Project Veritas has filed a lawsuit against its own founder, James O’Keefe III, claiming that he violated his employment contract by creating a new business while still remaining a part of the organization. This is despite Project Veritas no longer paying him.
To prevent James O'Keefe III from working for them, Project Veritas has filed a petition with the federal court system. Without paying James anything, they are suing to have him banned from working and have his company shut down.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered severe losses because O'Keefe failed to uphold his responsibilities to them. The lawsuit further alleges that Transparency 1, LLC, helped facilitate these crimes. For the advantage of O'Keefe Media Group, the plaintiffs contend that RC Maxwell and Anthony Iatropoulos, two former associates, broke their contracts.
The complaint states that O'Keefe committed professional and financial malpractice. Here is a short synopsis of their argument:
According to the report, O'Keefe signed an employment agreement with Project Veritas that outlined the parameters of his employment, such as his promise not to disclose or criticize the company, his commitment to working full-time, and Project Veritas' right to exclusive ownership of any derivative works created by him.
Citing alleged misbehaviour, O'Keefe faced major charges of misbehaviour, including lateness to work, rudeness to employees, particularly female coworkers, and the exploitation of business resources for personal advantage. Allegedly, he also utilized corporate cash for his own personal needs, some of which were rather extravagant and served no apparent commercial purpose.
The Project Veritas Board of Directors immediately removed O'Keefe from his position, launched an inquiry, and cut off his access to business assets after learning of the claims. O'Keefe was eventually fired and removed from the board of directors.
The complaint claims that O'Keefe broke his employment contract by engaging in multiple acts. Despite the "Prohibited Outside Activities" clause in the Employment Agreement, he went ahead and founded OMG, a new media group with identical goals and organizational structure as Project Veritas. O'Keefe has promoted OMG during many public engagements in which he falsely claimed to have left Project Veritas.
O'Keefe allegedly stole donation names and contact information from Project Veritas and used it for OMG, the business alleges. He went on a crusade to discredit Project Veritas with the organization's funders and get them to give to OMG instead. In addition, O'Keefe attempted to recruit Project Veritas staff and independent contractors for OMG.
According to the lawsuit, O'Keefe violated the terms of his employment contract by making defamatory claims against the Board of Directors of Project Veritas. Allegations also include the theft of donor lists and intellectual property from Project Veritas for use by OMG.
According to the employment agreement, if Project Veritas were to suffer "irreparable harm" due to O'Keefe's breach, he would be responsible for paying Project Veritas' legal fees and costs associated with obtaining an injunction. In this case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to enforce O'Keefe's obligations under his employment contract. The plaintiffs contend that if the court does not issue a preliminary injunction preventing O'Keefe and OMG from recruiting Project Veritas' funders and workers, O'Keefe and OMG will have already done so.
To prevent James O'Keefe III from working for them, Project Veritas has filed a petition with the federal court system. Without paying James anything, they are suing to have him banned from working and have his company shut down.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered severe losses because O'Keefe failed to uphold his responsibilities to them. The lawsuit further alleges that Transparency 1, LLC, helped facilitate these crimes. For the advantage of O'Keefe Media Group, the plaintiffs contend that RC Maxwell and Anthony Iatropoulos, two former associates, broke their contracts.
The complaint states that O'Keefe committed professional and financial malpractice. Here is a short synopsis of their argument:
According to the report, O'Keefe signed an employment agreement with Project Veritas that outlined the parameters of his employment, such as his promise not to disclose or criticize the company, his commitment to working full-time, and Project Veritas' right to exclusive ownership of any derivative works created by him.
Citing alleged misbehaviour, O'Keefe faced major charges of misbehaviour, including lateness to work, rudeness to employees, particularly female coworkers, and the exploitation of business resources for personal advantage. Allegedly, he also utilized corporate cash for his own personal needs, some of which were rather extravagant and served no apparent commercial purpose.
The Project Veritas Board of Directors immediately removed O'Keefe from his position, launched an inquiry, and cut off his access to business assets after learning of the claims. O'Keefe was eventually fired and removed from the board of directors.
The complaint claims that O'Keefe broke his employment contract by engaging in multiple acts. Despite the "Prohibited Outside Activities" clause in the Employment Agreement, he went ahead and founded OMG, a new media group with identical goals and organizational structure as Project Veritas. O'Keefe has promoted OMG during many public engagements in which he falsely claimed to have left Project Veritas.
O'Keefe allegedly stole donation names and contact information from Project Veritas and used it for OMG, the business alleges. He went on a crusade to discredit Project Veritas with the organization's funders and get them to give to OMG instead. In addition, O'Keefe attempted to recruit Project Veritas staff and independent contractors for OMG.
According to the lawsuit, O'Keefe violated the terms of his employment contract by making defamatory claims against the Board of Directors of Project Veritas. Allegations also include the theft of donor lists and intellectual property from Project Veritas for use by OMG.
According to the employment agreement, if Project Veritas were to suffer "irreparable harm" due to O'Keefe's breach, he would be responsible for paying Project Veritas' legal fees and costs associated with obtaining an injunction. In this case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to enforce O'Keefe's obligations under his employment contract. The plaintiffs contend that if the court does not issue a preliminary injunction preventing O'Keefe and OMG from recruiting Project Veritas' funders and workers, O'Keefe and OMG will have already done so.
