THE ACCURATE RELOADING POLITICAL CRATER


Moderators: DRG
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
trump sues DOJ for $100 million Login/Join 
One of Us
posted
He steals over 300 classified documents, refuses to return them when asked nicely, defies a subpoena for the documents and finally forces the DOJ to serve a warrant to get the documents back.

Now, he wants $100 million dollars for his trouble. I'm guessing we'll see a counter-claim from the DOJ for the costs associated with the government efforts to retrieve the stolen documents.

https://thehill.com/homenews/c...s-mar-a-lago-search/


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69277 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
https://www.newsweek.com/donal...uld-backfire-1938062

Donald Trump's Lawsuit Over Mar-a-Lago Raid Could Backfire
Published Aug 12, 2024 at 1:34 PM EDT
Updated Aug 12, 2024 at 2:33 PM EDT

Former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek that the lawsuit would only be a "publicity stunt" and "nothing more." And former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that she would "welcome" the lawsuit if she were at the DOJ because a civil case would mean discovery and a deposition from Trump.

Legal expert Lisa Rubin agreed, tweeting that through the discovery process "one thing DOJ would get to find out is whether Trump himself (or any business he owns) paid his alleged $15 million in legal fees incurred in defending against the Mar-a-Lago case, or whether, for example, his leadership PAC, Save America, actually assumed those costs for him through the generosity of his donors."

President Trump is continuing to fight against blatant election interference by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's weaponized Department of Justice," Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Newsweek.

"As the complaint powerfully details, the raid on Mar-a-Lago was illegal and unconstitutional, as are all of the Democrat witch hunts that are now falling apart like the rotten house of cards that they are and which should be immediately dismissed in order to bring unity back to our nation," Cheung said.

McAuliffe predicted that either the lawsuit would be dismissed or Trump would drop it when discovery begins, calling it "a predictable Trump litigation strategy."

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek he expected the lawsuit to be dismissed because there's no evidence to prove Trump's claims that the raid was part of a "political prosecution."

"The government asked for the return of the classified documents before they issued a subpoena, then executed a search warrant. The prosecution was the culmination of Trump ignoring the requests and subpoena and obstructing justice to prevent the lawful return of the documents," Rahmani said.

He added that while Cannon dismissed the case, she did so because she believed DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, not because she thought Trump was innocent.

"The government has broad immunity from civil lawsuits absent some violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Rahmani said. "There isn't any such violation here, so I don't expect this lawsuit to go anywhere, like Trump's previous frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton."

In January 2023, Trump and his attorney Alina Habba were sanctioned by a Florida judge for their lawsuit against Clinton. They were ordered to pay nearly $1 million for filing a "completely frivolous lawsuit," which U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks said showed a "pattern of abuse of the courts" that "amounts to obstruction of justice."


*************
Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"

D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal.



 
Posts: 21795 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.newsweek.com/donal...uld-backfire-1938062

Donald Trump's Lawsuit Over Mar-a-Lago Raid Could Backfire
Published Aug 12, 2024 at 1:34 PM EDT
Updated Aug 12, 2024 at 2:33 PM EDT

Former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek that the lawsuit would only be a "publicity stunt" and "nothing more." And former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that she would "welcome" the lawsuit if she were at the DOJ because a civil case would mean discovery and a deposition from Trump.

Legal expert Lisa Rubin agreed, tweeting that through the discovery process "one thing DOJ would get to find out is whether Trump himself (or any business he owns) paid his alleged $15 million in legal fees incurred in defending against the Mar-a-Lago case, or whether, for example, his leadership PAC, Save America, actually assumed those costs for him through the generosity of his donors."

President Trump is continuing to fight against blatant election interference by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's weaponized Department of Justice," Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Newsweek.

"As the complaint powerfully details, the raid on Mar-a-Lago was illegal and unconstitutional, as are all of the Democrat witch hunts that are now falling apart like the rotten house of cards that they are and which should be immediately dismissed in order to bring unity back to our nation," Cheung said.

McAuliffe predicted that either the lawsuit would be dismissed or Trump would drop it when discovery begins, calling it "a predictable Trump litigation strategy."

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek he expected the lawsuit to be dismissed because there's no evidence to prove Trump's claims that the raid was part of a "political prosecution."

"The government asked for the return of the classified documents before they issued a subpoena, then executed a search warrant. The prosecution was the culmination of Trump ignoring the requests and subpoena and obstructing justice to prevent the lawful return of the documents," Rahmani said.

He added that while Cannon dismissed the case, she did so because she believed DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, not because she thought Trump was innocent.

"The government has broad immunity from civil lawsuits absent some violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Rahmani said. "There isn't any such violation here, so I don't expect this lawsuit to go anywhere, like Trump's previous frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton."

In January 2023, Trump and his attorney Alina Habba were sanctioned by a Florida judge for their lawsuit against Clinton. They were ordered to pay nearly $1 million for filing a "completely frivolous lawsuit," which U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks said showed a "pattern of abuse of the courts" that "amounts to obstruction of justice."


One thing that could keep it from going away is a counterclaim by the government for the expense associated with the efforts to get the documents back. I'd love to see it.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
One thing that could keep it from going away is a counterclaim by the government for the expense associated with the efforts to get the documents back. I'd love to see it.



Like an ankle biting dog. No matter how much Trump tries to shake it, to no avail. Smiler

Imagine a bracelet on one leg and an ankle biting dog on the other.


*************
Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"

D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal.



 
Posts: 21795 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69277 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


Spoken like someone who thinks he will never need a lawyer.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


Spoken like someone who thinks he will never need a lawyer.


My father was the chief justice here.

He told us to NEVER trust a lawyer! jumping


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69277 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.


Once upon a time, in response to a judge's question of why I did not have a lawyer representing me, I said, "Your honor, I interviewed several for the job, and everything was going well, then they spoke".

The judge didn't see the humor or irony.


*************
Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"

D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal.



 
Posts: 21795 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Just more bullshit from a gutless coward!
 
Posts: 2665 | Registered: 25 June 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of MJines
posted Hide Post
This is nothing new for Trump. He has a long track record of using the filing of a lawsuit as a media event. The goal is the PR splash he gets with his faithful nimwits. Will probably also try to use the suit to raise some money from his loyal lemmings. Rest assured as soon as discovery deadlines start approaching he will drop the suit like a hot potato.


Mike
 
Posts: 21861 | Registered: 03 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
It would have to be a 1983 action?
 
Posts: 12617 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
It would have to be a 1983 action?


trump doesn't fit any category of plaintiff that would be eligible for a 1983 action that I am aware of....


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MJines:
This is nothing new for Trump. He has a long track record of using the filing of a lawsuit as a media event. The goal is the PR splash he gets with his faithful nimwits. Will probably also try to use the suit to raise some money from his loyal lemmings. Rest assured as soon as discovery deadlines start approaching he will drop the suit like a hot potato.


Just as soon as he gets served with a deposition notice. Big Grin


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
It would have to be a 1983 action?


trump doesn't fit any category of plaintiff that would be eligible for a 1983 action that I am aware of....


Would he not be alleging the Search Warrant is based on some kind of fraud or bad faith? Hence 1983 Action being the statutory right to sue on given by the government that would otherwise be immune?
 
Posts: 12617 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


Spoken like someone who thinks he will never need a lawyer.


If we didn't have so many lawyers we wouldn't need lawyers.....
 
Posts: 42463 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


Spoken like someone who thinks he will never need a lawyer.


If we didn't have so many lawyers we wouldn't need lawyers.....


Exactly!


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69277 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing new!

The SYSTEM is working perfectly!

The human vermin, LAWYERS, will benefit.

Win or lose!

There should a law that in every court case, the losing party lawyers gets NO PAY! jumping


We've talked about this before. I don't get paid if I lose. In fact, I lose money.

Setting that aside, a system where the losing lawyers don't get paid deprives an awful lot of people access to the legal system for redress of grievances. In fact, that would be about half....since somebody loses in every case. Coming from your legal system, you may think that's a good idea. In the US, access to the court system is a constitutional right. And, access to the legal system is meaningless without counsel.

YMMV.


The system I propose will ultimately eliminate most lawyers!

Which be of great benefit to society! rotflmo


Spoken like someone who thinks he will never need a lawyer.


If we didn't have so many lawyers we wouldn't need lawyers.....


Exactly!


Good. You two can represent yourselves if you ever get sued. And, you can draw up your own wills. And form your own corporations. And, represent yourself if you ever get arrested for a criminal law violation. Handle your own divorces. You'll have to learn to read Jim so you can understand subcontracts. And, so on.

Let us know how that works out. Everybody talks out of their ass about lawyers until they need one.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16304 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
"My father was the chief justice here.

He told us to NEVER trust a lawyer!" jumping

---------------------

I would think a chief justice would be a lawyer.
 
Posts: 16246 | Location: Iowa | Registered: 10 April 2007Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: