[ad_1]
[ad_2]
https://bullenweg.com/#lawyer-in-those-other-lawsuits-responds
While I would like to respond in detail to the false and self-serving statements made by Mr. Mullenweg, I believe that it is the better practice to not comment on a case that is in active litigation. Because his comments were made online, I do feel compelled to state that I stand by all the allegations set forth in the Complaints filed on behalf of each of these women. I do not file spurious complaints, nor do I “recruit” clients. The complaints were not sent to the press, nor are any of the allegations contained therein exaggerated. Last, Mr. Mullenweg’s claim that he was told by me that unless he paid a specific sum of money, the Complaints would be filed, is also false.
Regardless of how you feel it feels gross to me to drag these women and what they went through into the spotlight to use as fodder to attack Matt with. These women haven’t spoken publicly about their lawsuits yet and haven’t had the chance to speak for themselves. It feels callous to me to continue talking about them at this point.
I fully agree with the not commenting on active litigation.
This needs to go through the court system. Perfect example is the one sided biased posts, from both sides.
Imagine a bus load of lawyers driving off a cliff and there’s an empty seat. What a travesty that would be.
Hey Matt, everyone isn’t so ham-handed as you. There are ways to negotiate other than issuing ultimatums. But like so many tech-bro millionaires, you’re generally an asshole.
It is insane that stuff about this lawsuit is showing up in organizations’ WordPress admin dashboards. Elon Musk Twitter 2.0 level of degradation
truly open sores-\ 2 of my plugins have worked around wp’s blockages
Where did she respond? Just curious for the source because I don’t it linked anywhere
Mullenwanker have gone overboard fighting thes cases: [https://casetext.com/case/attayeb-v-mullenweg](https://casetext.com/case/attayeb-v-mullenweg) with dribble.
*Appellants raised more than 50 objections to Weber’s declaration below. But their opening brief fails to identify which implicit rulings they challenge on appeal. They also fail to cite any authority in support of their evidentiary argument.*