and that would be a stop for me right there. Just my .02 cents. The customer cars I completely understand however the last statement I would write a counter offer with that omitted and see if they bite

 

It will be a stop for me too, unless it's omitted. I will be able to be part owner of this transmission shop l we've already got going. He just asked me again about becoming a 50/50 ownership. I can't pass that up. Way too much potential there.

EDIT: As soon as I posted this, her email came across. She said they do not consider the transmission shop to be a direct competitor to them, and therefore are fine with me continuing that.

 

Yea i don't blame you at all there. They are basically making you sign a non-compete

 

So... I made the comment yesterday that this AP guy seems to have a way of "escalating" things. I was looking at all of his videos, and I can't help but notice that there's an issue wherever he goes. I'm not the best at math, but I know a common denominator when I see one. What do you guys think? Is it staged? Is he provoking the attention? Just curious if you see this as fishy as well. I've filmed a few times in public for YT, and I've never been approached like he always seems to be.

He coins his channel as being a "travel" type channel.... I haven't watched a damn one of them that has much to do with the towns he's visiting.

https://www.youtube.com/@AmagansettPress/videos

 

He has a lot of videos with no issues, they are the short boring ones. lol

 

LOL.... I'll have to go look again. Must have to scroll further. A LOT further, because all I could see is "Angry Karen", "First Amendment this/that", "Arrested".

All of his first amendment vids have a "1A" in the corner. That's a lot....

 

All of his vids are 1st amendment videos.

He says he is filming a travel video to see people's reactions.
Some know the right to video in public, the ones that don't have an issue and get schooled.
If they call the police and the police inform them there are no laws being broken the PD gets kudos for doing things right.
If the police show up and harass them, they get the same attitude back that they give.

Watch some other 1st amendment video channels.
There are some real jerks out there.

Jason and Ben seem pretty chill compared to most of them.

We had some come to our town and they were.......^**%^@#&#%& @)%&*

Here is an edited version to make the PD look bad.
It does not show the idiots filming into the windows of cars, VIN #'s, and license plates.
Or how they called the people names when they asked what they were doing by the vehicle.

The sole purpose was to get the cops called on them and make a scene to **** the cops off and have them overreact.

The officer was suspended and eventually let go.

I will try and find the entire video, but the guy has been arrested that was harassing the police.
He might have shut the channel down.

The Sgt. in the video happened to be the internet officer for the dept.
He was posting multiple times a week on social media and never had any problems with anyone until these jerks showed up and antagonized him.

 

White, Now that is really cool! I was reading through the posts and found myself really hoping this would be the case. I would definitely save that email for posterity... just in case.

 

As I/we are not close to the problem, some (2 main) things jump out;
1) You look at the gain/loss of this deal VERSUS a continued working relationship with Ron. $ & "¢."
2) You be up front and explain the work w Ron, the "moonlighting," is that only IFF (math-speak for, "If and ONLY if,") it is a "regular job." (You can have a question for them, up your sleeve," ~"Do you define moonlighting as above 20 hrs per week, or what?"
3) You agree to the non-competitive nature, of course. Ron can do that, source that himself, 100% TOTALLY.
4) And probably talk to Ron once you've crunched the numbers.
5) Lastly, if they OR Ron were to ever separate from you, how is your fallback position?
6) A cheap BUSINESS lawyer, used to looking for scapegoats and loopholes, with your above derived information, could offer an opinion and maybe catch something we've missed.

 

​​​​​​
As the trans shop is not viewed as a direct competitor, I view the non-competition as, ~ "During the working relationship, and maybe 2-weeks notice."

IF you were a direct competitor, 7 years is typical. But if not stated, they could uselessly haul you to court, if they are inveterates or have a money-grubbing attorney, to claim that when no limit is stated, it is indefinite, in perpetuity.

I took a mere one class in business contract/performance law for general contractors and had a knack for it, but that in no way qualifies me in this. I just read and discern legal intent well.

Have you ever seen a great guy hired, at good pay, then when co-workers learn and speed up from management pressure to equal the speed and quality of a new employee, he is let go... " no longer needed," or to rein in other employees dreams, "overpriced."

It's human nature to WANT to trust, especially w baubles are dangled. This is where I want my choice of a "third party" with me for big purchases, despite me having a very detailed list and checking it off. We miss stuff. They ought not mind taking "a suit" with you. You're a wrench. He's a basic simple business contract lawyer... like the one who wrote up your general non-competitive contract. (They will never forget that you brought one. Respect issue.)