Trump Lawyers Sanctioned AGAIN for Frivolous Suit Against Political Opponents

Lawyers who indulged the former President are discovering such conduct has costs.

Last fall, a federal district court judge in Florida granted a motion for sanctions against some of Donald Trump's attorneys for filing a frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democratic party operatives. Yesterday, that same judge granted an additional motion for sanctions, this one filed by other defendants in the litigation. Combined, the two orders impose approximately $1 million in sanctions on Trump and his attorneys.

From the latest order:

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.

I previously granted Defendant Charles Dolan's motion for sanctions, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (DE 284). Now before me is a motion seeking sanctions brought by eighteen other Defendants. Upon consideration of the Motion (DE 280), Response (DE 285) and Reply (DE 287), for the reasons that follow and also for those stated in my previous Order, sanctions are awarded.

And among the judge's specific conclusions:

• The Case Was Initiated By A Shotgun Pleading Designed To Serve A Political Purpose.

• The Pleadings Contained Factual Allegations That Were Knowingly False Or Made With Reckless Disregard For The Truth.

• The Plaintiff's Legal Theories Were Frivolous, Foreclosed By Existing Precedent.

The judge also explained why the sanctions were not limited to the attorneys.

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. . . .

I have explained why the totality of the problems with the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and the arguments and statements of Plaintiff's counsel show that this lawsuit was filed and prosecuted in bad faith. But this case is part of Mr. Trump's pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes. Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct that impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. . . .

Thus, while a litigant's conduct in other cases would normally not be relevant, when the court is faced with a sanctions motion against a repeat offender, undeterred by admonitions, it has the authority to consider that litigant's outside conduct. See Johnson v. 27th Ave. Caraf, Inc., 9 F.4th 1300, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2021) (finding district court had "inherent power to investigate the scope and extent" of litigant's misconduct that "threaten[ed] the integrity of the court."); O'Neal, 2021 WL 4852222, at *5 (rejecting a plaintiff's sanctions appeal, in part, because "the district court [] conducted a comprehensive examination of Plaintiff's litigation history, cited dozens of Plaintiff's past cases, concluded that only two had merit, and provided examples of past cases where Plaintiff followed an abusive strategy similar to that employed in this case . . . . ").

Pervasive abuse of the legal process should have consequences. In this case, it does.

Comments

[steve sturm]

There should be consequences. Skip past sanctioning the attorney and go straight to loser-pays.

And, by the way, for criminal cases as well. If the prosecutor can't get a conviction, the accused gets his attorney's fees paid. It's a start.

[windycityattorney]

But that would imply that if a loser pays...a criminal defendant who goes to trial but is convicted would also have to pay for the prosecution. And that would not be constitutional.

[steve sturm]

I would say a defendant who loses a criminal case would pay - by going to prison.

[Krychek_2]

There are some jurisdictions that charge inmates the costs of their own incarceration, which I've never thought was constitutional either. Would charging them for their own prosecution be theoretically different from charging them room and board at the state prison?

[CJColucci]

If the rest of us don't pay for our lodgings, we get evicted. I suppose prisoners would find that acceptable for them.

[David Nieporent]

which I’ve never thought was constitutional either.

It's terrible policy, but what's the theory under which it violates the Constitution?

[Brett Bellmore]

"And that would not be constitutional."

I fail to see how it wouldn't be constitutional, it could be part of the sentence, after all.

Now, you want to argue that the government should be picking up the cost of defense for defendants who ended up acquitted? THAT I'd sign on to! "The process is the punishment", and how dare you punish the acquitted?

[Mr. Bumble]

I think that this is even more the case (the process is the punishment) when defendants are tried twice (in state court and federal court) for what is essentially the same crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the idea that federal and state prosecutions for the same actions don't violate the double jeopardy clause is pretty bogus.

[SRG]

It's an instance where the English common law and US law departed. In England, double jeopardy applies to the same facts, not merely the same crime. In England and Wales, if the facts admit of two possible criminal charges, when the defendant is acquitted of one charge, you cannot later try him on the other.

[windycityattorney]

The State (government) has unlimited resources to marshal against the accused. They also carry the burden of proof for each charge and each and every element of every charge. Defendant has a 5th amendment right against self incrimination (including the right to not testify at the trial and this fact can't be used against them) and the right to compel witnesses (subpoena power of the State) to be brought to trial on their behalf, 6th amendment right to fair trial, speedy trial, plus the right to confront witnesses against them, and an 8th amendment right against excessive fines and/or cruel and unusual punishment.

Most pertinent to this discussion; the right against excessive fines. If i am charged with say a DUI where the max fine is $2500 and as part of the prosecution, the State calls an expert witness from the state police to discuss the blood alcohol concentration; along with the two officers from the scene who are paid overtime to attend the trial and for the bailiff at the trial, the court clerk, the court reporter etc… and the total cost of that prosecution is say …$7500 – – then you can’t order the defendant to pay 7500 in ‘fine and fees’ when the max total for the offense is statutorily capped at $2500.

Forgetting every other amendment, the 14th amendment arguments etc… this one single thing right there would be unconstitutional. So yes, it would be unconstitutional to have fee shifting for criminal defendants.

[Noscitur a sociis]

you can’t order the defendant to pay 7500 in ‘fine and fees’ when the max total for the offense is statutorily capped at $2500.

Kind of begging the question aren’t you? Under this arrangement, the maximum monetary would be $2500 plus the cost of prosecution,

[windycityattorney]

I am not sure the rest of my comment's central point didn't make it through.... the constitution's bill of rights spends a considerable amount of time among various amendments protecting those accused of crimes. If someone thinks it consistent with those amendments and various fundamental rights to turn around and say...if a defendant does goes to trial and loses he/she bears the full cost of the prosecution I think you will find a due process issue therein. Indigent clients who are innocent who can't even afford a lawyer may forego their fundamental right to a speedy trial in front of a jury of their peers if they thought the local jury pool racist and would convict them no matter what and that it would cost them many many times more than they make a year. Seems to me a rather large impediment to an exercise of a fundamental right.

Is that begging the question?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The government does finance the representation for the vast majority of criminal defendants.

[Martinned]

Let them pay for it properly (i.e. on the same basis as the prosecutor), and let them pay damages to criminal defendants who are acquitted following pre-trial detention.

[Reallynotbob]

That's pretty much what public defenders are. High-dollar show trial defense lawyers earn multiples more than the average state prosecutor.

[con_fuse9]

Wouldn't that give an incentive for rich or deep pocket people to spend whatever it takes?
What happens when some is charged with 30 different things including murder and other felonies, but is only found guilty of loitering or 'contempt of cop'?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Loser pays is fine (it is the rule in many other countries), but your solution would leave no penalty for wasting the courts' time (and taxpayers' money).

Your solution would simply result in more frivolous lawsuits.

[Moderation4ever]

It is clear that Donald Trump as a private citizen and as President used the court system to advance his goals. This may be permissible when rules are followed, but that is not the case here and it is good to see the courts take action. If any other individual tried this there would be general ridicule and it should be no different for the former President.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is fair to say that both sides are doing it -- but for some reason, only Trump seems to get into trouble for it.

[jb]

Can you point to some examples of similarly specious claims made by Democrats who weren't sanctioned?

[Mr. Bumble]

Pretty ambiguous question. Care to be more specific?

[jb]

It's ambiguous because Dr. Ed 2 is making an ambiguous claim. I'm just curious what he has in mind by claiming that both sides are doing it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well this comes to instant mind: https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/01/20/julia-mejia-turtleboy-lawsuit/?p1=hp_featurebox

[benji]

That is not a case that has been dismissed yet nor is it remotely similar to this case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I wouldn't call Trump a "mastermind".

[Brett Bellmore]

He's been remarkably successful, though, which is at least suggestive.

I've always thought Trump's foes were kind of silly taking their own trash talk seriously. And trash talk is silly even when people don't believe their own.

[Savagely Average]

Agreed. He’s smart and politically skilled. Critics who describe him as some kind of stupid or crazy person are being either foolish or disingenuous.

That said - he’s also something of a mystery. He has genuine erratic and reckless aspects to his personality but he also plays up those aspects in a calculated way so it’s hard to say how much of his reckless conduct is ‘real’.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Donald Trump had not inherited a fortune, he’d be a thrice-divorced, spray-tanned, documented tax cheat with four shambling children, several open investigations, a collection of bankruptcies, a job selling high-end condos, a similar paunch, and that same thing resting atop his head.

[Savagely Average]

If your desired end state is ‘Billionaire’, ‘inherit 400 million dollars’ is an excellent strategy to be sure.

[Davedave]

You think he'd have managed to mate, were it not for the money?!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys in destined-for-repossession Corvettes, willing to spend what should have been their retirement savings on surgically enhanced, uneducated (maybe even imported, such as mail-order) women, probably have a decent shot at certain elements of the dating pool.

Have you ever been to a ‘rasslin match, a gun bash, a demolition derby, or a Trump rally?

[con_fuse9]

I thought those were all the same thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The spectacles differ; the crowds are fungible.

I used fungible, not fumigable.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Two out of the four, actually.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I've been to three. Not a Trump rally, but I attended a Klan recruitment rally, which likely was similar for this purpose.

[bernard11]

Right.

If you calculate Trump's rate of return, over his career, I bet it wouldn't be particularly impressive. I'm quite confident, for example, that mine is much higher, but of course I didn't have any significant inheritance, so I'm not as rich as he is.

In fact, I will bet that if we take any American, around Trump's age, as I am, who:

1. Had a decent career in a technical, professional, or managerial role, or as a tenured academic at an average or better university, or in small business;

2. Was reasonably prudent in terms of spending and saving;

3. Never developed a drug or gambling habit;

4. Avoided a financially disastrous divorce, or major illness;

You would find that that person also earned a higher return on the assets they started with than Trump did.

[ragebot]

This is not the first time I have seen this analysis but it always fails to mention while Trump could have probably had a better ROR by plowing all the profits back into his business he chose to as the old saying goes 'spent money on wine, women, and song (I know forget the wine he does not drink)', and wasted the rest of it on plowing money into good investments to increase his ROR.

[David Nieporent]

He’s been remarkably successful,

…at picking the right father.

[apedad]

I would call Trump a mastermind.

But more in the Dr. Evil sense.

[gallinalg85]

A Clinton judge. What a surprise. He probably thinks killing babies and erupting in other men's rears are protected by the 14th Amendment.

[Krychek_2]

Whatever he may think, it's becoming clear you think about little else.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He is surely fixated on other men’s rears. Makes one wonder.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah. Most people get that sort of itch scratched on pr0nhub. But I'm not here to kink shame.

[Davedave]

No, apparently you're here to call homosexuality a kink.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He may be describing a particular type of homosexuality as a kink.

[MoreCurious]

It's approaching epidemic proportions on Volokh Conspiracy. He is one of at least three weirdos who seem to think about nothing other than men having sex with each other.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A new commenter pops up every once in a while with a comment like that, believing themselves edgy and original, not realizing how hackneyed it has become here.

[David Nieporent]

Dude, he's the same guy. He just changed his handle.

[MoreCurious]

So that's why we haven't heard from Frankie the Assman lately?

[Davedave]

At least three? It's almost the entire Trump-traitor corps. They all seem desperately obsessed with cock-and-bum fun.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Projection, they say...

[Savagely Average]

I think you mean ‘irrupting’. You erupt out of something. You irrupt into something. Irrupting.

[Both Sides]

Never heard of that word before, so thanks for making an educational reply to a completely dumbass comment.

[MonitorsMost]

I know this comment is awful and deranged, but I haven’t been able to stop laughing about it all day.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump is the opposite of Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're thinking of the Administrative State.

[Ridgeway]

But he shits in a golden toilet. How is that for a conundrum.

[Savagely Average]

“In this palace, the Earth, pigs shit in golden bathrooms and the funerals of fools are followed by motorcades ten miles long.”

- Bukowski, i think. Not sure I’m quoting it right.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

pigs shit in / golden bathrooms / and the deaths / of fools / are followed by / motorcade / six blocks long.

[Savagely Average]

Thanks

[Social Justice is neither]

Apparently you were in a coma for the entirety of his presidency, unless of course you think inflation is a good thing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Meanwhile ATF lawyers can scheme and conspire to steal millions from people's safe deposit boxes and nothing happens to them and IIRC the Federals even got to keep the ill-gotten loot.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought that was the FBI.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It’s a technique I picked up and adapted from Obama called “Stray Voltage”.

You should look into it. It works pretty well.

[Nige]

You poor thing. How do you actually manage to cope with the passage of time and multiple things happening roughly concurrently?

[I Callahan]

Laugh at the double standards all you want, but we have 2 justice systems in this country.

[Reallynotbob]

State and federal. +1

[Mr. Bumble]

How does this case compare the the Mark Elias case where he and his lawyers were sanctioned by the 5th Circuit.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought you hated whattaboutism?

[Bored Lawyer]

His comment goes to even standards, which is a legitimate use of whataboutism.

That said, Elias was also sanctioned, as was his partner, so seems like the sanctioning is even-handed. Of course, commensurate with the wrong.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/5th-circuit-keeps-sanctions-against-marc-elias-voting-case-2021-06-30/

[Sarcastr0]

IOW it doesn't go to standards; it's whattaboutism.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did EV promote you to the position of deciding what is whataboutism?

[Sarcastr0]

Now you're claiming I'm making an argument from authority.

Wow, you're into the fallacies this morning.

[Life of Brian]

Now you’re claiming I’m making an argument from authority.

Maybe he was being charitable and trying to imagine some rationale for your bare, pompous pronouncements beyond ipse dixit.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The two cases are very different. To set the record straight, Mark Elias was one of the attorneys in the case; he wasn't a party. The attorneys in that case were sanctioned for a single filing that violated local court rules. There was no finding that the attorneys acted in bad faith when they made the filing, although the Court said that after the response from opposing counsel put them on notice they should have withdrawn the filing.

In contrast, the Trump lawsuit was bad faith from beginning to end. As the judge wrote: “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it.” There is no comparison between the two cases.

[bernard11]

It seems to me that the appropriate sanction for the lawyers should be at least the amount they collected (or billed, anyway) in fees plus some additional amount for the harm the action did to other litigants whose cases were delayed.

I have no idea how that compares to the $1M actually imposed.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, I always thought part of the sanction should be, you can't bill your client for that. Not sure it should go to the other side, that would be a windfall. The other side should be awarded it's own fees in opposing, that's compensation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be what happened in the Elias case, although it also included court cost and was doubled. However, I can find no dollar amount in any of the stories.
In this case it seems that Trump was included in the sanctions. How common is this and who pays what?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how that's an appropriate sanction when the client was in on it, though. Or is it just that the lawyer is supposed to be the one in the room who knows they're doing the wrong thing, and the client is considered to be taken in by them?

[Bored Lawyer]

Lawyers work to make money. There is no worse sanction than being told, you ain't getting paid. That's a huge deterrent.

In terms of the client being in on it, that is why the client should pay the other side's fees and expenses.

And yes, lawyers are supposed to be able to tell their clients NO.

My first boss used to point to his admission in NY state, which he hung on the wall. It said he was admitted to practice as "An Attorney and Counsellor at Law." He would tell clients, "when I speak for you in court, I am your attorney. I put the best take I can on your case. When I speak to you in my office, I am your counsellor. I tell it like it is, with no BS. If I speak to you as an attorney, I am not doing my job."

[Davedave]

"Lawyers work to make money. There is no worse sanction than being told, you ain’t getting paid."

Except, I dunno, you aren't getting paid _and_ you have to pay out. Or the many, many worse sanctions possible to imagine.

With logic like that, you can't have been a very good lawyer.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump isn't exactly known for paying his lawyers...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Lawyers work to make money.

Some lawyers, sure, but that unqualified declaration is weak.

[bernard11]

I wasn't suggesting it should go to the other side.

What I meant was that the pointless lawsuit presumably delayed other, more sensible cases, from being heard, and that the delay imposed on those litigants should be considered when calculating sanctions.

It's part of the damage done, after all.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Shouldn’t it either be enough to reimburse the defendants for their costs or the fees these lawyer collected (as you pointed out), whichever is larger?

[Reallynotbob]

That's a valid point. But the courts often use sanctions awards to decouple the innocent party's damage from the penalty to deter the conduct. Usually, it's a matter of awarding less than the innocent party actually paid to defend because the "American rule" is that parties usually bear their own litigation costs and shifting the whole amount can be crippling to many litigants. Sometimes the court imposes more because the actual defense cost is small compared to the means of the offending party.

Anyway, that's one reason why courts shy away from just using the "what did you pay to defend yourself" metric for sanctions.

[apedad]

Trump eats EVERYONE he comes in contact with.

Contracts are meaningless.

Laws are merely speedbumps.

Relationships are one-sided.

Political allies are fodder.

There's only one goal in Trump's mind and that's Trump.

Not MAGA, not Republicans, not Evangelists, not pro-lifers, and definitely not the 1/6ers.

You are merely a tool to him and when he has no more use for you, in you go to the human dumpster.

[Bored Lawyer]

The smart lawyers have learned that by now. So have the mediocre lawyers. So Trump has to use what is left after that. The bottom 20%.

[Jacob Grimes]

I tended to think of it as an unethical marketing ploy. "Sure, the case is meritless, but I'll be seen as a crusader by those who still worship Trump (some of which are probably business owners with litigation needs), which will provide me business down the line and pay for any attorney fee sanctions." But I can't imagine that playing out in this case given the huge penalty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You are merely a tool to him and when he has no more use for you, in you go to the human dumpster."

Isn't that true of all politicians?

[SRG]

If Trump were given a speeding ticket, the Trumpsuckers here would be posting about the time Hillary got a parking ticket, and asking why Pelosi was let off for running a red light. They can't help themselves.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If Trump were given a speeding ticket, the Trumpsuckers here would be posting about the time Hillary got a parking ticket, and asking why Pelosi was let off for running a red light"

And that is why everyone exercising the power of the state needs to have such an impeccable level of personal integrity, and have a reputation for doing so. Sadly, we don't have that anymore.

[Both Sides]

When did we have that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, yes, Donald Trump again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA

[jimc5499]

How else would you expect a Judge appointed by Bill Clinton to rule?

[Reallynotbob]

The better question is, "how would you expect a Judge appointed by Trump or GWB or GHWB to rule?"

[Sarcastr0]

So is your take that every single judge appointed by a Democratic President, up and down the line, is a partisan first and foremost?

No, it's not. This whole 'judge is biased' and 'Trumplaw' bullshit is not what you actually think hard about, just some chaff you can throw in the air when your guy takes yet another L but you don't want to believe he's that much of a loser.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You mean like the current SC majority and their evil agenda?

[Sarcastr0]

Beyond this being a notable change in scope (you're once again not comparing like with like), I assume you think this is something I believe and have said about the Supreme Court?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes. It’s become a thing among the heavily politicized to complain whenever a judge appointed by the other party. makes a decision they don’t like, regardless of the soundness of the decision. This being a case in point of course. A Clinton judge makes an obvious decision but obviously it’s politically motivated just because.

[Sarcastr0]

There are partisan tools on both sides. That doesn't make the above any less partisanly toolish.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How else would you expect a Judge appointed by Bill Clinton to rule?

They can't all be Aileen Cannons, Justin Walkers, Neomi Raos, Kathryn Mizelles, Steven Graszes, John Bushes, Kyle Duncans, Alison Rushing Joneses, or (she deserves another one) Aileen Cannons.

[F.D. Wolf]

"AGAIN!" Adler triumphantly proclaims as the same judge in the same case involving the same claims awards the same sanctions to different co-defendants.

Wow, who could have predicted that outcome?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you are a lawyer, the conduct of these shambling lawyers should be your focus and a precipitate for scorn.

If you are not a lawyer, that explains the bulk of your commentary.

[John F. Carr]

On page 3 of the order the judge observes that, after the warning that sanctions could be coming, Trump's lawyer went on Hannity's show to attack the "Clinton judge." Whether the judge was right or wrong, that is unwise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"that is unwise"

Yes, attacking super egocentric federal judges is unwise.

But what does that have to do with filing a bad complaint?

[bevis the lumberjack]

It demonstrates the purpose of the complaint. It wasn’t filed to actually right a legal wrong, it was filed to stir up political fervor.

[I Callahan]

No, it was filed to right a legal wrong. And there is nothing in Adler’s article that disproves that.

[apedad]

No.

The case was filed to right an 'alleged' legal wrong.

However, the case's, ". . . inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start."

[Social Justice is neither]

Look, I know you're still waiting for the real Mueller report to come out and prove all your fantasies true.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What legal wrong? They said mean things about Trump?

[John F. Carr]

Page 14: "The Plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry-picked portions of public reports and filings to support a false factual narrative. Often the report or filing actually contradicted his allegations. It happened too often to be accidental; its purpose was political, not legal."

I wish this behavior could be sanctioned outside the occasional frivolous lawsuit. I see it from government agencies in their official reports. And as long as it is not final agency action, there is no recourse under the APA. One widely publicized example was a fake report on seconhand smoke. The courts ruled the government was allowed to lie because the report was not itself a regulation.

[Jerry B.]

Yet, strangely, there was plenty of information in the news and social media about how Trump only won the 2016 election due to collusion with a foreign power whose name rhymes with Russia. News that was later proven to be false.

[Sarcastr0]

What news media was saying Trump *only* won due to Russian collusion?

[apedad]

What does the 2016 election have to do with Trump Lawyers Sanctioned AGAIN for Frivolous Suit Against Political Opponents?

[Jerry B.]

The suit is about Clinton et al saying there was collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2916 election, and that they used this false information against him in the 2029 election.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the opinion about the knowingly false statement in the pleadings?

Because it more sounds like you're writing your own complaint, based on your own version of reality, and then defending that.

[Both Sides]

I dunno, even in his version, I think allegations about what happened in the 2916 and 2029 elections would, by their nature, be knowingly false.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And you can prove this, how?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm guessing because one is 6 years in the future, and one is 893 years in the future.

[Davedave]

It was proven that Russia tried to interfere in the election. Why tell such absurd lies?

[John F. Carr]

The end of the order states, "However, should Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s lawyer (and law firm) believe that the amount would seriously jeopardize their financial status [...] 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."

I try to imagine the volume unsealing litigation if the public learned the court had a sworn statement of Trump's financial condition. I think he will not file such a statement. He can afford to pay.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not only can he afford to pay, it's chump change as far as he's concerned. No point in him even trying.

His lawyer, on the other hand, may want to take advantage of the offer.

[Davedave]

It isn't chump change, though it won't bankrupt him. The one unarguable thing we have learnt from Trump's presidency is that a million or two makes a big difference to him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only emotionally, though. It has no impact on his lifestyle or prospects. His lawyers, OTOH, can't say the same.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump could probably raise the necessary cash with an online appeal to America's lesser elements in a few days.

It would be interesting to know how many Volokh Conspiracy fans -- and how many Conspirators -- would toss a few dollars onto that pile.

[David Nieporent]

He almost certainly made more, fundraising off the suit, than he was ordered to pay.

[Devin Watkins]

I have no idea if these were frivolous or not. I somewhat doubt many attorneys are filing cases and briefs in cases they think are frivolous. But maybe this is one of those cases. That said, I know a lot of people that just personally hate Trump. I don't know if that is this judge or not. I look forward to the appeal to see if other judges/justices feel the same way on the frivolous nature of this case.

[Davedave]

The appeal? Dear god man, get a grip. If the case was frivolous - and it was, so incredibly and obviously frivolous that sanctions were imposed - then how much more so would an appeal here be?

You've been fooled again by someone who only fooled complete idiots to start with, and has now been shown to be such a clownish liar that the only people he's still fooling are barely compos mentis. Go and get a capability assessment and have yourself a guardian appointed to manage your affairs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not being contentious but:
Are you a lawyer?
Have you read all of the briefs and motions?
What we have here is a post with the result of a decision by one judge. Judges aren't all equally competent and aren't always correct in their decisions (otherwise none would ever be overturned on appeal.
Having been bitch slapped by the judge I too would doubt an appeal, but it is Trump.

[Davedave]

"Not being contentious"

No, you're being sententious.

Whilst I would enjoy it as much as anyone else with a brain if Trump were stupid enough to appeal this decision, we all know he won't give us the pleasure. He's malign, not altogether stupid, unlike his remaining supporters (who are both).

As for your frankly ridiculous attempts to cast doubt on the correctness of the ruling in question, you're simply embarrassing yourself. If comments could be sanctioned, you'd owe us all money for the time we wasted reading your drivelling nonsense.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for your well reasoned an thoughtful response. You are a credit to the VC comments.
Now wouldst you be kind enough to bugger off you self important wanker?

[Davedave]

If you don't like it, don't invite it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I look forward to the appeal

Pro se appeal, maybe. A lawyer willing to file the appeal would likely be motivated by a desire for disbarment.

The quotations from other courts -- federal and state, coast to coast -- recounting the falsehoods and frivolity associated with other Trump filings would alone test character/page limits.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I doubt the same lawyers could draft a non-frivolous appeal, but I’d expect competent ones could probably raise a few non-frivolous points.

None of whom would touch this with a 10-foot pole, of course...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This merits mention. A former president of the United States, with ample cash, want to advance claims in court but no competent lawyer will participate because the claims are frivolous and derive from bad faith.

Makes you proud to be a member of the bar, does it not?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"but I’d expect competent ones could probably raise a few non-frivolous points. None of whom would touch this with a 10-foot pole, of course…"

Which then goes to right to counsel -- if there are legitimate (non-frivolous) points to appeal, then he ought to be able to obtain counsel to raise them, which raises issues about the Bar...

[David Nieporent]

There's no right to counsel in civil cases.

[apedad]

Speaking of Trump attorneys. . . .HEY! They got one right.

Trump voluntarily dismisses lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James

Former President Trump on Friday voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit he filed in Florida against New York Attorney General Letitia James alleging she abused her position as the top attorney in the state to “recklessly injure” his family and business.

Trump attorney Honey Rechtin filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice Friday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-voluntarily-dismisses-lawsuit-against-new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james

This was presented to the same Judge Middlebrooks too.

[apedad]

Funny how this happened THE VERY NEXT DAY after getting their asses handed to them.

Check that. . . it's FUCKING HILARIOUS.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This voluntary dismissal illuminates the 'let's see how the appeal develops' point advanced elsewhere in this exchange.

[MonitorsMost]

My only quibble with the judge’s opinion is that he shouldn’t have referenced the Trump v. NY Attorney General case that was pending before him in the section discussing a pattern of abusive litigation. He didn’t need to do so as the pattern of abusive litigation is clear without it and he shouldn’t be commenting on a live case that is before him in a separate proceeding.

[rloquitur]

Another example of different rules for Trump.

[Davedave]

Yes, agreed, they were far too lenient for far too long - it's silly that serious sanctions are only being handed down now, and they should stop giving him special treatment. Time he was in jail.

[M L]

"Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.”"

Sounds accurate, as far as it goes.

[OtisAH]

It sounds accurate to you because you are a dupe and an idiot.

[Davedave]

That's a bit harsh, most idiots haven't sat there under a tin-foil hat whilst their brain has melted and dribbled out through their ears. The few remaining true believers need carers to look after them - they aren't competent to cross a road by themselves.

[M L]

Exactly. I assume you are referring to those who believed the Russian asset conspiracy theories, collusion conspiracy theories, stolen election, and Russians hacked the election conspiracy theories. Of course, a lot of people espousing it didn’t really believe it.

To be clear, I’m obviously not defending this lawsuit generally.

[Davedave]

Do you genuinely not realise how far beyond stupid non sequiturs like that make you look? People with learning difficulties, combined with head injuries, combined with a serious stroke, look at you with pity.

[M L]

I know, right? I assume you are referring for example to the supermajority of Democrat voters that believe Russians tampered with vote tallies in the 2016 elections. It is beyond stupid, indeed. There is plenty of stupid on both sides though. But stupid is maybe not as bad as that which cannot be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Davedave]

I cannot begin to imagine how you can think you're responding with anything but complete non sequiturs. Even Dr Ed the talking horse isn't _this_ stupid.

Congrats, you're the stupidest commenter here, and that takes some doing.

[M L]

Thank you.

[Sarcastr0]

I continue to be amazed you were trained as an attorney.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My first thought was 'Sarcastro could not believe this commenter is a lawyer,' but then I remembered South Texas College of Law Houston.

[mydisplayname]

Democrat Askew's boy in the Court certainly has earned the right to prattle and hiss: as a long-time operative for the Democrat party, litigation involving any Patriot is fair game for his venom. His ruling is correct in that the criminal indictments against the Democrats cited in Trump's filings have not yet been proved before a jury and are therefore not yet ripe for use in civil litigation: the litigation would have gained power as each Democrat is convicted, so prompt dismissal was imperative and sanctions tend to sully the plaintiff, not the indicted Democrats, in the "shame the victim" style typical of rape cases.

Certainly, this is the second time this Democrat operative has used his position on the bench to lash out at one particular political foe. We must ask if it is uncommon for him to use his position on the bench to lash out at his personal political foes!

Moreover, what's the batting record in general and does it even matter. We know that Bidenite positions have been reversed by the Courts more than those of any president and yet we find that few Bidenite attorneys have been sanctioned: this says nothing more than that a particular cabal in power is more accepting of Bidenite frivolity.

[Davedave]

You should seek urgent help; you appear to be posting here while actually having a stroke.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

litigation involving any Patriot is fair game for his venom

Which Patriot in particular -- Bailey Zappe, Matthew Judon, Tucker Addington, Nick Folk -- did you have in mind, you bigoted wingnut?

Maybe Bill Belichick?

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Heh. The hell with legal analysis. Look at the judge, not the law and you're done! Of course, by that metric, we can't have any judges at all.
If the ruling is so egregious, it should be a simple matter to point out the glaring legal and factual errors. What is your legal analysis, complete with pertinent citations? Not equipped to do that? Find some law professor or lawyer who makes the argument. Good luck. The opinion is sound. But given your "legal theory", it should be a simple matter to take this to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 majority of GOP appointed judges, so what's your worry?

[Kleppe]

"Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries."

Silly Trump, you're supposed to use the DOJ and Intelligence Community to exact revenge on your political adversaries, not the courts!

[Nige]

He did try.

[Kleppe]

When did Trump attempt to use the DOJ and Intelligence Community against his political opponents? AFAIK he was always on the receiving end of that treatment, and remains so to this day.

[Davedave]

Hurr-durr doesn't begin to describe it. Tin foil hattery at its finest.

[Nige]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-justice-department-prosecuction-political-enemies-1234588539/

[Social Justice is neither]

Unless you're a Democrat using SDNY for your political persecutions.

[jdgalt1]

Translation: This court is as crooked and corrupt as all the others who refuse to hear or accept the truth because TDS.

The next time he or any other Republican runs, he will need to cross the Rubicon. There are no honest judges or honest elections in the system as it is now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Were those the "good old days," Mad Kalak?

Obsolete, vanquished, whining right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties. Their preferences can't be rendered irrelevant quickly enough by the culture war's victors.

[Davedave]

Sodomy has never been called a mental illness. Homosexuality was. Briefly, in a minority of the world.

We all know that people like you are just angry with yourselves for wanting some of that good old C&BF, so I don't know why you bother anymore.