The case was “intended for a political purpose” & showed “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers,” undermining rule of law & diverting resources.
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 20, 2023
Perfect description of Trump & his lawyers' (& his supporters') tactics.https://t.co/q8rjr7EA7P
It's only one 44,000th of what Musk paid for Twitter.
पोस्ट्स
४७ टिप्पण्या:
It would be interesting if this judge had to prove those accusations.
When you consider that the lawyers he convinced to file the cases will bear the cost, I am quite certain that he is not regretting much about participating in the lawsuits.
Sauce for the goose. Especially when it comes to that untalented hag.
Not to worry. The collective empire grifting left are engineering a Trump primary win... so he can lose to Biden again.
How much did it cost Hillary?
Yet, constant nuisance lawsuits against Trump are allowed to go forward. We all know the Law is dominated by Leftist judges. I'm still shaking my head over "Judge" sullivan and his treatment of General Flynn, or the Appeals court and the Trump FBI raid.
We dodged a bullet when Hillary lost, and she was not able to put Garland and another leftist on the Court. Thank God for Trump.
If you file an enough-is-enough lawsuit against a guy, you're not looking for the court to agree with you that enough is enough. Filing the lawsuit is itself saying enough is enough.
Says Stanley Cavell somewhere, probably in Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome ...
yes google books pick p.114
Lemme guess! The judge is an Obama appointee?
Now do the Jan 6 show trials....
Seems that judge has never heard of Lawfare, Inc.
Gee, the judge is a Clinton appointee. Imagine that! A 46-page opinion to point out Trump's lawsuit was frivolous. Imagine that!
Once, a long, long time ago, I clerked for a federal judge of extraordinary integrity. Admittedly, others may suffer by comparison, but it seems to me that the federal judiciary is littered with political whores.
Forty-six pages to justify a fine and to explain why a lawsuit against the wife of the guy who appointed you and others of her ilk is frivolous. Sounds whorish to me.
Yes, how frivolous of Trump to claim, without evidence, that Hillary tried to rig the 2016 election by linking his campaign to Russian. Where does poor Mrs. Clinton go to get her once pristine reputation back?
If indeed Trump was able to use the federal courts with meretricious litigation, in order to gain "gratification" for himself of greater personal value than even the amount of these Rule 11 sanctions, then the District Court might want to consider other and additional sanctions. Including referral of Trump's lawyers of record for bar discipline.
Judge Middlebrooks' opinion is a savage denunciation of Trump and his attorneys' conduct of the case in question. Detailed, comprehensive, humiliating. If Trump and TrumpWorld can derive "gratification" even in those circumstances, then there is something profoundly wrong with them. And Trump's extra-legal "gratification" is something that every other trial court that is now holding active proceedings in Trump cases should take into consideration.
Next, they will accuse him of breathing.
"Revenge" seems to be a feature of this court.
Don't know if Trump is the "mastermind" of strategic abuse of the judicial process, but he has certainly been the catalyst for others to abuse the judicial process in their efforts to "get Trump".
"baghdadbob said...
Yes, how frivolous of Trump to claim, without evidence, that Hillary tried to rig the 2016 election by linking his campaign to Russian. Where does poor Mrs. Clinton go to get her once pristine reputation back?" Can't tell if this comment is sarcasm (hence the name of the poster) or just sheer blind idiocy.
Jersey Fled said...
How much did it cost Hillary?
I see some news reports, and lots of commenters, referring to the order in this case as a "fine."
That's not quite right. The order is an order making Trump, and his attorney Alina Habba, and her law firm, jointly and severally liable to the Defendants (including but not limited to Hillary) for their costs and attorney fees. The order comes after a very extensive motion filed by the Defendants asking for their costs and attorney fees. They applied to Judge Middlebrooks, and he honored their request. In litigation, we distinguish "fines" (usually paid to courts and court clerks as civil penalties) and "sanctions" (amounts paid to opposing civil litigants to compensate for a procedural wrong, apart from a final judgment). It's an imperfect definition, but functional.
So there has certainly been some cost to Hillary and the Defendants. To date. Which they will largely -- but apparently not totally, even by the District Court's own accounting -- recoup when Trump et al make the required payment.
gahrie said...
Now do the Jan 6 show trials....
So, sue. Go to court. File a complaint. See how that works for you.
Haw Haw Haw sully a Clinton's reputation? That's the best one so far this year.
What kind of cretin would abuse the legal system just to punish a political rival? The Devil you say!
Trump's lawyers seemingly made it easy for Clinton-appointed judge to derisively dismiss the Trump complaint based on: (1) technical issues, like jurisdiction and statute of limitations, and (2) there lack of a remedy at law against the named defendants' egregious actions.
For example:
Plaintiff argues that the United States should not be substituted for Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Kevin Clinesmith, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Adam Schiff, and Rod Rosenstein... He appears to concede that, in the event the United States is the proper party, Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and he suggests that I should dismiss without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to pursue those remedies.
Because a delegate of the Attorney General certified that the Federal Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, the United States was substituted for them as an “automatic consequence” of the Westfall Act certification. The certification is not dispositive for purposes of substitution, but it constitutes prima facie evidence that the employees were acting within the scope of their employment. Plaintiff bears “the burden of altering the status quo by proving that the employee acted outside the scope of employment[.]” Id. He must allege specific facts establishing that the Federal Defendants exceeded the scope of their employment.
Plaintiff has not met that burden here, and the United States therefore remains the proper party to this litigation. To determine whether a federal officer was acting within the scope of his or her employment, the FTCA instructs the district court to apply “the law of the place where the act or omission occurred,” not the law of the state where the alleged tort had its “operative effect.” Here, the Parties agree that Plaintiff’s claims against the Federal Defendants involve actions related to Crossfire Hurricane and the FISA application processes undertaken during that investigation, which took place in the District of Columbia. Under District of Columbia law, an employee’s conduct falls within the scope of his or her employment if... The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia “appl[ies] [this] test ‘very expansively,’ and, in essence, “ask[s] ‘whether the defendant merely was on duty or on the job when committing the alleged tort.’”
Beginning with the first prong, “[t]o qualify as conduct of the kind an employee was to perform, his or her actions must either have been of the same general nature as that authorized or incidental to the conduct authorized.” The focus is on “the type of act” performed by the employee, not its “wrongful character.” The former FBI Federal Defendants and Defendant Rosenstein all satisfy this element because counterintelligence operations and FISA surveillance are all activities of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Continued....
The same is true of Defendant Schiff. Plaintiff’s allegations pertain to Defendant Schiff’s actions as a member and chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which investigated whether Plaintiff or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 election. Defendant Schiff’s statements relating to the investigation fell squarely within the scope of his employment. Speaking to the press about public policy concerns falls within the scope of the duties of a member of Congress.
Next, the challenged conduct needs to be “substantially within the authorized time and space limits[.]” Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains no allegations that any of the Federal Defendants’ actions occurred outside the “time and space limits” of their official government work… because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to rebut this evidence, this factor also favors substitution. Finally, the actions taken by the Federal Defendants must be “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve” the United States. The Federal Defendants here acted in furtherance of an approved and authorized counterintelligence operation...
Plaintiff argues that Mr. Schiff’s actions were outside the scope of his duties because his statements disclosed confidential information of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. However, the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege or even suggest that Mr. Schiff disclosed any confidential information. But even if it were to be assumed Mr. Schiff divulged confidential information, that would not change the scope of employment determination here…
Because the United States is the proper party to this action, Plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing his claim in this Court under the FTCA. He didn’t, and he doesn’t claim that he did.
I therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims against the United States, and Plaintiff’s claims against the United States are dismissed without
prejudice.
pantsuited pantload
two fat thighs and two left wings
becankled jackass
If this “should never have been brought” then why was it allowed to continue for so long by the courts. That doesn’t seem to make any sense.
https://www.yaacovapelbaum.com/2019/11/13/mark-zaid-the-superhero-fortune-teller/?amp=1
“mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process”
God the hypocrisy is so thick it’s just funny at this point.
I would say John Roberts’ failure to “find” the Dobbs leaker would put him at the top of the “abuse of the judicial process” list. Or the DC juries that seem to find every MAGA GOP defendant guilty while letting deep state liberals walk. The FBI sure did abuse the judicial process when it lied to the FISA court to push Hillary's bullshit Russian Collusion.
The New York AG isn’t abusing the judicial process with her never ending search for Trump crimes?
To think there is a big percentage of highly degreed American liberals that believe and support all this bullshit.
alanc709:
C'mon man! I give you my word as Saddam's spokesman.
Joint and several? Read that Trump believes his lawyer should have to pay the whole thing. I wonder how much he has paid her. Or his pac, rather. J+S means judgment creditor(s) goes after whatever assets are most easily reached. Those would be his. Then he can seek contribution perhaps. No stay on appeal generally without a bond. Could get messy if he does not just pony up.
Buying Twitter is lawful. Filing, and then refiling, false and frivolous legal claims is not. Should rich people be able to satisfy their appetites by engaging in illegal force and fraud, provided the are prepared to pay for it?
Couldn’t this be interpreted as yet another example of the deep state creating a protected class.
The protected class can declare lockdowns and national security threats but if those mandates prove to be… inauthentic they, as a protected class suffer no consequence as a result of probable harm done by them.
To the contrary, if you go after them in court, it is you who will end up paying for having the temerity of accusing those in the protected class. In short the deep state is a protected class, otherwise there is no deep state.
Irony of Trump trying to use same protective federal scope-of-employment statute to defeat the defamation claim arising from his department store rape denial.
rrsafety said...
If this “should never have been brought” then why was it allowed to continue for so long by the courts. That doesn’t seem to make any sense.
This case was filed in March of 2022. Dismissed on motion in September of 2022. Sanctions sought in separate motion filings in October and November of 2022. Additional pleadings, including several hundred pages documenting costs, fees, attorney time billing records, and more were filed up to December. Including Plaintiff's responsive pleadings, protesting the claims for sanctions.
Then, decided in January of 2023.
All in all, admirable dispatch on the part of Judge Middlebrooks. Just about exactly as fast as should be expected.
A day later, different lawyers voluntarily dismiss his suit against NY AG before same judge seeking to stop fraud suit against him.
At the end of the day, no one wants to be Clintoned.
Hostile jurisdiction.
pantsuited pantload
two fat thighs and two left wings
becankled jackass
This is some of your best work so far. A fine little amuse-bouche that captures her well.
What the judge means to say is that lawfare is reserved exclusively for the left wingers to use. Republicans have no right to file frivolous lawsuits; only Democrats are encouraged to do so, because reasons.
Blogger n.n said...
Hostile jurisdiction.
That’s an odd thing to say in the context of a case where Trump, as the Plaintiff in a federal civil case with diversity jurisdiction, essentially chose his venue.
"Buying Twitter is lawful. Filing, and then refiling, false and frivolous legal claims is not. Should rich people be able to satisfy their appetites by engaging in illegal force and fraud, provided the are prepared to pay for it?"
Like Mark Elias?
This reminds me of an apocryphal Lincoln story about the judge that decided that a man's pigs were the property of his own son. The true owner called him a scoundrel, the judge fined him 7 dollars for contempt of court. He gave the judge a $10 gold coin, Judge said he did not have change. the man said, that is OK, I'll take it out in contempt.
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker: "Not to worry. The collective empire grifting left are engineering a Trump primary win... so he can lose to Biden again."
A transparently dumb and false "hot take" on what is happening.
Per usual.
Hillary and Maddow (plus corrupt others) cooked up the Russian collusion lie.
F Hillary - I hope she rots.
It's always about the $$$. Make em pay, watch the frivolous court cases disappear. Always about the $$$. If you haven't learned that by now, you ain't paying attention.
What makes you think the fine won't be overturned on appeal?
It certainly deserves to be
Shouldn't a judge appointed by the husband of one of those involved recuse himself from such a case?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा