[kelsey98765431]

The word "found" implies judicial discovery of truth through due process. This was a settlement. Nobody was found to be at fault, the information was highly dangerous and therefore valuable, if you want to eliminate the market of buying silence reform due process protections so they cannot be subverted by so called plea "deals" and so called settlement "agreements".

[axus]

If I read that right, Lochridge was not compensated for silence at all, he paid them $10,000 ?

[marcosdumay]

That's not right.

"Settlement" does really say a judge oversaw the entire thing while a corporation bullied somebody working for the public interest into silence.

[twh270]

The lawsuit was settled out of court (https://www.wsbradio.com/news/national/documents-detail/VUTB...). Reading between the lines, I'm guessing OceanGate (a company with substantial financial resources) would have buried Lochbridge (an individual with substantially fewer financial resources) in lawsuits if he had not settled. (Not to mention the stress, hardship, and real-or-perceived threat of jail time for Lochbridge, should the court find him to be guilty.)

If you're implying that the judge was somehow complicit in helping OceanGate ('oversaw', meaning presided over and made decisions concerning), then please provide evidence of that?

[marcosdumay]

> OceanGate would have buried Lochbridge in lawsuits

So it's not a single judge, but the Judiciary Power collectively was absolutely complicit on the deed.