LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Cash

Veroe said:
What I got from it is that Karen McDougal has an excellent case to sue Trump and Cohen for paying the Enquirer to bury her story using that tape that was just made a part of the public record.

Also what I got from it is that this is only the appetizer. There are eleven other tapes and maybe even worse disasters for Giuliani to scramble around TV doing damage control.
Click to expand...

She did. And she won. Sort of.

But she did not sue Trump because she did not have any legal grounds upon which to do so.

Grounds for a civil lawsuit generally exist upon the failure of one person (party A) to perform a duty owed to another (party B) that results in physical or emotional injury and/or property or financial loss. Typically that "duty" may be defined by either legal statutes or properly executed personal contracts.

The point is, BOTH the duty and the loss ("damages") must be documented to recover the sought after damages.

Karen McDougal had a $150,000 contract with the publishers of the National Enquirer for her "exclusive story" of a tryst with Donald Trump. That contract prohibited her from selling or discussing that story with anyone else. The Enquirer, under that same contract, was under no compulsion whatsoever to actually publish the story.

Question for you: Did the Enquirer and Ms. McDougal have the legal right to enter into that contract based upon their mutual agreement of the "value" of that potential story INDEPENDENT OF whether it was ever actually published?

Answer: Most certainly "yes." Indisputably so.

Another question for you: Based on that same rationale AND in light of no additional "duty" to McDougal other than the payment of $150,000, did the National Enquirer have the right to enter into any contract with Donald Trump or his associates NOT to run the story based upon their mutual agreement of the "value" of the Enquirer's silence?

Answer: Most certainly "yes." Indisputably so.

But in March of this year McDougal filed suit against the Enquirer (https://www.scribd.com/document/374439467/McDougal-Complaint-Exhibits) alleging that her agreement was invalid and void because:

(1) there was fraud in its execution, (misrepresentation as to the certainty of publication of the story and collusion between HER OWN LAWYER and the publishers to her detriment)

(2) the object of the contract is illegal, (since the agreement with McDougal was made in alleged "coordination" with Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen that aspect of the contract represented an alleged illegal "in kind" campaign contribution and served to void the contract as a whole.)

(3) the contract violates fundamental public policy. (From the original complaint: "The State of California does not abide threats of legal action to coerce a person -- especially a less powerful and sophisticated person -- to permanently refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern and profound importance to the country.")

In short, McDougal DID assert a duty owed and failed by the National Enquirer under California law. California claimed jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of its administration of the original agreement, and the various business activities of AMI (the Enquirer's corporate publisher) in that state.

That suit was settled without trial in April of this year. By all public reports, Ms. McDougal was delighted.

Since the suit did not go to trial, no court ruled on the merits of the claims McDougal made and there is no basis to conclude which of those claims might have been most legally compelling, if any. It cannot reasonably be concluded that she would have won the case at all.

But based on her delight at being released from her contractual obligations to AMI, it is absurd to believe Donald Trump has any personal "remaining" legal duty to her in any way, shape or form.
 
Last edited:
Why are you so obsessed? I don't give a shit about any of that.

Did you ever care about the actual author of Dreams?
 
Rightguide said:
We'll see what happens to his client base in the future if he isn't disbarred.
Click to expand...

He should be. Calling him a lawyer is a bit of a stretch. It would be more apt to call him a scam artist. Wasn't he running a pay-to-play scam during the transition that AT&T and other companies fell for paying him tons of money for "consulting" on the new president's intentions for their business interests?

In any event his career as a lawyer using the term with a stretch to include him is pretty much ruined. Who the hell would hire Cohen as their fixer after this very public disgrace?
 
Colonel Hogan said:
She did. And she won. Sort of.

But she did not sue Trump because she did not have any legal grounds upon which to do so.

Grounds for a civil lawsuit generally exist upon the failure of one person (party A) to perform a duty owed to another (party B) that results in physical or emotional injury and/or property or financial loss. Typically that "duty" may be defined by either legal statutes or properly executed personal contracts.

The point is, BOTH the duty and the loss ("damages") must be documented to recover the sought after damages.

Karen McDougal had a $150,000 contract with the publishers of the National Enquirer for her "exclusive story" of a tryst with Donald Trump. That contract prohibited her from selling or discussing that story with anyone else. The Enquirer, under that same contract, was under no compulsion whatsoever to actually publish the story.

Question for you: Did the Enquirer and Ms. McDougal have the legal right to enter into that contract based upon their mutual agreement of the "value" of that potential story INDEPENDENT OF whether it was ever actually published?

Answer: Most certainly "yes." Indisputably so.

Another question for you: Based on that same rationale AND in light of no additional "duty" to McDougal other than the payment of $150,000, did the National Enquirer have the right to enter into any contract with Donald Trump or his associates NOT to run the story based upon their mutual agreement of the "value" of the Enquirer's silence?

Answer: Most certainly "yes." Indisputably so.

But in March of this year McDougal filed suit against the Enquirer (https://www.scribd.com/document/374439467/McDougal-Complaint-Exhibits) alleging that her agreement was invalid and void because:

(1) there was fraud in its execution, (misrepresentation as to the certainty of publication of the story and collusion between HER OWN LAWYER and the publishers to her detriment)

(2) the object of the contract is illegal, (since the agreement with McDougal was made in alleged "coordination" with Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen that aspect of the contract represented an alleged illegal "in kind" campaign contribution and served to void the contract as a whole.)

(3) the contract violates fundamental public policy. (From the original complaint: "The State of California does not abide threats of legal action to coerce a person -- especially a less powerful and sophisticated person -- to permanently refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern and profound importance to the country.")

In short, McDougal DID assert a duty owed and failed by the National Enquirer under California law. California claimed jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of its administration of the original agreement, and the various business activities of AMI (the Enquirer's corporate publisher) in that state.

That suit was settled without trial in April of this year. By all public reports, Ms. McDougal was delighted.

Since the suit did not go to trial, no court ruled on the merits of the claims McDougal made and there is no basis to conclude which of those claims might have been most legally compelling, if any. It cannot reasonably be concluded that she would have won the case at all.

But based on her delight at being released from her contractual obligations to AMI, it is absurd to believe Donald Trump has any personal "remaining" legal duty to her in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

Thanks Colonel that was actually pretty informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Show you mine if you show me yours, firsts
Replies
1
Views
67
Greytruck
G
C
Looking for a Lost Story
Replies
4
Views
143
spiderwal
spiderwal
B
Hubby's friend touching me in public
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
travelinma
T
richfun
Aroused in embarrassing public situation
Replies
2
Views
217
Jada59
Jada59
BlinkenLights93
Would this story be allowed? (CNC Home Intruder story)
Replies
3
Views
214
ShanahS
ShanahS
Back
Top