Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Clinton over 2016 Russia allegations
This is the long lawsuit filed by two shopping center lawyers representing TFG against Hillary Clinton and large number of other people such as Comey, Perter Struck and others. No top tier law firm would touch this lawsuit. One of of the defenses to the statute of limitations defense was that TFG was too busy being POTUS to file this lawsuit
Link to tweet
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisses-trump-lawsuit-against-124420268.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge has dismissed Donald Trump's lawsuit against his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton, saying the former Republican president's allegations that Democrats tried to rig that election by linking his campaign to Russia was an attempt to "flaunt" political grievances that did not belong in court.
In throwing out Trump's lawsuit Thursday night, Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said the lawsuit was not seeking "redress for any legal harm" and that the court was "not the appropriate forum" for the former president's complaints.
"He is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him," Middlebrooks said in his ruling.
Trump in March had sued Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, and several other Democrats alleging "racketeering," a "conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood" and other claims in a 108-page lawsuit that echoed the long list of grievances he repeatedly aired during his four years in the White House after beating Clinton.
He had sought compensatory and punitive damages, saying he had incurred more than $24 million in "defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses."
In his ruling, Middlebrooks said Trump had waited too long to file his complaint by exceeding the legal statute of limitations for his claims and that he failed to make his case that he was harmed by any falsehoods, noting that many of the statements made by the defendants were "plainly protected by the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution.
In throwing out Trump's lawsuit Thursday night, Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said the lawsuit was not seeking "redress for any legal harm" and that the court was "not the appropriate forum" for the former president's complaints.
"He is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him," Middlebrooks said in his ruling.
Trump in March had sued Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, and several other Democrats alleging "racketeering," a "conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood" and other claims in a 108-page lawsuit that echoed the long list of grievances he repeatedly aired during his four years in the White House after beating Clinton.
He had sought compensatory and punitive damages, saying he had incurred more than $24 million in "defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses."
In his ruling, Middlebrooks said Trump had waited too long to file his complaint by exceeding the legal statute of limitations for his claims and that he failed to make his case that he was harmed by any falsehoods, noting that many of the statements made by the defendants were "plainly protected by the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution.
The opinion is 65 pages but is a fun read. The judge had fun telling TFG's shopping center lawyes that they re idiots
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
in every law school in the country. I believe one of TFG's Lawyer Barbies, Alina Habba, was responsible for the dog's breakfast of a complaint, and she was righteously whacked upside the head. Even TFG's other incompetent lawyers think Habba is incompetent. https://www.thedailybeast.com/alina-habba-the-trump-lawyer-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-loathes
A few gems from the opinion:
What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading, and “[c]ourts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Such pleadings waste judicial resources and are an unacceptable form of establishing a claim for relief.
To say that Plaintiff’s 193-page, 819-paragraph Amended Complaint is excessive in length would be putting things mildly. And to make matters worse, the Amended Complaint commits the “mortal sin” of incorporating by reference into every count all the general allegations and all the allegations of the preceding counts.
Perplexingly, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Defendants obstructed investigation Crossfire Hurricane by contributing to the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane. That Defendants could have obstructed a proceeding by initiating it defies logic.
Notably absent from the Amended Complaint, though, is any allegation that any Defendant interfered with law enforcement with respect to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense. Plaintiff endeavors to significantly broaden this provision to criminalize the dissemination of any purportedly misleading information, regardless of any connection to some federal offense.
The federal wire fraud statute prohibits “only deceptive schemes to deprive the victim of money or property”—not “all acts of dishonesty.” Id. With this predicate act, Plaintiff tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. The alleged harm Plaintiff describes to his “political and/or business reputation” is not the type of harm the wire fraud statute remediates.
Plaintiff offers nothing plausible in support to suggest that Defendants had an illegal purpose or an intent to commit racketeering acts. These allegations fail for the same reasons the conclusory allegations of discrimination failed in Iqbal: they are “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, neither politically opposing Plaintiff, disliking Plaintiff, nor engaging in political speech about Plaintiff that casts him in a negative light is illegal. Without an illegal purpose plausibly alleged in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to allege a RICO enterprise.
Moreover, many of the statements that Plaintiff characterizes as injurious falsehoods qualify as speech plainly protected by the First Amendment. Some are statements of opinion based upon Plaintiff’s four years in office... Because Plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements of an injurious falsehood claim, this count must be dismissed. And as for Count IV, the conspiracy allegations are formulaic, conclusory, and implausible. Moreover, “the gist of a civil action for conspiracy is not conspir[ing] itself but the civil wrong which is done pursuant to the conspiracy and which results in damage to the plaintiff.” ..Without the underlying injurious falsehood claim, there can be no conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood.
In Count V, Plaintiff sues: his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein; formerDirector at the FBI, James Comey; former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe; lawyers for the FBI, Kevin Clinesmith and Lisa Page; an official with the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, and his wife Nellie Ohr; and an FBI agent, Peter Stzok, for malicious prosecution. But Plaintiff was never prosecuted... An Inspector General Report specifically explained that the investigation was not predicated on DNC information or the Steele Dossier, but on a tip from a friendly foreign government. Of course, Plaintiff is free to disagree with the conclusions of the Inspector General’s Report. But, as I have already cautioned, he may not misrepresent it in a pleading, and he certainly may not misconstrue it in an attempt to offer support for this ill-fated claim.
Count X reflects the high-water mark of shotgun pleading and is accordingly dismissed. And it is dismissed with prejudice, as none of the underlying claims survive for which, even if properly plead, Defendant Clinton could be held liable under an agency theory.
It is true that under Rule 15 “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But a district court need not allow amendment “where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). It is not simply that I find the Amended Complaint “inadequate in any respect”; it is inadequate in nearly every respect.
Defendants presented substantively identical arguments in support of dismissal in the earlier round
of briefing on Plaintiff’s original Complaint. But despite this briefing, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the deficiencies. Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. The inadequacies with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are not “merely issues of technical pleading,” as Plaintiff contends, but fatal substantive defects that preclude Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories he
has presented. At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.
of briefing on Plaintiff’s original Complaint. But despite this briefing, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the deficiencies. Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. The inadequacies with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are not “merely issues of technical pleading,” as Plaintiff contends, but fatal substantive defects that preclude Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories he
has presented. At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.267.0.pdf
If any lawyer ever deserved crushing Rule 11 sanctions it's Alina Habba. Wadda maroon.
So I imagine.
