Project Veritas Seeks Injunction Against James O’Keefe and O’Keefe Media Group In Newly-Filed Lawsuit

Project Veritas Seeks Injunction Against James O’Keefe and O’Keefe Media Group In Newly-Filed Lawsuit

We have previously covered the dispute between Project Veritas and its founder James O’Keefe:

• James O’Keefe Out at Project Veritas, Updated with Video
• “I don’t build to have donors, I have donors to build”
• Project Veritas To Conduct “Two-Dimensional” Audit Of James O’Keefe Expenses Looking For Problems
• VIDEO: “We, the Whistleblowers of Project Veritas stand with James O’Keefe”
• ‘I’m Back’: James O’Keefe Launches New Media Company After Project Veritas Ouster

Earlier today Project Veritas sued O’Keefe seeking to enforce restrictive covenants in O’Keefe’s employment agreement, effectively seeking to shut down O’Keefe’s new media operation.

From the opening paragaraph of the Complaint (full embed at bottom of this post)

Being known as the founder of an organization does not entitle that person to run amok and put his own interests ahead of that organization. Defendant James O’Keefe (“O’Keefe”) failed in his duties to Plaintiff, Project Veritas, causing it serious and significant damage. O’Keefe must be held accountable, as must the organization O’Keefe created, Defendant Transparency 1, LLC d/b/a O’Keefe Media Group (“OMG”) for suborning his violations. Similarly, two individuals formerly affiliated with Plaintiffs, Defendants RC Maxwell (“Maxwell”) and Anthony Iatropoulos (“Iatropoulos”) breached their own contracts with Plaintiffs for the benefit of OMG. Plaintiffs Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund (together “Project Veritas” or “Plaintiffs”) by their attorneys, allege as follows:

The Complaint goes on to allege that O’Keefe breached, among other things, his contractual duties to devote his full time and efforts to Project Veritas, to keep information confidential, not to disparage Project Veritas, not to solicit employees and donors, and not to compete.

There also is alleged misconduct on the job, allegations that were leaked and/or asserted previously:

30. For instance, Project Veritas’s Board of Directors (“Board”) heard allegations that O’Keefe routinely behaved unprofessionally during team meetings, including by screaming at coworkers and belittling them and their contributions to Project Veritas.
31. O’Keefe was alleged to have particularly targeted female employees with meanspirited comments about their lack of contributions to the companies and inappropriate comments about personal situations like pregnancies.
32. Employees alleged that O’Keefe had strained relationships with several donors because he was routinely late for meetings and rude at VIP events designed to give donors extra access to O’Keefe.
33. O’Keefe also routinely was late for work meetings or canceled them at the last minute. According to the allegations, O’Keefe exhibited a general lack of respect for employees and his team.
34. Other employees alleged that they personally had observed obscene messages between O’Keefe and various women on social media applications when accessing O’Keefe’s phone for work-related matters.
35. The Board also learned of O’Keefe’s alleged financial misconduct.
36. Multiple employees alleged that O’Keefe used Project Veritas employees to run personal errands for him. These errands included picking up O’Keefe’s laundry, cleaning his boat, repairing his boat, and doing other similar errands for O’Keefe.
37. O’Keefe also allegedly used his Project Veritas credit card for some personal expenses, and directed Project Veritas funds to be used for lavish expenses and, in some instances, his personal benefit:

a. Directing the organization to pay more than $10,000 for a helicopter flight from New York to Maine without a clear benefit to Project Veritas;
b. Directing the organization to pay for first-class air travel for O’Keefe even where the flight did not satisfy the organization’s policy for approving firstclass flights;
c. Using his Project Veritas credit card for expensive hotel rooms and suites at luxury hotels without clear business purpose, when other employees on the same trips were required to stay in budget accommodations;
d. Directing the organization to pay for expenses associated with large organizational awareness events like the Project Veritas Experience, without engaging in any analysis to help the organization understand the potential return on investment or capitalize on the connections made through these events; and
e. Causing the organization to pay for his regular use of private car services (“black cars”), even to go relatively short distances in and around Manhattan and then wait outside of restaurants for hours, at a total expense of more than $150,000 over the past 18 months.

The relief sought is an injunction:

114. As a direct and proximate result of O’Keefe’s foregoing breaches of contract, Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed, and they are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining O’Keefe from: (1) disparaging Plaintiffs in violation of the nondisparagement provision of the Employment Agreement; (2) contacting or soliciting Plaintiffs’ donors in violation of the non-solicitation of donors provision of the Employment Agreement; (3) contacting or soliciting Plaintiffs’ employees or contractors in violation of the Agreement’s nonsolicitation of employees provision; (4) obtaining, using or disclosing any of Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information (as defined in the Employment Agreement) in violation of the Employment Agreement’s provisions regarding Confidential Information; and (5) keeping and failing to return any and all property belonging to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs to obtain such injunctive relief.

***

187. As a direct and proximate result of O’Keefe’s foregoing breaches of contract, intentionally and improperly procured by OMG, Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed, and they are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining OMG from: (1) disparaging Plaintiffs, through O’Keefe and/or based on information provided by him, in violation of the nondisparagement provision of the Employment Agreement; (2) contacting or soliciting Plaintiffs’ donors in violation of the non-solicitation of donors provision of the Employment Agreement, through O’Keefe and/or based on information provided by him; (3) contacting or soliciting Plaintiffs’ employees or contractors in violation of the Agreement’s non-solicitation of employees provision, through O’Keefe and/or based on information provided by him; (4) obtaining, using or disclosing any of Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information (as defined in the Employment Agreement) in violation of the Employment Agreement’s provisions regarding Confidential Information, through O’Keefe and/or based on information provided by him; and (5) keeping and failing to return any and all property belonging to Plaintiffs, through O’Keefe, and Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs to obtain such injunctive relief.

Among the demands for relief:

g) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining O’Keefe and OMG (through O’Keefe and/or based on information from O’Keefe) from:
i. Soliciting or contacting Plaintiffs’ donors, employees or contractors;
ii. Disparaging Plaintiffs;
iii. Obtaining, using or disclosing Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information; and
iv. Keeping and failing to return Plaintiffs’ property;

As of this writing, the PACER electronic court docket does not reflect an actual motion for injunction being filed.

This strikes me as a futile act of desperation. O’Keefe was Project Veritas in the minds of the public and donors. You can’t salvage the business by attacking him, or suing him.

Please tune into @Timcast show tonight.

I’ll be making some major announcements. #OMG

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) May 31, 2023

This is a developing story and will be updated.

A Project Veritas sockpuppet account doesn’t understand that PV has even further damaged its business by the lawsuit even if the lawsuit had merit. You aren’t going to win back donors and supporters by suing James. You “might” be able to stop James from soliciting donors, but you can’t make the donors donate to you. You will just drive them further away, and your business further into the ground. Someone gave PV some very bad business advice, unless the situation is so desperate and they are going down so fast they figured they had nothing to lose.

.@BadLegalTakes anyone want to brief @LegInsurrection on nonprofit law? How many felonies is JOK potentially on the hook for here?

— Simon Templar (@SimonTemplarPV) June 1, 2023

——————————

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.