Trump v. Clinton (S.D. Fla., 2:22cv-14102)

[Flatpoint High]

If we assume that this request is granted, who ponies up the amount?

Does the plaintiff, or does the lawyer who drafted the complaint, even though the lawyer knows it is a pile of poop or promoted it? And how are the funds transferred from the plaintiff to the respondent? If they remain unpaid, can the respondent attach liens to real property or garnish wages, and can these be discharged in bankruptcy?

the RNC? They've been footing his legal bills

[bob]

the RNC? They've been footing his legal bills

These sanctions are directed only at the attorneys, and not the client.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if some PAC attempted to cover them.

[Gregg]

Even for the possible 30 other defendants with an equal claim?

[bob]

Even for the possible 30 other defendants with an equal claim?

While the judge took the time to slam the pleadings' bogus legal claims, it also devoted a healthy chunk to this defendant's (Dolan) claims about factual recitations specific only to him, as well as his attempts to correct those misrepresentations. So that might not be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Too also: Rule 11 generally requires notice before seeking sanctions, to permit the offending party to correct. I haven't been following this case closely enough to know whether any of the other defendants had sent the required nastygram.

[humblescribe]

the RNC? They've been footing his legal bills

These sanctions are directed only at the attorneys, and not the client.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if some PAC attempted to cover them.

Let's stipulate* that this is correct. (Notice how I slipped in a fancy legal term of art?)

How can sanctions purport to be of corrective action if they are underwritten by someone else? How do they act as a deterrent for future behavior? This just seems to be window dressing if bad actors can get third parties with deep pockets to pay for their malign deeds. No, ya gotta hit 'em in the nards so they never do it again. State bars need to have some enforcement mechanisms with teeth against these types of lawyers. And I mean something like six-twelve months suspensions of their licenses and then a probationary period after. Let their clients scramble to find suitable replacements during the suspension period. Tough cookies if you hire sketchy counsel.

(In the alternative, a four-week stay in the pillory would suffice too also.)

* stipulate has always been a fascinating word to me. Our etymological friends tell us that stipulate is a back-formation of the word stipulation. (In other words, the noun form, stipulation, meaning a bargain or agreement, came first, then people decided to make an intransitive verb from the noun.) Latin gave us the stipulatus, past participle of stipulari (exacting a promise.)

It gets interesting because the Latin word for straw is stipula. Those who like botany know of stipules, those small leaflets that are anchored beside the petiole at the nodes. Peaches and nectarines have stipules. There is not a clear line from straw to agreement or bargain, but some suggest that the offering of a straw was a measure of good faith once upon a time.

Anyway, I digressed (apologies) but think that it is neat that the botanists and legal types started with the same basic Latin word and branched into two completely different trains of thought.

[Gregg]

I'm willing to accept temporary or permanent disbarment.

But that is my second choice, after the I assume not on the table keelhauling on an aircraft carrier during air operations. You would never think one of those boats would go that fast.

[PaulG]

I wonder if it overlaps with the use of tally sticks in medieval times to record debts. I heard about this on a program called "50 Things That Made the Modern Economy"

The stick would contain a record of the debt, for example: "£9 4s 4d from Fulk Basset for the farm of Wycombe". Fulk Basset was a Bishop of London in the 13th Century. He owed his debt to King Henry III.

Now comes the elegant part.

The stick would be split in half, down its length from one end to the other. The debtor would retain half, called the "foil". The creditor would retain the other half, called the "stock" - even today, British bankers use the word "stocks" to refer to debts of the British government.

Because willow has a natural and distinctive grain, the two halves would match only each other.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40189959

[Slim Cognito]

I just want to hit him hard in the nards.

That is all.

[Ben-Prime]

I just want to hit him hard in the nards.

That is all.

As Cheech and Chong said on their first comedy album (and a friend of mine stole a few years later for a courtroom parody scene) "Bailiff, whack his pee pee!"

[jcolvin2]

the RNC? They've been footing his legal bills

These sanctions are directed only at the attorneys, and not the client.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if some PAC attempted to cover them.

Given the statements in the opinion on sanctions about the courts not being a place for political theater, if there was ever a judge that might take umbrage at a PAC paying the sanctions (and possibly endeavor to figure out some way to defeat it), this might be the one.

[Foggy]

I agree with you, jcolvin2, but I don't know how the judge would determine the ultimate source of the money.

[bob]

I don't think a PAC would roll into the courthouse with bags of money.

I think a PAC would give the firm a large "retainer," and then never draw down on it.

[Foggy]

A lawyer once told me how to bribe a judge in Florida.

You take her golfing, and bet $5,000 (or whatever) on you making a putt on the fifth green, and then you deliberately flub the putt, oh well, but a bet is a bet, so sorry.

Have I mentioned I have a case coming up in your court, Judge?

But here, the judge would have to look at the name on the check, like the Habba law firm, and find out the source of any recent deposits to that account, and then whether there was any other malarkey behind those deposits, and I suspect it's kind of a rabbit hole, especially in Florida.

[Dr. Caligari]

If we assume that this request is granted, who ponies up the amount?

Does the plaintiff, or does the lawyer who drafted the complaint, even though the lawyer knows it is a pile of poop or promoted it?

The judge can sanction the attorney, the client, or both.

And how are the funds transferred from the plaintiff to the respondent? If they remain unpaid, can the respondent attach liens to real property or garnish wages,

If the lawyer is sanctioned, the judge will just order the lawyer to pay on pain of contempt. If the client is sanctioned, the court will enter a judgment which is collectible like other judgments (which yes, can include liens and garnishments).

and can these be discharged in bankruptcy?

IIRC, the Ninth Circuit has held that sanctions are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, because they're analogous to criminal fines. I don't think other Circuits have decided the issue, but I could be wrong.

[bob]

S.D. Fla:

This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.

Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm.

* * *

Plaintiff Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.

[Greatgrey]

S.D. Fla:

This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.

Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm.

* * *

Plaintiff Donald J. Trump and Plaintiff’s lead attorney—Alina Habba and Habba Madaio & Associates—are jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39.

Gotta love it. Full ruling -> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .302.0.pdf

For scale, that’s 46.89 times what Orly got sanctioned.

3E7FE676-EAEB-4F31-B416-868E736DDF28.jpeg (108.01 KiB) Viewed 1332 times

[RTH10260]

It starts to add up when one uses the Who-Is-Who as directory to file a frivilous law suit

[keith]

Wait a minute...

This has only been running for less than a year, hasn't it?

Isn't there another 4 or 5 years of appeals to go yet?

Why is everyone getting all triumphant and high-fivey already?

[much ado]

Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?

[p0rtia]

Wait a minute...

This has only been running for less than a year, hasn't it?

Isn't there another 4 or 5 years of appeals to go yet?

Why is everyone getting all triumphant and high-fivey already?

Because a fucking judge spoke truth and called this ongoing destructive shit out.

[pipistrelle]

Looked him up. A Clinton-appointed judge. Know it's not relevant but still chuckled.

[bob]

Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?

Potentially, yes; if the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* * *

Because a fucking judge spoke truth and called this ongoing destructive shit out.

Too also: Even if an appellate affirmance is years away, it is always better to be the winning party.

Making the other side argue that the sanctions were unwarranted and excessive always is better than you arguing the lower court erred by not awarding sanctions.

[Greatgrey]

Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?

Potentially, yes; if the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* * *

Because a fucking judge spoke truth and called this ongoing destructive shit out.

Too also: Even if an appellate affirmance is years away, it is always better to be the winning party.

Making the other side argue that the sanctions were unwarranted and excessive always is better than you arguing the lower court erred by not awarding sanctions.

“Sanctions must never be hollow gestures: their bite must be real.” Martin v. Automobile Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F. 3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 2002). But for the bite to be real it must be an amount a person can pay. Id. I believe the monetary sanctions imposed here are well within Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s lawyer ability to pay, and therefore I have not thought it necessary to conduct an intrusive inquiry into their finances. However, should Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s lawyer (and law firm) believe that the amount would seriously jeopardize their financial status, see, e.g., Baker v Alderman, 158 F. 3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998), that individual or firm should file within ten (10) days of this Order, under seal, a verified statement of net worth which includes assets and liabilities. In the event of such a filing, the obligation of that individual or law firm will be tolled until further order of the Court.

7B5FD614-6714-4DC3-9990-B5EA9BA6896E.jpeg (300.95 KiB) Viewed 1265 times

[Gregg]

... individual or firm should file within ten (10) days of this Order, under seal, a verified statement of net worth which includes assets and liabilities.

Oh, the irony. Karma is a magnificent bitch, ain't she?

Trump will drive himself nuts trying to figure out whether to risk giving up financial records for the slight possibility of not having to pay near a million dollars. Not to mention that fighting the award might not only run up the possible sanction, but even if he wins might cost him as much.

[raison de arizona]

Couple of my favorites.

The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start. They were identified
by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump persisted anyway.

Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,” Plaintiff’s counsel filed
the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177). The Amended Complaint failed to cure any
of the defects. See DE 267, Order of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added
eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims.

Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was
completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an
improper purpose. Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the
courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the
judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He
knew full well the impact of his actions. See Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1121. As such, I find that sanctions
should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. Habba.