Trump v. Pulitzer Prize Board

[RTH10260]

The loose cannon would opt for another 15 minutes of fame?

[Foggy]

Liz’s article which I linked to above speculates that Trump’s lawyers are anticipating that the lawsuit will be removed to federal court and are hoping that it will end up in Judge Aileen Cannon’s court.

Wow.

I mean, just wow.

Talk about how "that isn't how it works". That's saying, I have a judge who will violate the law for me right and left, if only I can get my case in front of her.

That's ... I don't even know. That's a totally jaundiced view of the American justice system by a sociopath. It's difficult to get my mind around it.

[Suranis]

It's possible that Cannon has had several quiet chats yelled at her by fellow Judges, and might not be as friendly to TFG nonsense anymore.

Which does not make it less pathetic that They are judge shopping for her.

[Foggy]

... defamatory refusal to revoke a prize.

Love Liz Dye's encapsulation of the underlying cause of action. Eleventeen years from now, there will be hornbooks in all the law libraries about this great new wave that's sweepin' the oceans.

[bob]

Liz’s article which I linked to above speculates that Trump’s lawyers are anticipating that the lawsuit will be removed to federal court and are hoping that it will end up in Judge Aileen Cannon’s court.

I doubt that's the motivation because the plaintiff can file anywhere; just file in federal court if that's where you want to be.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

One thing that stands out to me is that he is not suing the entities who made the alleged defamatory statements. Now that's a bit curious

[Reality Check]

One thing that stands out to me is that he is not suing the entities who made the alleged defamatory statements. Now that's a bit curious

I think the signs of his dementia are becoming more obvious by the day. Look at this week alone for example, first the stupid NFT big announcement now this crazy lawsuit.

[noblepa]

One thing that stands out to me is that he is not suing the entities who made the alleged defamatory statements. Now that's a bit curious

I think that his "legal theory" is that, by awarding the prize to those who made the so-called defamatory statements and then not rescinding the award when he "proved" that the news stories were false, the Pulitzer Committee were complicit in the defamation. In essence, the refusal to rescind the prize, in and of itself, somehow defamed the Orange Shitgibbon.

IANAL, but even I know that that is stupid. I'm surprised that any lawyer who values his/her law license agreed to file it.

[Foggy]

I've actually forgotten - in the lolsuit that got dismissed recently and the judge is sanctioning the lawyers who filed it, didn't Trump sue everybody he doesn't like none, starting with Hillary at the top and going all the way down, and the judge said it was all his grievances rolled into one big ol' heartbreaking top 40 song, but it wasn't much of a lawsuit. You know the one I mean. Did he not sue the failing NY Times and the Washington Post in that case?

I'm trying to remember if he ever did sue them for their reporting on the Russia Russia Russia hoax.

[MN-Skeptic]

One thing that stands out to me is that he is not suing the entities who made the alleged defamatory statements. Now that's a bit curious

IANAL, but Liz's article says:

Good Lord, he really did it! After an entire year of threats, Trump has actually filed a defamation suit against the Pulitzer Prize Board for refusing to revoke the 2018 award to the New York Times and Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and the Mueller investigation.

Well … sort of. See, the statute of limitations for defamation has long since run. But after all his screeching about it, the Board put out a statement in July stating that it had conducted “two independent reviews,” both of which concluded “that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.”

And that is the alleged defamatory statement at issue in this case. Yes, really!

[RTH10260]

[
IANAL, but Liz's article says:

Well … sort of. See, the statute of limitations for defamation has long since run.

You mean to say, the retiree is only blowing hot air? For the publicity only? And the whinefest when the case gets kicked out of court? And the only person who gets hurt will be the lawyer who faces sanctions for

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I've actually forgotten - in the lolsuit that got dismissed recently and the judge is sanctioning the lawyers who filed it, didn't Trump sue everybody he doesn't like none, starting with Hillary at the top and going all the way down, and the judge said it was all his grievances rolled into one big ol' heartbreaking top 40 song, but it wasn't much of a lawsuit. You know the one I mean. Did he not sue the failing NY Times and the Washington Post in that case?

I'm trying to remember if he ever did sue them for their reporting on the Russia Russia Russia hoax.

He did file other lolsuits against them(plus another news outlet) but it was for opinion articles written after the Pulitzer was awarded; I lost track of who all was in the omnibus fail. MN-Skeptic may have given us the explanation for the 4 individual suits.

[Foggy]

Well if that's true, then discovery will no doubt be limited to those two independent reviews that basically confirmed the reporting of the Post and the failing NY Times.

What kind of investigations were they, who was on the team of investigators, why were there two different reviews, did they talk to Trump to get his "facts" that he made up, I mean the list of questions could go on forever.

"When the failing NY Times reported __something__, did ..."

"Objection, this is not about the reporting of the Washington Post and the failing NY Times, it's about the statement based on the two independent reviews that were done because of your incessant whining and complaining."

"Waah, those mean newspapers said mean things about me!"

[bob]

Did he not sue the failing NY Times and the Washington Post in that case?

Oddly, only ABC was sued. And the complaint gives no insight why ABC was singled out.

[Phoenix520]

I like RC’s reason for the suits - dementia!

[Foggy]

Wow, thank you, bob. You are, as always, a fountain of information about everything.

And that's weird, but I suspect that he knew this case was coming which is why he only sued ABC? I dunno. That's not a strongly logical conclusion, but we're talking about a guy who hasn't had a working relationship with logic or reality for a very long time.

Maybe he thinks the newspapers will move to intervene. Maybe who knows IDK WTF BBQ. I give up.

[northland10]

Liz’s article which I linked to above speculates that Trump’s lawyers are anticipating that the lawsuit will be removed to federal court and are hoping that it will end up in Judge Aileen Cannon’s court.

I doubt that's the motivation because the plaintiff can file anywhere; just file in federal court if that's where you want to be.

The other possibility is they are trying to hedge. If they prefer to have it in state court, filing in Okeechobee might give defendants pause if removal means it goes to the Ft. Pierce division of the SD of Florida, where Cannon is the only one on duty there (the other position is open). Even if the defendants did remove it, this would probably land in Cannon's court, so the plaintiffs may think the usual reasons to avoid federal court are less likely to be an issue in Fort Pierce.

In short, they go first for the state court and create an incentive for defendants not to remove, and even if the defendants do, the plaintiff's attorneys believe they may have a better chance in Ft. Pierce than in other divisions of the SD of Florida.

[RTH10260]

Looks to me that removing to Federal Court and the loose Cannon would be preferable and depending what stupid moves she makes the whole thing could backfire on her.

[bob]

Looks to me that removing to Federal Court and the loose Cannon would be preferable and depending what stupid moves she makes the whole thing could backfire on her.

Again, if shopping for Cannon was the point, just file in the Ft. Pierce division.

[SuzieC]

Maybe Trump thinks that if the defendants remove to Judge Cannon's court, he will escape criticism for judge shopping.

[northland10]

Looks to me that removing to Federal Court and the loose Cannon would be preferable and depending what stupid moves she makes the whole thing could backfire on her.

Again, if shopping for Cannon was the point, just file in the Ft. Pierce division.

Again, as I mentioned, their best-case scenario is that they are in a friendly state court and the defense won't remove because it would end up with Cannon. Worst case is they get removed but they get Cannon and not a random judge in another division.

It makes it look like they judge shopped not only for the state court but the for a federal court if it does get removed.

[Slarti the White]

Question for the IAAL-types: If the case is removed to federal court and lands in Cannon's courtroom is there any remedy for the defendants to claim that Cannon is biased towards the plaintiffs? Or is that a matter for appeal if they lose?

[bob]

Again, as I mentioned, their best-case scenario is that they are in a friendly state court and the defense won't remove because it would end up with Cannon. Worst case is they get removed but they get Cannon and not a random judge in another division.

Quite possible. But I'm also open to pure incompetence, laziness, or both.

* * *

If the case is removed to federal court and lands in Cannon's courtroom is there any remedy for the defendants to claim that Cannon is biased towards the plaintiffs?

Yes: Possible, but not likely to win; e.g., Klayman has been trying to recuse every judge nominated by a Democratic president from his cases.

[chancery]

Folks, why are we even discussing the consequences of removal to federal court?

From the complaint:

12. Defendant Neil Brown is a resident of Pinellas County, Florida, and at all times relevant was a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board, an unincorporated association.

One of the defendants is a Florida citizen, thus destroying diversity of citizenship with the Florida plaintiff.

I can't think of a basis for arguing fraudulent joinder, nor can I think of any other basis for federal jurisdiction.

What am I missing?

[northland10]

Again, as I mentioned, their best-case scenario is that they are in a friendly state court and the defense won't remove because it would end up with Cannon. Worst case is they get removed but they get Cannon and not a random judge in another division.

Quite possible. But I'm also open to pure incompetence, laziness, or both.

I rarely bet against incompetence or laziness from these folks, but the choice of Okeechobee County confuses me for laziness. The attorney is over in Pinellas County.

Which brings me to:

Folks, why are we even discussing the consequences of removal to federal court?

From the complaint:

12. Defendant Neil Brown is a resident of Pinellas County, Florida, and at all times relevant was a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board, an unincorporated association.

One of the defendants is a Florida citizen, thus destroying diversity of citizenship with the Florida plaintiff.

I would never question Chancery and the discussion is because we love discussing things that are often not based on reality, however, I do have IANAL wonderings.

In this case, the Plaintiff is in Palm Beach County, and the Florida defendant is in Pinellas County, as is the plaintiff's attorney. The case, however, was filed in Okeechobee County, where none of these folks live. The complaint says that Okeechobee County is the appropriate venue based on Florida statute 47.011, which reads:

Where actions may be begun.—Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents.

Their Florida defendant is in Pinellas County, and there is no property involved, so their only reasoning is based on where their cause of action accured. In count one, the explanation of the location was that the Pulitzer statement was on a website and, thus, was accessed by somebody in Okeechobee County, so they had injury there, despite no party to the case being in Okeechobee County.

This leaves me wondering why Okeechobee. If we assume they thought that it would not be able to be removed, what other purpose would there be to use that county? Could it be that Trump had 71% there in 2020 while Biden won Pinellas and Palm Beach counties?

I also noticed they did not include the amount they are asking for and instead only said an amount determined at trial. In their cover sheet, for the area that is only for data records and not to be used elsewhere (i.e., not by a party if it is not in the complaint), they said $100K+. Are they trying to prevent removal by hiding that they intend to go for more than $75K?

I am wondering.