contracts-fraud

anonymous asked:

So u said in the police headcanons, that Allen joined the police to remove everything that happened with the Noahs. I was wondering what happened? And any other hcs since I absolutely lov this au!!! 😘❤❤❤❤

seeing all your sweet words about this au giving me so much inspiration (//∇//)

As I said before, the Noah’s clan is largest criminal syndicate in London, every honest police officer is dreaming about putting all of them in the prison. Drug trade, prostitution and human trafficking, contract killing, fraud, racketeering - this is only a small list of all terrible things they’re doing. Mana D. Campbell, also known as the Millennium Earl, was the leader of this group and Allen’s step father. Before Mana’s death and before Cross got custody over Allen, Allen spent his childhood among the killers and robbers. Allen felt guilty because he knew so much about Noah, but he didn’t disclose this information to the police, because he continues to think about Noah’s as a family, they were always kind to him. He can’t betray them, but in the same time he’s too honorable person to hide criminals and sleep well after that. Being a police officer, he could get the opportunity to pay back over it and finally break the last threads which linking him to the Noah’s clan.

politico.com
IRS awards multimillion-dollar fraud-prevention contract to Equifax
The no-bid contract was issued last week, as the company continued facing fallout from its massive security breach.

The IRS will pay Equifax $7.25 million to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud under a no-bid contract issued last week, even as lawmakers lash the embattled company about a massive security breach that exposed personal information of as many as 145.5 million Americans.

2

Row over new Transformers film

A Beijing property developer says it has terminated cooperation with the new Transformers movie, and is asking China to suspend screenings of the blockbuster film.

Beijing Pangu Investment Co Ltd said that Paramount and two Chinese associate partners failed to fulfill their obligations in a sponsorship deal.

“The loss of rights and interests not only caused the Pangu company’s original business plan to fail, incurring huge losses, more seriously, it has affected Pangu Plaza’s image and reputation,” the statement said.

Pangu said it is suing its Chinese partners for contract fraud and demanding that Paramount delete scenes from the movie that feature images of its logo and properties. The company also said that it has asked the Chinese government’s film regulator to suspend or stop screenings of the movie, which is due to open in Chinese cinemas on Friday.

Pangu said its Chinese partners never delivered on pledges to hold the movie premiere at Pangu’s hotel and feature images of its property in trailers and movie posters.

Instead, the movie’s worldwide premiere was held in Hong Kong on Thursday and was attended by stars that included Mark Wahlberg and the good-guy robot, Optimus Prime.

Paramount did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment, while calls to the Chinese partners named in Pangu’s statement - Jiaflix China and the Beijing Chengxin Shengshi Sports Culture Development Company Ltd. - were unanswered.

Official silence, however, was answered by the vociferous comments of Chinese netizens on Sina Weibo.

Why I have the sense that it is just a method for supporting Chinese film.@Qianyuqianyu

I thought Beijing property developer Pangu and the producers of Transformers want to make cooperation for hype.@Feidianxingheixingxing

If the news is true, it’s right for Pangu to safeguard its deserved right.@Lixianshengzaoshanghao

Adapted from China Daily

O Fortuna Finale

First | Previous | Contractstuck | O Fortuna on AO3 (easier to read chat)

JOHN: so wait let me get this straight
JOHN: you’re all demons?

KANAYA: Im Not

KARKAT: WHAT THE HELL, JOHN, WERE YOU EVEN LISTENING?

ROSE: John, Kanaya is very obviously human, and Dave is glowing in a suspiciously angelic manner that should be enough in itself to hint towards a difference in status.

JOHN: okay, so what’s dave, then?

KARKAT: DAMN IT, WHY DID I GET THE DUMB ONE?

JOHN: hey, that’s a reasonable question! it’s not like you gave us any real introduction to all this. you just popped out of a piece of paper like a genie!
JOHN: you can’t blame us for taking a few minutes to understand what’s going on.

JADE: i think hes an angel john!

DAVE: shit what gave it away

JADE: hehehe :D

JOHN: wait, but…what’s an angel doing hanging out with a bunch of demons?

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

No, you can't send someone to prison for refusing to lie about a fling/baby/whatever, but you can sue them for way more than they have- 30 Seconds To Mars were sued for 30. million. dollars. Imagine how much more 1D would be sued for. Do you really think that Harry, like clockwork, just happens to get a new girlfriend for a couple of weeks each winter and take her skiing? Do you really think He's the kind of person to lie about that for no good reason? It's not that much of a leap from that.

This message covers quite a few topics, so I’m going to break them down into separate parts, if that’s okay. 

Regarding the 30 Seconds to Mars contract: the very key difference here is that 30 Seconds to Mars’ contract with EMI was legal when it was first drafted and signed. Their contract was to put out five albums with Virgin and Immortal Records. That contract is absolutely valid. It was invalidated later by the fact that nine years passed, meaning that the De Havilland law came into effect (because California has ruled that no service contract can be considered valid for longer than seven years). A contract that would force Harry and Louis to stay in the closet would never be considered valid in the first place. Legal contracts can be considered unenforceable for a number of reasons, several of which would apply in this case.

  • A contract is invalid on the grounds of unconscionability if it is considered completely and shockingly unfair to one of the parties. This could be because one person has significantly more bargaining power than the other, or because one side would be getting a grossly lesser amount out of the contract than the other, or because the terms in general are just completely unclear or unfair.
  • A contract is also considered unenforceable if it contradicts public policy, which includes all other laws and statutes, including discrimination laws. In the UK, the Equality Act of 2010 prohibits any form of job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. @1arry-isnt-rea1 has a fantastic masterpost on this right here. (x)  
  • A contract is also considered unenforceable if someone only signed it because of misrepresentation or nondisclosure, meaning that details were purposely left out of the contract to trick someone into signing something that would give one party more control than is explicitly stipulated in the contract. This would mean that every detail of each “stunt” would have to be included in that contract. There would have to be a contract that explicitly stated that Louis would be seen with Briana in public, that he would claim paternity of a child that is not his (again, this is not something that could ever be put into a contract, because it constitutes fraud), and that he would either make fraudulent public statements on his social media accounts or allow others to do so on his behalf. Each person involved in this process would also be expected to sign their own equally detailed contract, including but not limited to: Briana, Jay (who would most likely be expected to sign additional contracts on behalf of any of her minor children who would be expected to maintain silence or capitulation on their social media accounts), Lottie, Liam, Ashley, and Tammi. If you’re sticking with the idea that Harry is Louis’ lover and is being forcibly closeted, tack him onto that list as well. 
  • Here is a link to a page that explains all of this again in simple terms, in case anything I have said is unclear. (x)
  • While we’re discussing contracts, I might as well address the fact that a morality clause is typically used for the exact opposite reason that this fandom often assumes. A morality clause is meant to give either party the ability to terminate their contract if the other party does something that would cause legitimate outrage against general sensibility. For example, hate speech would be included under this clause; if a celebrity starts tweeting racist or sexist things, they might be in breech of a morality clause. It’s also used to keep younger stars from doing anything sexually explicit that might harm the brand, but as the contract debunking masterpost I linked to earlier points out, there is a huge difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. A morality clause can state that a celebrity cannot perform in pornography, pose nude for any magazines, appear nude in any film or play they happen to be performing, or be arrested for any sort of sexual offense, but it cannot state that they must hide their sexual orientation. Could a morality clause stop Harry and Louis making and selling their own porn? Absolutely. Could a morality clause stop Harry and Louis from publicly acknowledging their relationship? Absolutely not. Here is a link to an article that gives more information on morality clauses for entertainers, including some examples. (x

Moving on from contracts… do I think that Harry just happens to get a new girlfriend every winter and go skiing with her? Yep. I do. I honestly do not think that there is anything bizarre about a celebrity dating people during whatever downtime he is able to snatch up, and I don’t think it’s particularly bizarre that it seems like it happens on a schedule. Plenty of people like to be single during certain times of year, or in committed relationships at others. I also think that Harry doesn’t make much of a habit of confirming whether or not he actually considers people his girlfriends. He might date them casually. He might consider them just a friend with benefits. He might be polyamorous. I have no way of knowing exactly how he views this women who he dates. But I don’t think there’s anything strange about him going through periods of time where he’s dating one person somewhat more exclusively than at other times. I do, however, think it’s a bit strange that people cling to the concept of Harry only ever dating girls in the winter, when he’s actually spotted with various people constantly throughout the year, and the fanbase is very often ripshit about it. His bandmates were teasing him about Taylor long before they were papped together in late fall of 2012. He spent most of spring/summer 2012 hanging out with Nick Grimshaw, which led to a certain amount of relationship speculation and subsequent fandom demonization of Nick. There were multiple Harry and Kendall sitings last spring, and there was a definite uproar about that. So, it’s not like Harry is moping around alone all year, and then suddenly November rolls around, and management forces him to go out with the nearest tall, skinny person, and then he drops them as soon as the weather gets warm so that he can spend the rest of the year being entirely solo.