Fogbow

woodworker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 3:43 pm I am beginning to believe that he truly believes the shit he is smoking/saying. He obviously doesn't realize that this allows Clinton, et al, as part of their defense of this POS (assuming it is not dismissed early) to do incredibly thorough and extensive discovery.

Gregg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:37 pm I think the "fundraising by litigation" thing about covers it, and in a just world somebody would have to explain why they thought it was a good idea to file this crap.

S.D. Fla. wrote:I note that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Fort Pierce division of this District, where only one federal judge sits: Judge Aileen Cannon, who Plaintiff appointed in 2020. Despite the odds, this case landed with me instead. And when Plaintiff is a litigant before a judge that he himself appointed, he does not tend to advance these same sorts of bias concerns. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump v. Wisc. Elections Comm’n, No. 20-cv-1785 (E.D. Wis. 2020) (Judge Brett Ludwig); Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al., v. Sec. of Commonwealth of Pa., No. 20-cv-3371 (3d Cir. 2020) (Judge Stephanos Bibas); Comm. on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 19-cv-01974 (D.D.C. 2019) (Judge Trevor McFadden).

I was nominated by former President Clinton in September 1996 upon the recommendation of Florida’s Senators. My name was one of three submitted to them by a nominating commission they had established. Both Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, and Senator Connie Mack, Republican, spoke on my behalf at the hearing of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican, which considered the nomination. My nomination was unanimously reported, and I was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent in a voice vote. 143 Cong. Rec. 70 (Fri. May 23, 1997) (S5066–5070).

“The gravamen of [Trump’s] claims concerns [sic] alleged events occurring in 2016 and 2017, so the statute of limitations on his claims expired long ago,” the motion argues, ….

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:12 pm If I was a news editor the headline would be....

"Trump loses yet again - this time to xyz"

Bro, do you even law?

* * *

There are also a couple of fun little Easter eggs in there for people who have slogged through five years of this performative junk litigation. (It me!)

The [motion to dismiss] cites a lawsuit by MAGA loon Larry Klayman, the OG vexatious litigant, for the principle that “no amount of repeating the word ‘malice’ will overcome the constitutional requirement” to plead actual malice under the NYT v. Sullivan standard.

Trump presented his Russia hoax theory to a court. It went poorly.
Analysis by Philip Bump National correspondent September 9, 2022 at 12:25 p.m. EDT

One of the hallmarks of Donald Trump’s tenure in American politics has been the extent to which he remained cocooned in his own world.

As president, that was often literal: He moved from the White House to his properties to tightly controlled events and to boisterous political rallies, rarely coming across critics or skeptics. It was also true of his presence in the public conversation. He had his Twitter universe and his Fox News conversations and he was content. Outsiders would peek in and report on what he was doing and saying and how it was received, but with a Star-Trek like result: There was no observable impact on the universe being watched.

It was a rhetorical terrarium, self-contained and self-sufficient. An ecosystem where nonsense thrived and spread, where conspiracy theories competed Darwinistically for dominance. So his vague dismissals of the Russia investigation as a hoax in early 2017 had, by 2021, become complicated organisms, vines stretching and intertwining throughout the pro-Trump media universe.

And then, earlier this year, a change. Trump proudly removed his Russia theory from its home and presented it to the court, like a kid digging up a dandelion he’d been watching in his yard and offering it as a horticulture contender at the state fair. The verdict, offered in a filing on Thursday, was probably not what Trump would have hoped.

Suffice it to say, he did not earn a blue ribbon.

Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of disconnected
political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy among the many
individuals Plaintiff believes to have aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is
warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is, foreclosed by the
applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail on the merits “in multiple independent
respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a
fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.).
I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended Complaint’s structural
deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments
raised by certain Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each of the
substantive counts.

I note that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Fort Pierce division of this District, where only one
federal judge sits: Judge Aileen Cannon, who Plaintiff appointed in 2020. Despite the odds, this
case landed with me instead. And when Plaintiff is a litigant before a judge that he himself
appointed, he does not tend to advance these same sorts of bias concerns. See, e.g., Donald J.
Trump v. Wisc. Elections Comm’n, No. 20-cv-1785 (E.D. Wis. 2020) (Judge Brett Ludwig);
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al., v. Sec. of Commonwealth of Pa., No. 20-cv-3371 (3d
Cir. 2020) (Judge Stephanos Bibas); Comm. on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives
v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 19-cv-01974 (D.D.C. 2019) (Judge Trevor McFadden).

Stubby Librarian
@listubby

From a lawyer friend on FB:

I have a feeling that this opinion will be used for years in law school to teach what not to do.
But I do have to wonder, while the amended complaint had significant problems, 1/2

would the amended complaint have met the criteria for a list of grievances for Festivus? (Festivus was the first thing I thought of when I read the phrasing the judge used). 2/2

Hillary Clinton demands over $1 million in fees after Russiagate suit tossed

by Ryan King, Breaking News Reporter
October 31, 2022 08:58 PM | Updated Oct 31, 2022, 09:12 PM

Hillary Clinton is joining other defendants in petitioning a court to compel her 2016 nemesis, former President Donald Trump, to cough up about $1.06 million in legal fees for a rejected lawsuit against them.

Decrying Trump's sprawling racketeering lawsuit that claimed Clinton and others peddled false allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia as a “political stunt," Clinton and the other defendants argued they deserved reimbursement from Trump.

"Because of the particularly vexatious and frivolous nature of the Complaint and Amended Complaint in this case, the Court should use its inherent authority [to] ... impose sanctions on Plaintiff himself for the filing of both the original and amended Complaint," Clinton's team wrote.

In March, Trump filed a lawsuit against Clinton and a cadre of other Democrats and allies. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who compiled the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, was also listed among the defendants. Clinton and others sought to dismiss the suit this summer.

Trump, who amended his suit in June, maintained that he suffered over $24 million in losses from the innuendo about possible collusion between him and Russia. But U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in Florida concluded that his suit was marred with glaring "deficiencies in the plaintiff’s argument" and dismissed the case last month. Trump has appealed Middlebrooks's ruling.

Middlebrooks, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, further condemned Trump's suit as a "two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum."

The Clinton-backed motion cited comments made by Trump lawyer Alina Habba on Newsmax earlier this year to buttress the argument that the suit was intended to further political goals rather than legitimate legal gripes.

"Alina Habba stated to Newsmax: 'What the real goal [of the suit] is, is democracy. Is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed justice, they continued the false narrative," Clinton's petition argued.





https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... agate-suit