Non-Collusion Statement & Signature Sheet - Niverville Fire: Fill & Download for Free

A couple of very good answers here already. I'll just add my perspective: the Art of War, self-made four-time funded Startup veteran who now funds conpanies via my Private Equity Firm in New York City.Dump him.Let's address first the personal nature of your dilemma: This guy - I'm very well known for my blunt honesty so all apologies in advance - has stolen your IP and is a treacherous COMPETITOR now. Nothing more to it. As a man, I cannot fathom sinking to such lows. As a kid from the rocks of Western AZ and Southern California, I've worked SO HARD and sacrificed SO MUCH to get to where I am today...I'd be paying three lawyers to hold me back from beating his ass, total honesty.From the purely professional POV: I know that I'd be filing serious lawsuits if I had funded your startup, that is for certain. Let's face it - in your situation there is no way to totally compartmentalize the personal and professional POV. I AM LEGEND for my scary ability to compartmentalize work and personal relationships...but this is personally a terrible (but frankly not totally uncommon sadly) case of betrayal.Because of the very close personal nature of your relationship with this IP Pirate, I'm just assuming there is no signed NDA/Non-Conpete/Non-Collusion Agreements in existence between the two of you. No matter, says my $1,200 an hour attorney I'm having a cocktail with on Long Island Sound on his friend's 70' rowing boat here: my guy knows his stuff. You have plenty of recourse.*CAVEAT: You are located exactly where? Obviously legal jurisdiction is a HUGE modifier on that statement. In even the most moderate of Islamic nations of the GCC (Persian Gulf nations of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar) as a female...well the legal term is your SOL (s**t outta luck). So let's pick the best of those six nations for surprisingly extremely high fairness rankings (I am also speaking for personal experience in that region): no, not Dubai, Bahrain is by a decent margin the nation in the Arabian Gulf region that adheres to the Anglo-Saxon English Corporate & Business Legal System that is pretty much an absolutely must to be a fully open-market capitalist economy (and to be clear, China is NOT a Capitlaist open-market economic system, and they do not adhere to British Common Law not Business Law).Even there Shria Law and cultural customs put woman at a dramatic disadvantage as far as Business Law and the Legal System. UK, US (The Commenwealth basically), along with the EU, and to an EXTENT Japan, South Korea, and some other Asian nations, legally you'd get a very fair to somewhat decent shake.But back to the personal nature of the question?? The guy is an absolute leach, he's not a man. He's a barnacle.Dump him.I hate to always be the harsh realistic one but I see many others share the same POV...

Well, two points:I don’t know what facts you’re using to back up your statement “…Russian collusion is a proven lie…”.Everything I read tells me that the jury on this is still out, and that the evidence pointing to collusion is mounting by the day.During the campaign there were over 100 contacts between senior Trump campaign people and Russians. Let me repeat that - OVER 100 CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS!!!Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the InaugurationMost of the people who had those meetings lied about them to federal investigators and are now under indictment, and in at least one case, a senior campaign official was directed by an even more senior campaign official to follow up on getting Hillary’s emails, stolen by the Russians and given to Julian Assange of Wikileaks.Now, who’s more senior than a senior campaign official, most of whom report to the candidate. Hmmm….And we have to ask ourselves, why would they lie about these meetings to the federal investigators? After all, just meeting with a foreign citizen isn’t a crime. But meeting with a foreign citizen for the purposes of interfering in an American election, well now, that’s a totally different matter. So it depends on what was said in those meetings. And if the individuals involved felt that they had to lie to investigators, then one has to wonder about what was said and who they were trying to protect by lying.So far, Mueller has indicted 37 individuals including:- 6 former Trump advisers or campaign officials,- 26 Russian nationals,- 3 Russian companies,- 1 California resident,- 1 London based lawyer.So far, 7 of the 8 non-russians have pleaded guilty (including 5 of the 6 Trump advisers - we’re still waiting to see what will happen with Roger Stone). It’s highly unlikely that the Russian nationals will ever see the inside of an American court.All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so farSo a rational person would have to wonder how it is that so many close Trump associates were talking with Russians and then collectively lying about it.Were they all rogues, acting on their own initiative? If so, why Russia?Or is there some common organizing force behind this? A conspiracy maybe?So OK, yeah, not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt leading to conviction in a court of law, but hey “…Russia collusion is a proven lie…” I don’t think so. I’d sure hate to be the defence lawyer who has to go up against this growing mountain of evidence.And I don’t think we’ve seen the end yet. I’m willing to bet the mountain will get bigger.OK, now let’s for sake of argument assume that your assumption of “…proven lie…” were to be true, you ask “…when do the trials for treason begin?”Well if Trump and all his associates are innocent, then on what basis could there possibly be trials for treason?Are you assuming that in that case Rosenstein and Mueller would be guilty of treason? Maybe on the basis of disloyalty to the POTUS?Sorry, it doesn’t work that way my friend. Maybe in dictatorships and banana republics where brutal regimes hold power by persecuting their political enemies. The sort of thing Stalin did. But not in the good old U S of A. No, in the good old U S of A, investigators and prosecuters don’t get prosecuted for the crime they were investigating, if it turns out that there was no crime after all.In that case, everyone calls it a day and goes home. That’s called rule of law. It’s there to protect all of us from vindictive political retaliation.

I was stunned by Rudy’s statement. If, back when he was a prosecutor, a witness had said “I didn’t see the crime so it didn’t happen,” he would have laughed the fool out of court.Unless Trump and Rudy are conjoined twins who sleep at exactly the same times and read each other’s emails and texts, the fact Rudy didn’t see Trump colluding means absolutely nothing. There’s no such thing as a non-witness.Consequently the prosecution is not going to call him to testify, so the conflict of interest issue will never arise.This is just more smoke being blown by the increasingly whacky ex-mayor in the hopes that “saw no collusion” will register with the base and they’ll forget the rest of that truly silly statement.