Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26481
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1351

Post by Foggy » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:07 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:05 pm
Too also, the LLC has a remedy in equity: unjust enrichment. (It would be inequitable to let Clifford keep the money for nothing.
Well IMHO based on the facts, and without discussing the law at all, it sure looks to me like somebody is going to be unjustly enriched, no matter what.

I'm gonna assume that there's a good chance that if the entire final two weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign were focused on Stormy Daniels and her story about screwing one of the candidates who was cheating on his wife shortly after his wife delivered a baby son to the candidate, instead of the final two weeks being devoted to the other candidate's emails that were found on a laptop belonging to a guy who liked to show pictures of his penis to young ladies, it might have been enough to make the outcome of the election different from what actually happened. In short, Trump might have lost if my gal Stormy had run around flappin' her gums on the Tee Vee those last two weeks.

And as we all know, Trump has been looting the US Treasury since the day he took office, to the tune of a hell of a lot more than $130,000. As between the lying bastard sociopathic crook and the lady who gets paid to take off her clothes, I'd say that even if she gets to keep every nickel, he was WAY WAY WAY more unjustly enriched than she will be.

And as we also know, Cohen was already more than compensated for the money. He got repaid more than $130,000. And unless he plans to return anything he gets from Stormy to Trump - and fat chance of that, given the current situation between the bad lawyer and the bad client - if she repays $130,000 to Cohen, then he will be unjustly enriched in that amount, free and clear.

And I have a very strong opinion, assuming one of these three people will be unjustly enriched, which one it should be. One of them got nekkid with the disgusting greasy old crook. There isn't enough unjust enrichment in the world to make her whole.

But that's not legal analysis. I'm just snarkin' and barkin'. :-


Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1352

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:38 pm

Foggy wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:07 pm
bob wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:05 pm
Too also, the LLC has a remedy in equity: unjust enrichment. (It would be inequitable to let Clifford keep the money for nothing.
I'm gonna assume that there's a good chance that if the entire final two weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign were focused on Stormy Daniels and her story about screwing one of the candidates who was cheating on his wife shortly after his wife delivered a baby son to the candidate, instead of the final two weeks being devoted to the other candidate's emails that were found on a laptop belonging to a guy who liked to show pictures of his penis to young ladies, it might have been enough to make the outcome of the election different from what actually happened. In short, Trump might have lost if my gal Stormy had run around flappin' her gums on the Tee Vee those last two weeks.
As far as I can tell, the only thing keeping Stormy from telling her story during that very two week period was Stormy's decision to pocket $130,000 instead of telling the voters what happened.

And I will never understand why some people seem so determined to make her the hero in all this. As far as I can tell, that whole sordid affair has no heroes.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24431
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1353

Post by bob » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:06 pm

Bluster aside, Clifford's response makes two decent points:
1. The primary benefit of the bargain (i.e., silence before the election) was received and enjoyed;
2. Clifford is entitled to attorney fees under the contract (that she argues is void).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26481
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1354

Post by Foggy » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:17 pm

No.

Saying that I have the least objection to her being unjustly enriched as among her, Cohen the thug, and Trump the crook, is not in any conceivable manner the same as saying she's a "hero". That's a ludicrous and very unfair characterization of what I'm saying.

Honestly, since you seem to be arguing that one of the other two is more deserving of being additionally unjustly enriched, does that mean one of them is a "hero"? Ludicrous.

They're all tawdry characters and the whole thing is a disgustingly immoral situation. My hero is President Obama. He never came near being caught up in a situation like this.


Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1355

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:19 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:06 pm
Bluster aside, Clifford's response makes two decent points:
1. The primary benefit of the bargain (i.e., silence before the election) was received and enjoyed;
2. Clifford is entitled to attorney fees under the contract (that she argues is void).
Neither of these points were made in the complaint.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1356

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:26 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:05 pm
Too also, the LLC has a remedy in equity: unjust enrichment. (It would be inequitable to let Clifford keep the money for nothing.)
:thumbs: Thanks bob, that answers my query about what happens when a party acts on an agreement later deemed not to be a valid contract.

:-D You can return to reading your ceazy ladies' websites now; Sharon and Orly need your attention! :-D



User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1392
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1357

Post by much ado » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:31 pm

Foggy wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:17 pm
No.

Saying that I have the least objection to her being unjustly enriched as among her, Cohen the thug, and Trump the crook, is not in any conceivable manner the same as saying she's a "hero". That's a ludicrous and very unfair characterization of what I'm saying.

Honestly, since you seem to be arguing that one of the other two is more deserving of being additionally unjustly enriched, does that mean one of them is a "hero"? Ludicrous.

They're all tawdry characters and the whole thing is a disgustingly immoral situation. My hero is President Obama. He never came near being caught up in a situation like this.
:yeah: This is the equivalent of a mud wrestling match. Trump is such a repugnant person that I appreciate the efforts of anyone who can come close to making him look as bad as he actually is, even if they are also covered in mud.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1358

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:50 pm

Off Topic
Completely off-topic, it's delightful to see Foggy using the word "meretricious" with its mellifluous cadence and deceptive similarity to "meritorious". And so apposite: I assume Foggy, a with-it hip kinda dude, was primarily employing "meretricious" in its modern sense ("tawdrily and falsely attractive" according to Merriam-Webster) but its older sense comes more directly from the Latin word "meretrix" (a prostitute) so meshes precisely with this sordid affair's arguments about payments in relation to sexual activities.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there was any element of actual prostitution in the events under discussion. Nevertheless, it is about money and sex.



NMgirl
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1359

Post by NMgirl » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:13 pm

Filings coming hot and heavy (and Harder) today!
Reply in Support of Special Motion of Defendant DJT to Dismiss/Strike Complaint Pursuant to Anti-Slapp Statute or, Alternatively to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)
[Phew! Had to memorize that because it wouldn't c/p.]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... lated.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1360

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:15 pm

Unjust enrichment? In Clifford’s circles, that’s just being a player.

When you’re the President, that’s called emolument. Trump is doing precisely what the Founders proscribed— blatantly, constantly, conspicuously— and his Party is betraying the Constitution by letting him do it.

High crimes. Misdemeanors. And everything in between.

It is many times more damnable than anything “Stormy” could ever do.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1361

Post by woodworker » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:34 pm

Does anyone have Anti-SLAPP motion handy and can repost. TIA.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1362

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:39 pm

woodworker wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:34 pm
Does anyone have Anti-SLAPP motion handy and can repost. TIA.
Here's the link to the RECAP docket. Don't remember offhand which filing is the anti-SLAPP, and a bit tied up right now.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... d-j-trump/


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

NMgirl
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1363

Post by NMgirl » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:33 am

Defendant Donald J. Trump's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement Regarding Joint rule 26(f) Report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ponse.html


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1364

Post by Reality Check » Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:09 am

NMgirl wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:33 am
Defendant Donald J. Trump's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement Regarding Joint rule 26(f) Report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ponse.html
Unfortunately, Donald J. Trump, aka David Dennison, continues to have the best legal representation in this fiasco.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7581
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1365

Post by Flatpointhigh » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:06 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:09 am
NMgirl wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:33 am
Defendant Donald J. Trump's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement Regarding Joint rule 26(f) Report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ponse.html
Unfortunately, Donald J. Trump, aka David Dennison, continues to have the best legal representation in this fiasco.
Harder and Stonerock?????



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15766
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1366

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:12 am

1. INSIDE BOWSER’S TROUSERS
2 hours ago
Trump’s Penis Looks Like Toad From Mario Kart, Says Stormy Daniels
Reuters / Mike Blake

Ever since Stormy Daniels said she was writing a tell-all book, there has been feverish anticipation about what dirt she’d reveal about Donald Trump—but it’s safe to say no one predicted this. According to a copy obtained by The Guardian, the book gives excruciating detail of her alleged affair with Trump, including one nightmarish image in which she compares the president’s penis to Toad—the incredibly annoying mushroom character from Mario. “He knows he has an unusual penis,” Daniels writes in a book fittingly titled Full Disclosure. “It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool… I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart... It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.” So, now you know
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-pe ... my-daniels

Image

:sick:


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1367

Post by tek » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:15 am

wow, I didn't need to read THAT.. :sick:


Digging the snow and the rain and the bright sunshine.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9355
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1368

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:49 am

tek wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:15 am
wow, I didn't need to read THAT.. :sick:
Nobody did.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14604
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1369

Post by ZekeB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:57 am

Normally I could care less about the woman's past when I'm going with someone. But if I knew she had been close to his trousers I'd call a cab for her and quickly make my departure.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

User avatar
Lani
Posts: 3827
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1370

Post by Lani » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:02 am

When Daniels began her lawsuit, I thought her case might have traction to it. But apparently she had a brief encounter with an unimpressive penis.

Who amongst us hasn't? Oops. :bag: :smoking:


Insert signature here: ____________________________________________________

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10408
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1371

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:05 am

That'll leave a mark. :rotflmao:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5004
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1372

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:05 am

Damn!
I've been to two Comicons dressed as Toad.
DAMN!


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1373

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:12 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:05 am
Damn!
I've been to two Comicons dressed as Toad.
DAMN!
Next time, put on a MAGA hat, paint your face orange*, and go as Donald Trump's Mini Mushroom.

* or another color :(



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15766
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1374

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:15 am

Well I'm sure you stuck to the true dignity of the character.



Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5004
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels v Donald J. Trump aka David Dennison, U.S. District Court, Central California

#1375

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:42 am

Suranis wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:15 am
Well I'm sure you stuck to the true dignity of the character.

I hope so. I envisioned my Toad as a 60+ yo lady.

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


ImageImageImage x4

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”