Human Reality v. Legal Theory

NDAs

NDAs and secrecy laws are routinely disrespected.

For the basis of developing these concepts, your dutiful author, and several associates, each cites decades of previous experience as decision-makers in matters of strategy—spending decades in various specific matters of secrecy, coordinating with executives, world leaders, principal lawyers, and international financiers.

NDAs are routinely obtained, and can be particularly prudent from domestic companies of substantial domestic assets, and from sophisticated professionals who would be reasonably subject to effective enforcement. Blanket NDAs also are routinely used as part of a blanket culture among employees and independent contractors. However, from a non-legal psychological perspective, they can be counter-productive with unsophisticated individuals, based on the multiple effects of telling someone that something is a secret.

Therefore, basic tradecraft of any sane intelligence officer or contractor anywhere in the world is simply to avoid exposing sensitive information, maintaining boring levels of information and inconsistent methods. As an example, the wife of an associate of our group had no idea that he was even a US government employee—not an international salesman—until a federal judge released information under the Freedom of Information Act (many years later, the massive fallout of which led to the creation of Dignitary Discretion). US law and internal policies now enable spouses to be aware of particular officer careers, but there is a consensus among a microsample that maintaining the necessary rigors is not particularly difficult with sufficient focus and compartmentalization, and anyone who would not anticipate that they could maintain such tight compartmentalization would probably not be fruitful with long-term services from us. Instead, only spiritual and moral considerations of that example should be relevant, not the extraordinary personal strength, applied to instantaneous and endlessly extensive mental analyses of myriad competencies, to be successful at it.

Low-level officials and previously unscathed managers often rely on their introductory knowledge of NDAs and statutory laws. Monochromatic idealism of what others can and cannot do is often different from what others will actually do…and then what they will falsely accuse dehumanized leaders of doing.

Seasoned lawyers and executives often have contrasting attitudes. From a legal perspective, your lawyer—after considering your particular circumstances—could opine that enforcing an NDA without bulletproof evidence is statistically difficult, and that full recovery of all indirectly serious or catastrophic damages from most types of defendants would be so rare that critical sensitivities should not be exposed based on the presumption of being able to recover damages from a defaulted NDA. Of course, every situation is unique, with a variety of variables, which must be counseled by your lawyer.

Actual Injustice and Popular Unsophistication

Real-World Risks to Good Leaders

Lost in Quicksand

Serious complications arise when relatively sophisticated and just countries simply rubber-stamp the extradition or civil decisions of dishonest ones. One of countless examples includes a textbook case that involves innocence that was absolutely proven by determined family members, but not until after catastrophe had already irreversibly occurred.

Ambiguous and Conflicting Laws

Among different countries and regions therein, serious conflicts and ambiguities in commercial and tax laws create impossible quandaries for ethical business with operations that are relevantly complex or novel. Associated individuals inevitably incur unjust accusations relating to taxes or securities, by self-serving, simple-minded bureaucrats and prejudicially superficial apathy throughout most countries.

Self-Defense Effectively Disabled

Relevance for Rightful Security with Honorable Prosperity

An increasingly popular technique by prosecutors and regulators is the effective disabling of targets from defense in litigation.  Many of the techniques are too complex and vague for public recognition, and some of these techniques are limited to relatively small numbers of corporate principals, ultra-high net-worth individual (UHNWI) taxpayers, and institutional investors each year.

As with all circumstances of which we are generally sympathetic, our only concerns pertain to peaceful, morally oriented parties with truly honorable intentions.  If the world could be free from malicious cheats, supporters of hostiles, and other malevolent criminals throughout the world, most of these wrongfully applied techniques would not exist.  The reality is that good people must now provide sufficient protections to enable their ability to defend honor and truth.  At this level, prosecutions are often sophisticated, focally targeted, backed by relatively colossal resources, and relentlessly motivated; therefore, contrary to mass-populace perceptions, there is no delusion of everlasting impenetrability, but instead merely a prudence to maintain sufficient time and resources to achieve rightful vindication.

Most people are naïve about the risk of being disabled from prosecution, with oversimplified reliance on Constitutionality and overgeneralized presumptions of ethical officials.  Prior to Dignitary Discretion, each of our founding principals--each of  whom had previously either been an internationally respected lawyer or had teams of full-time high-powered lawyers--themselves learned these hard lessons.

To avoid various complications of delving into laws and cases of the US, here is an example of a case that involved Switzerland.  It occurred during the recent history when ethically oriented family offices, bankers, and attorneys generally regarded it as a sanctuary from malicious business/financial prosecution.  The lesson is analogous in considering what you perhaps now consider to be a reliable resource for the lawful protection of morally rightful--but internationally coveted--prosperity.

Disturbingly Commonplace Case Study

We know of an international businessman who, despite his ethical business habits, was targeted by corrupt administrators in another country. He was arrested in Switzerland, had all of his corporate and personal assets frozen around the world, and is now penniless, serving life in prison. As is commonly lamented by those who naively accept statutes and ethical practices as being reasonably dependable, he thought that his freedom and assets were reasonably secure, being diversified in stable and comparatively just countries. He did not sufficiently take defensive cover when the corrupt administrators began their legal poking, and did not buy himself the time to organize his legal fight. He left his defenses insufficiently secret, exposing opportunities for exploitation by his adversaries and preventing himself from having the resources of time, money, and freedom to be effective in exposing the falsity of the accusations until after he had been extradited, with no money for legal costs.