It’s pretty shabby.

The thing is, under California law, we frown on the whole idea of being able to keep someone from plying their trade wherever they want anyway (See Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 16600 et. seq.), and you just can’t claw back an option after allowing one in the chain to expire like that, unless it was a very very oddly written contract.

The thing is, when the big boss at a personality driven business dies like this, its usually payback time for whoever takes over against the other disciples. I’ve seen it over and over (as a business attorney) and it always ends badly…. usually for the guy who takes over, and the business, as they are sued out of existence by the former employees/partners they tried to take advantage of.

And the jackals on the left will just be waiting for a corpse they can feast on. So it doesn’t end up well for the rest of us either.

Well, what it may have lacked in insight it more than made up by being so articulate.

Some of the folks over there have burned a few, as many people have mentioned.

I think they are overreaching, to their detriment. Criminy, just write some good articles! Their shining star is no more; time to come back down to earth.

MITT SURE SEEMED TO WANT TO RUN WHEN HE WAS RELENTLESSLY BASHING EVERY OTHER, MORE CONSERVATIVE GOP CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARIES!

Mitt waged a relentless, and apparently scorched-earth campaign against his GOP rivals and then went all weak-at-the-knees when he faced Obama.

But this has been the theme for eGOP candidates since 1988. Beat the HELL out of conservative candidates in the primaries and then roll over and choke in the general election.

The eGOP seems satisfied to sit at the table, even if it is the ‘kiddy table’, and reap the scorn of progressives at every turn as long as it makes them feel self-important while they literally push failed progressive plans that draws scorn and derision from the progressives.

The eGOP is doomed. It is only a matter of how long it takes for them to die, choking on their own spittle as everyone else waits for a merciful act of euthanasia.

Reagan is the only transformative candidate the GOP has run since 1965. They won two landslides with his policies and have spent the last 30 years running away from Reagan’s winning and successful policies! THEY DON’T WANT TO WIN! THEY DON’T WANT TO GOVERN AS CONSERVATIVES. IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE ANY MORE CLEAR.

We may have already lost our Constitution. Four more years of Obama is going to see a continued and continuous shredding of the Constitution. And if one of the remaining conservative justices gets sick in the next four years it will be impossible to stop the Marxists.

If the eGOP runs another John McCain or Mitt Romney in 2016, it will certainly be the end of our Constitution and the possibility of a central government based on the concept of limited, enumerated powers…

But, sans Romney, who would the GOP have nominated?

Newt Gingrich! Or Rick Santorum. Unless maybe some other candidate would have run.

For those interested in some of the specifics involving Loesch’s lawsuit, below is what I posted on the Althouse blog a couple of days ago, with my tentative reactions.

————

Having also looked at the complaint, I agree with the 10:07 a.m. comment.

Loesch’s claim seems simple:

(1) Breitbart.com allowed its initial one-year contract with her to go month-to-month starting in October, 2010 (failing to give notice to extend it another full year); and

(2) she gave her 30-day notice to end the month-to-month arrangement, on 9/13/2011.

Apparently Breitbart.com then tried to invoke an option on the third of three years, starting in October, 2012.

I’m unfamiliar with the specific Missouri (or possibly California) law applying to the contract, but it seems odd that after allowing a contract to go month-to-month, a party could later try to resurrect a full-year option. But possibly there was some sort of understanding or side deal on that, or there’s some sort of industry practice to support Breitbart.com’s position.

I’m unsure why this is in court. The contract calls to mind a football or basketball coach contract. If, somehow, Breitbart.com, it has a right to Loesch’s services through October, 2013, then isn’t she like the coach who wants to leave to coach for another team?

In such situations, the coach simply stops coaching for the first team, signs a contract with the second team — even though that risks a breach-of-contract suit — and the second team negotiates with the first team a settlement of any contract breach (and of course a settlement of any claim that it tortiously interfered with the original situation). That is, a buyout of the coach’s contract with the first team. Often the whole deal is done up front.

When John Calipari moved to Kentucky in 2009, Kentucky bought out his contract with Memphis for $200,000. USA Today recently had a story on how successful college athletics programs make tidy profits collecting buyout money when their coaching stars switch to other schools: http://usat.ly/Sdu2zD.

You don’t see the coach file suit against the first team complaining that being held to the full term of the contract is “indentured servitude in limbo.” (Second page of complaint — note to complaint-writer: it helps to use page-numbering).

The “indentured servitude” reference seems dicey (as others here have noted). It hardly seems like peonage if Loesch in fact signed a contract binding her through October 2013. I better understand the “limbo” part, as apparently she’s not being assigned any duties. But if Breitbart.com’s still paying her, while not assigning her to do anything, what to hard-working Loesch is “limbo” might seem to others a paid vacation.

As to Breibart.com telling prospective employers it currently has a contract with her through October, 2013, I don’t see why that’s a problem as long as it has a good-faith basis to believe it validly triggered a third year on her contract.

As a business decision it seems fine if Breitbart.com uses a basketball-coach model for its contracts, so that if some other media organization wants to pick off one of its stars, it has to buy out the contract. A gig with a high-profile site like Breitbart.com can quickly turn a talented, initially obscure, person into a star, just as a gig on “American Idol” can turn an unknown into a star, an opportunity that carries with it long-term contracts entered into up front.

But if Breitbart.com is going to continue to press its contract claim rather than just let Loesch go and wish her luck, to avoid brand damage won’t it need to explain, at internet speed, the legal and factual basis for its view that Loesch is contractually bound to it through October 2013? One can quibble with some of the asides added to the complaint, but it tells a pretty simple story that Loesch terminated her contract, fair and square, months ago. Loesch is a justly popular and respected figure. It’s hard to root for an organization not dominated by a single, popular and respected person, especially if the organization doesn’t explicitly and promptly set out a competing narrative.