Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

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

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
Flatpoint High
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
Verified:

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

#126

Post by Flatpoint High »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 3:18 pm 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
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#127

Post by bob »

Flatpoint High wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:00 pm 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.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#128

Post by Gregg »

Even for the possible 30 other defendants with an equal claim?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#129

Post by bob »

Gregg wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:13 pm 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.
Image ImageImage
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

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

#130

Post by humblescribe »

bob wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:03 pm
Flatpoint High wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:00 pm 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?) :towel:

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.) :lol:

* 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.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#131

Post by 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.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
PaulG
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:32 pm

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

#132

Post by 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"
50 Things That Made the Modern Economy wrote: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
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

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

#133

Post by Slim Cognito »

I just want to hit him hard in the nards.

That is all.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

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

#134

Post by Ben-Prime »

Slim Cognito wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:48 pm 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!"
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

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

#135

Post by jcolvin2 »

bob wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:03 pm
Flatpoint High wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:00 pm 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.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

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

#136

Post by Foggy »

I agree with you, jcolvin2, but I don't know how the judge would determine the ultimate source of the money.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#137

Post by 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.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

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

#138

Post by 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.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:39 am
Location: Irvine, CA
Occupation: retired lawyer

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

#139

Post by Dr. Caligari »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 3:18 pm 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.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#140

Post by 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.
:kickface: :kickface: :kickface:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

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

#141

Post by Greatgrey »

bob wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:20 pm 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.
:kickface: :kickface: :kickface:

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
3E7FE676-EAEB-4F31-B416-868E736DDF28.jpeg (108.01 KiB) Viewed 741 times
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

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

#142

Post by RTH10260 »

It starts to add up when one uses the Who-Is-Who as directory to file a frivilous law suit :blackeye:
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

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

#143

Post by 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?
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

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

#144

Post by much ado »

Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

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

#145

Post by p0rtia »

keith wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:32 pm 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.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

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

#146

Post by pipistrelle »

Looked him up. A Clinton-appointed judge. Know it's not relevant but still chuckled.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#147

Post by bob »

much ado wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:38 pm Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?
Potentially, yes; if the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* * *
p0rtia wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:48 pmBecause 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.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

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

#148

Post by Greatgrey »

bob wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:03 pm
much ado wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:38 pm Does appealing potentially expose the plaintiffs to increased sanctions?
Potentially, yes; if the appeal was not taken in good faith.

* * *
p0rtia wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:48 pmBecause 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
7B5FD614-6714-4DC3-9990-B5EA9BA6896E.jpeg (300.95 KiB) Viewed 674 times
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

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

#149

Post by 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.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

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

#150

Post by 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.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”