trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[raison de arizona]

[somerset]

Transfer to California? Do I read the fiery writing on the wall as SLAPP

IANAL, but my guess is the primary reason for the venue clause in the TOS is to keep any litigation as "close to home" as possible. If nothing else, it saves on travel costs for your legal team, and it's always desirable to litigate in a court you're familiar with. I think SLAPP actions would be icing on the cake here.

[Kendra]

https://thedeskofdonaldtrump.com/the-re ... ember-3rd/

https://thedeskofdonaldtrump.com/the-re ... ember-3rd/

The real insurrection happened on November 3rd
Statements by Donald J. Trump
“The Unselect Committee of partisan Democrats, and two very weak and pathetic RINOs, should come to the conclusion after spending many millions of dollars, that the real insurrection happened on November 3rd, the Presidential Election, not on January 6th—which was a day of protesting the Fake Election results.”

By Donald J. Trump

[johnpcapitalist]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Loomer v. Facebook gets a cite!

You beat me to it! I was just noticing this. Apparently, filing a ton of shitty lawsuits creates tons of easy-to-find precedents making it easier to throw out new shitty law suits as fast as they are filed. Who would have imagined such a thing?

[bob]

I think SLAPP actions would be icing on the cake here.

If the plaintiffs (or, more accurately, their attorneys) were smart, they'd read the handwriting and dismiss. But they aren't, so they probably won't.

Plaintiffs assert that “[a]t all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff [Trump] was the sitting President of the United States, and used his social media accounts and YouTube’s services in that capacity as a public forum.” Resp. at 4. Yet, that is plainly not the case because Plaintiff Trump agreed to the TOS in his individual capacity, has brought this suit in his individual capacity, and is seeking the restoration of his YouTube account in his individual capacity. See generally Am. Compl. Indeed, as recognized in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Trump is bringing this case not as the President of the United States, but as “a private citizen and is domiciled in Palm Beach, Florida.” Id. ¶ 16.

I speak judge; allow me to translate:

[noblepa]

I don't remember where I heard it yesterday, but it was on this subject. The reporter/commenter/whoever said that the presidency had cost him two billion dollars. I don't know if that's true, but I like the idea.

I don't believe that he is really a billionaire. He controls several billion in assets, but many are mortgaged to the hilt. Some may even be underwater, given his proclivity for overstating the value of his assets. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he is technically insolvent.

[bob]

Sussman's case might warrant its own thread; until then:

[Sam the Centipede]

Sometimes when I (very much a non-lawyer) read such documents I wonder "was it really necessary or appropriate for the judge – or, more probably, the judge's clerk – to write so much text about such a simple decision?"

Yeah, I get that a simple "Granted" might be a little too succinct! But the text makes clear that the legal position is that forum selection clauses in contracts always apply unless compelling arguments hold against. Presumably part of the legal theory behind that is the premise that all courts are damn fine courts that any litigants should feel honored to argue in, so there is usually no legal unfairness in transferring.

Perhaps judges and clerks occasionally relish the opportunity to return the hassle that unpleasant plaintiffs give them. Hence not just:

but:

[northland10]

My IANAL self thinks some of the extra text is to make it appeal proof or at minimum, appeal resistant. This is especially important with higher-profile cases. The wording is not for the lawyer (who would have known better anyway) but for the record. The plaintiff can't put words in the court's mouth for the reason it was granted if the judge makes sure those words are on the order. After all this time, I am beginning to think I could write an appeal proof dismissal for a Klayman case. Between him and the birthers, I have read the same language many, many, many, many, many times. My problem would be to avoid being snarky. Judicial snark is usually more subtle.

I do see some subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle jabs at parties in these, likely from a judge a little annoyed that he or she is dealing with this at all.

[p0rtia]

Good god. This? THIS is the meat of the Durham report?

[Dave from down under]

He had to provide some "meat" no matter how thin, dry and tasteless to his mob or they would have eaten him alive..

[Gregg]

I don't remember where I heard it yesterday, but it was on this subject. The reporter/commenter/whoever said that the presidency had cost him two billion dollars. I don't know if that's true, but I like the idea.

I don't believe that he is really a billionaire. He controls several billion in assets, but many are mortgaged to the hilt. Some may even be underwater, given his proclivity for overstating the value of his assets. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he is technically insolvent.

I didn't say what you're quoting, strange. I did say essentially the same thing you're saying, and I've said that for at least 5 years. I have always thought the reason he didn't dispose of his assets when he became President like any ethical person would, is because he couldn't, even giving them to his idiot offspring would involve refinancing loans that he didn't have the assets to back up.

[somerset]

Sometimes when I (very much a non-lawyer) read such documents I wonder "was it really necessary or appropriate for the judge – or, more probably, the judge's clerk – to write so much text about such a simple decision?"

Yeah, I get that a simple "Granted" might be a little too succinct! But the text makes clear that the legal position is that forum selection clauses in contracts always apply unless compelling arguments hold against. Presumably part of the legal theory behind that is the premise that all courts are damn fine courts that any litigants should feel honored to argue in, so there is usually no legal unfairness in transferring.

Perhaps judges and clerks occasionally relish the opportunity to return the hassle that unpleasant plaintiffs give them. Hence not just:

but:

Not necessarily forum, but certainly Governing Law and Venue. It's kind of a really big thing, because it sets the fundamental ground rules for resolving any conflicts later on. I had a research contract between a MNC and a university stall for months over this while all of the technical and IP issues were easily sorted out (in the end, we ultimately agreed on just "United States" as governing law and stayed silent on venue).

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks Somerset, good point, I guess I was thinking only of federal laws but of course state laws are an important factor and I think someone upthread mentioned California's anti-SLAPP provisions.

[Dr. Ken]

[neonzx]

"executive privilege". That bag of bones can't even tweet. I can.

[AndyinPA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

A Senate report on President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election offers new details about an Oval Office confrontation between Trump and the Justice Department, revealing the extent to which government lawyers threatened to resign en masse if the president removed his attorney general.

The interim report by the Senate Judiciary Committee was issued Thursday. While Republicans on the panel offered their counter-findings, arguing that Trump did not subvert the justice system to remain in power, the majority report by the Democrats offers the most detailed account to date of the struggle inside the administration’s final, desperate days.

On Jan. 3, then-acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, his deputy Richard Donoghue, and a few other administration officials met in the Oval Office for what all expected to be a final confrontation on Trump’s plan to replace Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a little-known Justice Department official who had indicated he would publicly pursue Trump’s false claims of mass voter fraud.



During the meeting, Donoghue and another Justice Department official made clear that all of the Justice Department’s assistant attorneys general “would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark,” the report says. “Donoghue added that the mass resignations likely would not end there, and that U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ officials might also resign en masse."

Report here:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/me ... 0FINAL.pdf

[RTH10260]

"executive privilege" someone in his entourage needs to point out to him that until Mike Lindell gets him reinstated he does not have any executive privileges past the door of his household

[Azastan]

"executive privilege" someone in his entourage needs to point out to him that until Mike Lindell gets him resinstated he does not have any executive privileges past the door of his household

You forget, he still believes that he won the election. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, he still has executive privilege.

[Dave from down under]

"executive privilege" someone in his entourage needs to point out to him that until Mike Lindell gets him resinstated he does not have any executive privileges past the door of his household

You forget, he still believes that he won the election. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, he still has executive privilege.

He stole the keys to the oval office’s bathroom…
Thus he still has executive privileges

[raison de arizona]

Yes. That must be it. Whatta door knob.

[neonzx]

I still find it can comical that TFG can only do phone voice interviews while the entire world now does video chats. Are we supposed to take him seriously?

[Slim Cognito]

I can't help but wonder if he wants it that way. He could Shirley bring someone in to set it up if he wanted to do video, but then he'd have to spend hours on his hair and makeup.

[Slim Cognito]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... s-n1281103

Trump misled about D.C. hotel finances, House panel says
The House Oversight and Reform Committee obtained documents from the General Services Administration, which leased the Old Post Office building to Trump for his hotel.

The committee, which recently obtained documents from the General Services Administration, found that Trump reported his hotel in downtown D.C. brought in $150 million in income while he served in the White House, but the hotel actually incurred more than $70 million in losses.

“By filing these misleading public disclosures, President Trump grossly exaggerated the financial health of the Trump Hotel,” the committee said in a press release Friday.
...
When Trump first applied to lease the Old Post Office Building in 2011 for the location of his hotel, he also provided the federal government with information that the committee said “appeared to conceal certain debts.” Records show Trump specifically didn’t show outstanding balances for properties he owned in other major cities like New York, Chicago and Las Vegas, the panel said.
...
While he served in the White House, Trump also received “a significant financial benefit” from Deutsche Bank that allowed him to postpone making payments on the $170 million loan for the hotel, the committee said.

Guess bribes from foreign nationals don't go as far as they used to.

[raison de arizona]

How the hell did he manage to lose money when every nation trying to curry favor with him and GOP grifter was staying there?