> You were well aware that if I had gone to trial I would have gotten full exoneration. Instead, I sacrificed full exoneration for the sake of the Company’s IPO, and – more importantly – for you and for our shareholders.

So basically, here's a guy who is more than happy to be publicly branded as someone who assaults women in order to get a few more dollars.

Whether he's lying about the above or not, he sounds like an incredibly unpleasant and amoral person.

A negotiated guilty plea in California is required to be supported by an inquiry into the factual basis by the court of the defendant; Chahal's argument here would seem to necessarily be that he lied to the court out of a profit motive, and, on top of that, that the board somehow had certain knowledge of what the outcome of a criminal jury trial would have been.

Good luck with that...

Whatever happens in the courtroom, Chahal has lost already.

Boy, when it rains, it pours.

The thing that gives me pause when considering this story is that in many (most?) countries of this world, this guy's career would have been unscathed after a domestic abuse claim. More likely, he would never have been prosecuted to begin with.

I try not to let stuff like this get me upset, because you can never fix people. Now I just need to keep working on having a positive outlook while realizing that there are a ton of terrible people out there.

Of course, Chahal (and most terrible people) probably considers himself a good person. Raises the question as to how I can objectively make sure I'm a good person.

I'll start with not abusing women (or anybody) and treating people how I want to be treated.