Stormy Daniels signed an NDA in exchange for a $130,000 payment, a deal arranged by Michael Cohen, who was Donald Trump`s personal lawyer at the time. Trump said at one point that he knew nothing about the deal, which the Post`s fact-checker called a “lie.” Cohen later told the court that he had been compensated by the Trump Organization for paying Daniels and that Trump knew about it. For decades, Donald Trump has relied on sweeping non-disclosure agreements as a powerful weapon against anyone who would say anything critical of him.
Among those who have signed deals are a star, two ex-wives, Candidates from The Apprentice, campaign workers and business partners. “The vague, overly broad and undefined terms of the secrecy provision also make it excessively cumbersome,” the decision said. Orly Lobel, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law: “Employers are increasingly turning to broad and illegal non-disclosure agreements to silence employees. The Trump campaign`s non-disclosure agreements are particularly troubling because they prevent the public from learning critical information about a candidate for public office. “You can`t stop people from criticizing political candidates,” Bowles said. “This is the heart of the Constitution and freedom of expression. Gardephe`s 36-page decision indicates that a non-disparagement clause in the agreement is also flawed. “As far as the scope of the provision is concerned, it is – practically – unlimited.
As a result, campaign staff are not free to talk about anything related to the campaign,” Gardephe wrote. “The secrecy provision is therefore much broader than the campaign claims is necessary to protect its legitimate interests and is therefore not appropriate.” The document tabled Tuesday appears to be a non-disclosure agreement that is regularly used by the campaign. It`s the same, at least in large part, about a non-disclosure agreement reported by The Daily Dot that the campaign required volunteers to sign earlier this year. “The campaign`s efforts to date to enforce the secrecy and non-disparagement provisions show that it is not acting in good faith to protect what it has identified as legitimate interests,” the judge added. “Instead, the evidence presented to the court shows that the campaign has repeatedly sought to enforce secrecy and non-disparagement provisions in order to remove statements it deems prejudicial to its interests.” Under her agreement, Denson was not allowed to denigrate Trump during her time with the campaign “and at any time thereafter,” and she cannot disclose anything “Mr. . . . .