US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4858

On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:


As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery.

And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case.

We do not find that standard to have been met in this case. O'Brien has certified that he re-interviewed his three confidential sources prior to publishing their net worth estimates, and he has produced notes of his meetings with them both in 2004 and in 2005. The notes are significant, in that they provide remarkably similar estimates of Trump's net worth, thereby suggesting the accuracy of the information conveyed. See Clyburn v. News World Commc'ns, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 635, 642 (D.D.C. 1989) (basing finding of no actual malice on fact that confidential sources gave consistent information).

Further, the accounts of the sources contain significant amounts of additional information that O'Brien was able to verify independently. In answers to interrogatories, he listed that information as:

(1) plaintiff's interest in the limited partnerships that owned the West Side Yards project, (2) plaintiff's negotiations with Hilton in the mid-1990s regarding the potential sale of plaintiff's casino company, (3) plaintiff's business dealings with Kenneth Shapiro and Daniel Sullivan; (4) negotiations regarding the restructuring of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, Inc. in 2004; (5) the sale of Fred Trump's real estate portfolio in Brooklyn in 2004; (6) plaintiff's interest in 40 Wall Street and the level of borrowings relating to that property; (7) plaintiff's interest in the CM Building and litigation surrounding that interest; (8) plaintiff's interest in Trump International Hotel and Tower on Columbus Circle in New York; (9) plaintiff's financial condition and the restructuring of plaintiff's outstanding debt during certain periods.

On August 31 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:

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 09:02 LegalLord wrote:

I don't have a stake in the discussion at hand and I'm mostly just reading. I just call it when I see it.

On August 31 2016 08:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
must suck to be a fancy schmancy JD and get schooled by a mere paralegal

On August 31 2016 08:49 puerk wrote:



That was your entry into the discussion.

The topic you entered was: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431575/donald-trump-tim-obrien-courtroom-story

The lawsuit was bogus and trump knew it.

It did not fail because the standard for malice is ridiculuously high as you claimed but because he was actually doing journalistic work and was able to demonstrate in court.



There was no "wronging" by O'Brian against Trump, as you implied. He did his job, and did it thoroughly.

That you do not like that an autor can publish significant and relevant information by anonymous sources, is not a valid defense for the character flaws of trump or how the financial aspects of such a lawsuit work against the public interest of free press.

It did not fail because the standard for malice is ridiculuously high as you claimed but because he was actually doing journalistic work and was able to demonstrate in court.

Donald Trump, the plaintiff in a suit for defamation, appeals from a Law Division order granting summary judgment to defendants, Timothy O'Brien, the author of TrumpNation, The Art of Being The Donald, and his publishers, Time Warner Book Group, Inc. and Warner Books, Inc.1 On appeal, Trump contends that he produced clear and convincing evidence of actual malice on the part of O'Brien and that issues of fact precluded summary judgment. He argues as well that O'Brien was an agent of his publisher, and thus the publisher defendants should be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior. We affirm.

....

On March 20, 2009, defendants filed two motions for summary judgment, arguing in one that Trump had failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence actual malice on the part of O'Brien or respondeat superior liability on the part of the publisher defendants, and in the other arguing that Trump had failed to demonstrate that he had been damaged by O'Brien's allegedly defamatory statements. In a lengthy, thoughtful and legally well-supported oral opinion, Judge Michele M. Fox, relying on New Jersey and New York law, which she properly found to be in accord on the issues raised, granted summary judgment on the ground that Trump had failed to establish actual malice. She did not reach defendants' second motion.

....

Thus, an inference of actual malice may arise when a false report is published solely in reliance on confidential sources if (1) the content of the report is such as to be defamatory as a matter of law, (2) the defendant knew or should have known of some reasonable means of verifying its accuracy, and (3) the failure to verify rises to the level of a gross violation of the standards of responsible journalism. If the recklessness approaches the level of publishing a knowing, calculated falsehood, the decision whether the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth should be submitted to the jury. See Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing, 89 N.J. 451, 466-467 (1982).

We do not find that standard to have been met in this case.

On August 31 2016 08:27 Chairman Ray wrote:
So I'm looking at a couple sources regarding the EU commission ruling:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf

One thing that's not clear is how did Apple manage to file a head office that was not based in any country. Under what legal basis can a entity be established under no country, and how was the Irish government involved in this?

On August 31 2016 08:47 Plansix wrote:

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.

On August 31 2016 09:17 KwarK wrote:
Way I see it xDaunt spent a while arguing against what Trump literally wrote (which is pretty common in the current electoral cycle, he's a hard man to support) and lost that one. Arguing that Trump isn't deliberately using lawsuits to inflict financial damage on those he perceives as his enemies in the media is a tough argument to make when Trump is bragging about doing exactly that.


He then moved on to arguing that while Trump's lawsuits may not strictly speaking have merit if you go by the Supreme Court's definition of legal merit he still thinks they're valid because if Trump feels harmed by a lawsuit then it's unreasonable to force him to prove actual malice. What matters here is Trump's feelings. Note that xDaunt is not a Supreme Court justice which is probably for the best given he's trying to replace the 1st amendment with "Thou Shalt Not Hurt The Feels".

After establishing that Trump was actually trying to bankrupt his perceived enemies with cases that strictly speaking he knows he cannot win (but totally should be able to because of the aforementioned feels amendment) xDaunt then moved onto how actually, now he thinks about it, it's morally right to do this. After all, those damn journalists need to be taught a lesson about how they can't just write about a presidential candidate and get away with it, not on Trump's watch. Even if there was no malice he should still be able to use the American legal system as his own personal cudgel to beat them with until they learn to respect his safe space.



Honestly it's been quite a dramatic ride. I don't think any of us expected to end up here when it started, least of all the participants. We got to see xDaunt's factually informed professional opinion change dramatically in the period of just a few hours, going from "it can't happen" to "it shouldn't have to happen" and ending up at "it does happen and that's a good thing".

On August 31 2016 08:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
must suck to be a fancy schmancy JD and get schooled by a mere paralegal

On August 31 2016 09:22 xDaunt wrote:


You're not doing any better than Doodsmack at following my arguments.

On August 31 2016 09:15 xDaunt wrote:


This is insufferable.

I made no specific comments on the O'Brien lawsuit other than stating that I highly doubted Trump's claim that he was able to bleed O'Brien's time and money disproportionately. I made no comments on the merits. I discussed the lay of the land generally on defamation claims in explaining why they are so hard for public figures to win on even when the comments in question are false and injurious. Specifically, I pointed out that actual malice has to be proved. Long story short, you have absolutely no grounds to be calling me out with the following:



But do you know what's really fucking hilarious about the fact that you did call me out on it? THE FUCKING COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST TRUMP EXPRESSLY BECAUSE HE COULDN'T PROVE MALICE.

Let's just quote liberally from the case:



Let me just state the obvious because some of you still haven't figured it out. First, none of you are going to out-argue me on a legal issue, so just don't try. Second, you shouldn't try anyway because I'm not being partisan in my analysis of the legal issues. All I tried to do here was report how and why things are the way they are.

On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote: [...] Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement.

On August 31 2016 09:28 KwarK wrote:

I think I'm doing slightly better at following your arguments than you are. I edited my post to include your arguments in case you forgot what they are. I know you're finding this election cycle difficult, we all are. It'll be over soon and you can go back to last year's xDaunt who didn't have to rearrange himself constantly to find a new way to fit Trump being the good guy into his worldview.

Like seriously, take a look at last year's xDaunt. Trump's changed you, and not for the better.

On August 31 2016 09:38 puerk wrote:



about the specific case:



The case went into significant discovery, the claim had no merit and the defendant said nothing he shouldn't have.
He had sources, he demonstrated they were trustworthy and that he handled them correctly.
Your conclusions are still wrong and your arrogance about your wrongness just keeps you digging your hole deeper.