Not a lawfag, but have heard many times that non-competes don't hold up if challenged in court. Of course, that costs money.
Zuckerberg continues interfering in the election and funds Georgia run offs.
(Headline) Zuckerberg-Funded ‘Safe Elections’ Project Announces Grants for Georgia Senate Runoff Elections
(excerpt)
The Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) announced on Tuesday that it will provide additional “safe elections” grants to county election departments in Georgia in advance of the two U.S. Senate runoff elections that will be held on January 5, 2021.
With majority control of the U.S. Senate hanging in the balance, hundreds of millions of dollars are expected to be spent in the two runoff elections in Georgia between incumbent Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) and Democrat challenger Jon Ossoff, and incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) and Democrat challenger Raphael Warnock.
“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact American civic life, especially the administration of safe elections. And with the November 2020 general election nearly behind us, CTCL is focusing philanthropic support to directly help Georgia election offices lead a safe and secure runoff election in January 2021,” the CTCL said in a statement released on its website Tuesday morning.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/18/zuckerberg-funded-safe-elections-project-announces-grants-georgia-senate-runoff-elections/
Here the Secretary of State pretends to be "objective". This is the same Stacy Abrams that he entered into an illegal and unconstitutional agreement to change Georgia election laws signed in March 2020.
Might just be the Secretary of State of Georgia pretending to do an investigation in an effort to exonerate Stacy Abrams. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Just a reminder.
It's called spoliation of evidence.
Spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.[1] Spoliation has three possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration (if convicted in a separate criminal proceeding) for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions the act of spoliation can itself be an actionable tort.[2]
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence