[131 / 10 / 61]
Quoted By: >>27743315 >>27743328 >>27743380 >>27743509 >>27743716 >>27744143 >>27744187 >>27744225 >>27744404 >>27744516 >>27744555 >>27744682 >>27744720 >>27744769 >>27744848 >>27744949 >>27745062 >>27745473 >>27745587 >>27745605 >>27745789 >>27745851 >>27745907 >>27747145 >>27748754 >>27749215 >>27750128 >>27750280 >>27750352 >>27750978
>she leaked things
is not
>she leaked things that damaged the company or its employees
A leak is not an inherently damaging thing, Cover never claimed it was, it doesn't say that anywhere in the statement, and no "inaccurate information" or w/e is not inherently damaging. You have to prove damage. Did Cover suffer reputational damage? No. Was Cover ever at risk of reputational damage? No. Did she ever say she intended to damage them in any way? No(an employee is not Cover btw, just fyi. Damaging an employee = damage to the company would never hold up in court and never has, dare you to post even one case where the court agreed with that interp).
Here are the FACTS:
1. There was never any risk to Cover
2. Nothing happened that could have even hypothetically posed a risk to Cover
3. Cover agrees, because otherwise they'd say ao in their statement(they didn't)
4. Nobody has ever been put at risk from the actions taken by her
5. Cover agrees, because they didn't say so and would be legally obligated to that was the case
6. Nothing Rushia did was intended too, has the potential to, or was even hypothetically capable of harming the reputation, earnings, success or any other metric of Cover corporation or any of its talents
7. If that was not true, Cover would be legally obligated to say so for the protection of its talents at the very least. They did not
Learn legal shit before you post
is not
>she leaked things that damaged the company or its employees
A leak is not an inherently damaging thing, Cover never claimed it was, it doesn't say that anywhere in the statement, and no "inaccurate information" or w/e is not inherently damaging. You have to prove damage. Did Cover suffer reputational damage? No. Was Cover ever at risk of reputational damage? No. Did she ever say she intended to damage them in any way? No(an employee is not Cover btw, just fyi. Damaging an employee = damage to the company would never hold up in court and never has, dare you to post even one case where the court agreed with that interp).
Here are the FACTS:
1. There was never any risk to Cover
2. Nothing happened that could have even hypothetically posed a risk to Cover
3. Cover agrees, because otherwise they'd say ao in their statement(they didn't)
4. Nobody has ever been put at risk from the actions taken by her
5. Cover agrees, because they didn't say so and would be legally obligated to that was the case
6. Nothing Rushia did was intended too, has the potential to, or was even hypothetically capable of harming the reputation, earnings, success or any other metric of Cover corporation or any of its talents
7. If that was not true, Cover would be legally obligated to say so for the protection of its talents at the very least. They did not
Learn legal shit before you post
