Non-Disclosure Agreements: Punishment Awaits Violators of High-Profile NDAs

Bottom-line up-front: Journalists sensationalize (supposedly) defiant people who have disregarded (often for political motives) non-disclosure agreements they lawfully entered into. Whether its a former “model”, white house staffer, or department head, understand these individuals are already in serious trouble. Even though politically expedient rhetoric seems to give these individuals a pass – make no mistake – consequences await down the road. When the media lights have dimmed (or gone dark). And those who would encourage such individuals to skirt (or flagrantly violate) the law are no longer by their side. When there’s no one left to egg them on (or protect them). That’s when the law has a sneaky way of catching up with people.

Prominent news stories are circulating throughout Mainstream Media (MSM) that involve the breaking of non-disclosure agreements (NDA). Former “models”, white house staffers and department heads of certain federal agencies, have all allegedly violated the terms of their NDAs.

Journalistic malpractice is often committed when journalists discuss NDAs that relate to these high-profile cases. Journalists are aware that a large number of people in their audience will never have need to sign an NDA. Therefore, many MSM journalists imply a level of mystery, intrigue and cavalier behavior around these documents that are patently false.

Parties enter into NDA’s for a variety of reasons. Sometimes to review information for a business transaction. Other times to keep something secret after the fact. And in some cases to shut down and silence bogus and fraudulent allegations.

Most NDAs have basic enforcement provisions that facilitate everyday business transactions and are often quite benign. However, as you move up the food chain (in terms of complexity) these documents are often weaponized. When the confidential information is highly sensitive, these documents can be packed with onerous clauses and stipulations. You can literally sign away (in advance) your rights, property and finances if you violate disclosure rules of the NDA. Penalties can include loss of assets, and in some cases, loss of freedom.

When someone tells you “conspiracies” cannot happen, think again. Out of naivety (or deliberate misinformation) people often conclude large-scale “secrets” cannot be kept. They believe if something did happen, then someone, somewhere, would certainly say something.

Secrets are kept everyday and for very long periods of time. Most every major journalist that reports news is under an NDA. Some extremely sensitive NDAs are never distributed to the signer. Those NDAs are kept under lock and key in the bowels of the law firm that created them. Available to be reviewed only in person. And in some cases, the signer can never acknowledge the existence of the agreement itself.

Imagine being asked, persuaded (or forced) to sign such a document? A document you cannot keep, have limited (or restricted) access to review, and can never acknowledge the existence of?

Bottom-line: Journalists sensationalize (supposedly) defiant people who have disregarded (often for political motives) non-disclosure agreements they lawfully entered into. Whether its a former “model”, white house staffer, or department head, understand these individuals are already in serious trouble. Even though politically expedient rhetoric seems to give these individuals a pass – make no mistake – consequences await down the road. When the media lights have dimmed (or gone dark). And those who would encourage such individuals to skirt (or flagrantly violate) the law are no longer by their side. When there’s no one left to egg them on (or protect them). That’s when the law has a sneaky way of catching up with people.