|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2016 07:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:46 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. Sotomayor and Kagan were both nominated by Obama during his first term. The 2012 election decided who should be nominating the next Supreme Court justice(s) from January 2013 to January 2017. The American people chose Obama. Now I wonder if you'll tell me what was the makeup of the senate then and now. And which people elected them.
Irrelevant. We are discussing presidential prerogatives, since you're arguing that the 2016 presidential election should be a "referendum" on "who selects the next justice-legislator". That referendum was held in 2012 for the duration of the current presidential term.
|
On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here.
That is fair that you did mention attorney's fees, but the issue here is whether Trump's action will be financially damaging to the defendant even if Trump's action gets thrown out fairly early. The American Rule dictates it will usually be the case that even with a frivolous suit, attorney's fees will not be recouped (unless you're saying defamation statutes usually make an exception to the American Rule). Since attorney's fees represent the bulk of the litigant's spend, Trump does risk significantly damaging his targets financially no matter if the case is frivolous.
Also the general claim that only meritorious suits will make it to discovery is just silly to begin with. So no, the justice system does not effectively guard against frivolous suits costing all parties involved a lot.
I know you didn't tell people to ignore that, I was pointing out the contradiction in you saying that Trump's cases won't cost a lot of money for the defendant if they don't get to discovery, even though Trump himself said they do cost defendants a lot of money even when they don't make it to discovery.
On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases". And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN."
I certainly see what you perceive the "real issue" to be. I was pointing out the silliness of you saying Trump should initiate these lawsuits even though, under the law, he has no chance. In other words, you're advocating bad faith legal arguments (where Trump knows he can't prove malice) designed to financially punish people. I'm going to assume you don't normally adhere to this standard of ethics, you're just trying to tie up that pretzel logic necessary to defend Trump.
And the cherry on top of your intellectual dishonesty is that Trump is pretty clearly suing this guy out of a personal vendetta. The ultimate insult to Trump's ego is saying he's not worth as much as he says he is. It's the only topic Trump made off-limits at his Comedy Central roast. Trump was not wisely bringing his force to bear on someone who wronged him, he was suing for $5 billion because the guy said he's only worth $100-150 million. You're defending Trump's bad faith litigiousness most likely because this is another instance where you get to say "F U" to the media.
Please consider the sacrifices you're making in supporting Trump to get back at the media.
|
On August 31 2016 07:10 Slaughter wrote:
The makeup of the senate has no bearing on what he said. They aren't doing their job because they want to gamble on getting a republican in the White House. They would have something to stand on if Scalia had died much closer to the election but keeping a seat open for this long is a disgrace. Especially since Scalia wasn't even cold in the ground before McConnell and his ilk were already grand standing about it.
He was still warm when Democrats triumphantly spit on his memory too. How many Republicans opposed the nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor? How many presidents in the past have had to choose other appointments because of opposition in the Senate? He could also pick another. Next time campaign better so you get those votes. Divided governments don't happen by accident. Dems were much less forgiving in Bush's divided Congress years.
|
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious.
|
On August 31 2016 07:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here. That is fair that you did mention attorney's fees, but the issue here is whether Trump's action will be financially damaging to the defendant even if Trump's action gets thrown out fairly early. The American Rule dictates it will usually be the case that even with a frivolous suit, attorney's fees will not be recouped (unless you're saying defamation statutes usually make an exception to the American Rule). Since attorney's fees represent the bulk of the litigant's spend, Trump does risk significantly damaging his targets financially no matter if the case is frivolous. Also the general claim that only meritorious suits will make it to discovery is just silly to begin with. So no, the justice system does not effectively guard against frivolous suits costing all parties involved a lot. I know you didn't tell people to ignore that, I was pointing out the contradiction in you saying that Trump's cases won't cost a lot of money for the defendant if they don't get to discovery, even though Trump himself said they do cost defendants a lot of money even when they don't make it to discovery. Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases". And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN." I certainly see what you perceive the "real issue" to be. I was pointing out the silliness of you saying Trump should initiate these lawsuits even though, under the law, he has no chance. In other words, you're advocating bad faith legal arguments (where Trump knows he can't prove malice) designed to financially punish people. I'm going to assume you don't normally adhere to this standard of ethics, you're just trying to tie up that pretzel logic necessary to defend Trump. And the cherry on top of your intellectual dishonesty is that Trump is pretty clearly suing this guy out of a personal vendetta. The ultimate insult to Trump's ego is saying he's not worth as much as he says he is. It's the only topic Trump made off-limits at his Comedy Central roast. Trump was not wisely bringing his force to bear on someone who wronged him, he was suing for $5 billion because the guy said he's only worth $100-150 million. You're defending Trump's bad faith litigiousness most likely because this is another instance where you get to say "F U" to the media. Please consider the sacrifices you're making in supporting Trump to get back at the media.
Does someone else in need of a cathartic release want to do the honors? I shouldn't have all of the fun.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 31 2016 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:26 Doodsmack wrote:On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here. That is fair that you did mention attorney's fees, but the issue here is whether Trump's action will be financially damaging to the defendant even if Trump's action gets thrown out fairly early. The American Rule dictates it will usually be the case that even with a frivolous suit, attorney's fees will not be recouped (unless you're saying defamation statutes usually make an exception to the American Rule). Since attorney's fees represent the bulk of the litigant's spend, Trump does risk significantly damaging his targets financially no matter if the case is frivolous. Also the general claim that only meritorious suits will make it to discovery is just silly to begin with. So no, the justice system does not effectively guard against frivolous suits costing all parties involved a lot. I know you didn't tell people to ignore that, I was pointing out the contradiction in you saying that Trump's cases won't cost a lot of money for the defendant if they don't get to discovery, even though Trump himself said they do cost defendants a lot of money even when they don't make it to discovery. On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases". And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN." I certainly see what you perceive the "real issue" to be. I was pointing out the silliness of you saying Trump should initiate these lawsuits even though, under the law, he has no chance. In other words, you're advocating bad faith legal arguments (where Trump knows he can't prove malice) designed to financially punish people. I'm going to assume you don't normally adhere to this standard of ethics, you're just trying to tie up that pretzel logic necessary to defend Trump. And the cherry on top of your intellectual dishonesty is that Trump is pretty clearly suing this guy out of a personal vendetta. The ultimate insult to Trump's ego is saying he's not worth as much as he says he is. It's the only topic Trump made off-limits at his Comedy Central roast. Trump was not wisely bringing his force to bear on someone who wronged him, he was suing for $5 billion because the guy said he's only worth $100-150 million. You're defending Trump's bad faith litigiousness most likely because this is another instance where you get to say "F U" to the media. Please consider the sacrifices you're making in supporting Trump to get back at the media. Does someone else in need of a cathartic release want to do the honors? I shouldn't have all of the fun.
The boring and correct solution is to ignore the people who strawman all the time. Otherwise it won't ever end.
|
On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious.
Venue shopping is a time honored tactic in law and one that is being ignored for the sake of this "balanced" argument.
On August 31 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:35 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 07:26 Doodsmack wrote:On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here. That is fair that you did mention attorney's fees, but the issue here is whether Trump's action will be financially damaging to the defendant even if Trump's action gets thrown out fairly early. The American Rule dictates it will usually be the case that even with a frivolous suit, attorney's fees will not be recouped (unless you're saying defamation statutes usually make an exception to the American Rule). Since attorney's fees represent the bulk of the litigant's spend, Trump does risk significantly damaging his targets financially no matter if the case is frivolous. Also the general claim that only meritorious suits will make it to discovery is just silly to begin with. So no, the justice system does not effectively guard against frivolous suits costing all parties involved a lot. I know you didn't tell people to ignore that, I was pointing out the contradiction in you saying that Trump's cases won't cost a lot of money for the defendant if they don't get to discovery, even though Trump himself said they do cost defendants a lot of money even when they don't make it to discovery. On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases". And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN." I certainly see what you perceive the "real issue" to be. I was pointing out the silliness of you saying Trump should initiate these lawsuits even though, under the law, he has no chance. In other words, you're advocating bad faith legal arguments (where Trump knows he can't prove malice) designed to financially punish people. I'm going to assume you don't normally adhere to this standard of ethics, you're just trying to tie up that pretzel logic necessary to defend Trump. And the cherry on top of your intellectual dishonesty is that Trump is pretty clearly suing this guy out of a personal vendetta. The ultimate insult to Trump's ego is saying he's not worth as much as he says he is. It's the only topic Trump made off-limits at his Comedy Central roast. Trump was not wisely bringing his force to bear on someone who wronged him, he was suing for $5 billion because the guy said he's only worth $100-150 million. You're defending Trump's bad faith litigiousness most likely because this is another instance where you get to say "F U" to the media. Please consider the sacrifices you're making in supporting Trump to get back at the media. Does someone else in need of a cathartic release want to do the honors? I shouldn't have all of the fun. The boring and correct solution is to ignore the people who strawman all the time. Otherwise it won't ever end.
Considering Xdaunt is the leading authority of calling the "left" intellectual dishonest, I think it was only a matter of time people started doing the same to him.
|
On August 31 2016 07:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious. Venue shopping is a time honored tactic in law and one that is being ignored for the sake of this "balanced" argument.
And this is why the attorney's fees point is a total red herring. You just shop for a district that doesn't give them when you lose. And in the case at hand (the O'Brien litigation), Trump didn't have to pay O'Brien's fees.
"In response to this report, Trump told CBS News in a statement: "Timothy O'Brien knows nothing about me. His book was a total failure. I haven't even heard his name in over a decade, but ultimately I had great success doing what I wanted to do -- costing this third rate reporter a lot of legal fees.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-donald-trump-worth-reveals-in-deposition-tim-obrien-lawsuit-2006/
|
On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious.
Because 1) the conversation didn't call for it, and 2) all courts allow for awards of costs to the victor.
|
On August 31 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious. Because 1) the conversation didn't call for it, and 2) all courts allow for awards of costs to the victor.
1) It 100% does and you know it. 2) I have not seen you put forth any convincing evidence that defamation cases have high court costs vs attorney's fees. Or that appeals have any court costs that are not negligible. The labor of the attorney is the most expensive part of all the litigation I have ever been involved with.
|
Trump himself bragged about this, it baffles me how many Trump supporters consistently defend him by calling him a liar
|
On August 31 2016 07:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:10 Slaughter wrote:
The makeup of the senate has no bearing on what he said. They aren't doing their job because they want to gamble on getting a republican in the White House. They would have something to stand on if Scalia had died much closer to the election but keeping a seat open for this long is a disgrace. Especially since Scalia wasn't even cold in the ground before McConnell and his ilk were already grand standing about it. He was still warm when Democrats triumphantly spit on his memory too. How many Republicans opposed the nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor? How many presidents in the past have had to choose other appointments because of opposition in the Senate? He could also pick another. Next time campaign better so you get those votes. Divided governments don't happen by accident. Dems were much less forgiving in Bush's divided Congress years.
He could pick 100. The GOP said they would refuse to entertain any nominations or even hold any meetings. They are simply not doing their job in the name of obstructing a president they don't like. Saying "we won the majority in congress and we can do what we want...scoreboard bitches" is not an argument.
|
On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:...
Wrong once again. I never told people to ignore Trump's comments that he was glad to cost his opponents a lot of money. In fact, I very clearly said I have no doubt that he enjoys it. And he enjoys it because he effectively has no way to punish people who defame him, which leads us to the next point.
...
You're going to need to explain to me in what sense you have not directly contradicted yourself here, because I am not seeing it.
|
On August 31 2016 08:11 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:...
Wrong once again. I never told people to ignore Trump's comments that he was glad to cost his opponents a lot of money. In fact, I very clearly said I have no doubt that he enjoys it. And he enjoys it because he effectively has no way to punish people who defame him, which leads us to the next point.
... You're going to need to explain to me in what sense you have not directly contradicted yourself here, because I am not seeing it.
Should be "no other way."
|
On August 31 2016 08:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious. Because 1) the conversation didn't call for it, and 2) all courts allow for awards of costs to the victor. 1) It 100% does and you know it. 2) I have not seen you put forth any convincing evidence that defamation cases have high court costs vs attorney's fees. Or that appeals have any court costs that are not negligible. The labor of the attorney is the most expensive part of all the litigation I have ever been involved with.
This is why you are a paralegal and not an attorney. I have already explained all of that, but you aren't listening and you aren't bright enough to recognize that I'm not even being partisan on the issue. The only thing that I didn't say was that the victors on appeal also get their costs (and attorney fees if attorney fees were awarded at the trial level) if the judgment is affirmed.
|
On August 31 2016 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 07:26 Doodsmack wrote:On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here. That is fair that you did mention attorney's fees, but the issue here is whether Trump's action will be financially damaging to the defendant even if Trump's action gets thrown out fairly early. The American Rule dictates it will usually be the case that even with a frivolous suit, attorney's fees will not be recouped (unless you're saying defamation statutes usually make an exception to the American Rule). Since attorney's fees represent the bulk of the litigant's spend, Trump does risk significantly damaging his targets financially no matter if the case is frivolous. Also the general claim that only meritorious suits will make it to discovery is just silly to begin with. So no, the justice system does not effectively guard against frivolous suits costing all parties involved a lot. I know you didn't tell people to ignore that, I was pointing out the contradiction in you saying that Trump's cases won't cost a lot of money for the defendant if they don't get to discovery, even though Trump himself said they do cost defendants a lot of money even when they don't make it to discovery. On August 31 2016 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases". And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN." I certainly see what you perceive the "real issue" to be. I was pointing out the silliness of you saying Trump should initiate these lawsuits even though, under the law, he has no chance. In other words, you're advocating bad faith legal arguments (where Trump knows he can't prove malice) designed to financially punish people. I'm going to assume you don't normally adhere to this standard of ethics, you're just trying to tie up that pretzel logic necessary to defend Trump. And the cherry on top of your intellectual dishonesty is that Trump is pretty clearly suing this guy out of a personal vendetta. The ultimate insult to Trump's ego is saying he's not worth as much as he says he is. It's the only topic Trump made off-limits at his Comedy Central roast. Trump was not wisely bringing his force to bear on someone who wronged him, he was suing for $5 billion because the guy said he's only worth $100-150 million. You're defending Trump's bad faith litigiousness most likely because this is another instance where you get to say "F U" to the media. Please consider the sacrifices you're making in supporting Trump to get back at the media. Does someone else in need of a cathartic release want to do the honors? I shouldn't have all of the fun.
I didn't anticipate much of a response, your logic is just not that good on the issue. It's plain enough to see.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 31 2016 07:41 Plansix wrote:
Considering Xdaunt is the leading authority of calling the "left" intellectual dishonest, I think it was only a matter of time people started doing the same to him.
I don't see that he has been intellectually dishonest. While I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, I can see that he is generally pretty reasonable in how he argues his positions. Doodsmack is strawmanning hard in this case and it isn't worth addressing as if it were a genuine argument.
|
On August 31 2016 07:56 CannonsNCarriers wrote:And this is why the attorney's fees point is a total red herring. You just shop for a district that doesn't give them when you lose. And in the case at hand (the O'Brien litigation), Trump didn't have to pay O'Brien's fees. "In response to this report, Trump told CBS News in a statement: " Timothy O'Brien knows nothing about me. His book was a total failure. I haven't even heard his name in over a decade, but ultimately I had great success doing what I wanted to do -- costing this third rate reporter a lot of legal fees."" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-donald-trump-worth-reveals-in-deposition-tim-obrien-lawsuit-2006/
Didn't the O'Brien later say that Trump in fact did have to pay his legal fees and that he was just blowing hot air when he said he didn't? Or am I thinking of something else?
|
So I guess I know what the Constitutional Conservative spin is. Pretzel logic, insults, bad faith arguments, and citation free posts. Time for an answer on the ultimate question fellas.
Was it right or wrong for Trump to be "doing what I wanted to do", that is "costing this third rate reporter a lot of legal fees"?
I will go first. It was terribly wrong and exactly what gives the legal profession its bad reputation. Things can be wrong yet still legal under due process. And Trump's behavior would be disastrous from a President overseeing the DOJ. Just imagine the horrors of a Trumpkin DOJ suing anyone who besmirched his wealth.
EDIT: wait .. is Trump lying about paying O'Brien's fees? omfg every word this Trump dirtbag says is suspect ... now I have to look it up.
|
On August 31 2016 08:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 08:04 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
What i still do not get is why not just cite the relevant statutes for the small town court in new jersy where trump actually filed the claim, instead of throwing up a smokescreen of "it varies from state to state and statute to statute".
As we had as topic earlier: court shopping is an issue in the US, and on first sight the place to file seems very very awkward and suspicious. Because 1) the conversation didn't call for it, and 2) all courts allow for awards of costs to the victor. 1) It 100% does and you know it. 2) I have not seen you put forth any convincing evidence that defamation cases have high court costs vs attorney's fees. Or that appeals have any court costs that are not negligible. The labor of the attorney is the most expensive part of all the litigation I have ever been involved with. This is why you are a paralegal and not an attorney. I have already explained all of that, but you aren't listening and you aren't bright enough to recognize that I'm not even being partisan on the issue. The only thing that I didn't say was that the victors on appeal also get their costs (and attorney fees if attorney fees were awarded at the trial level) if the judgment is affirmed.
You are very much like most of the attorneys who passed through my firm, very happy to throw around the Esquire after your name when you don't like what you hear. And after a decade of working in the legal field, the Esq. means very little to me when it comes to validity of arguments. And when it comes to legal fees and costs, its a big part of my job. Specifically in creating affidavits for damages, including legal fees and costs. I don't think we have ever been awarded legal fees on any case. And we file a lot of motions to dismiss and many of them are allowed. We deal with some frivolous lawsuits in 3 different states and none of them aware attorneys fees unless forced by statute.
And like every attorney I know, you make massive efforts to shift the argument and discussion to where you know your case is strongest. Which is talking about this subject in the abstract, rather than about Trump himself and how he has operated in the past. Trump, who has retained the attorney that worked for Peter Thiel and Hogan. The same attorney that spent years venue shopping in an effort to bankrupt Gawker. The same one who has already threatened several media outlets with litigation on Trump's behalf. The attorney who's claim will not be dismissed in a rule 12 filing.
So your argument has legs if we deal in the abstract. But our discussion is not rooted in the abstract In reality, Trump is going to file these cases and his attorney are going to make damn sure it costs the other side more than it cost Trump. Because the guy he hired is an expert in that field. So your argument sort of sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
