Orange Boi's Suit Dismissed ... Lawyers Spanked.

[jaF0]

"In the ruling, Middlebrooks said he felt the claims brought by Trump and his lawyers were not "warranted under the law."

"In presenting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not being presented for any improper purpose; that the claims are warranted under the law; and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support...By filing the amended complaint, plaintiff's lawyers certified to the court that, to the best of their knowledge, 'the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law," and that "the factual contentions have evidentiary support.'"

"I have serious doubts about whether that standard is met here," Middlebrooks added."

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-threatens-sanctions-trump-lawyers-over-clinton-lawsuit-1741544



Disbarment approaching?

 

[HisArpy]

They can appeal the ruling.

What will you say if the appellate court reverses and reinstates the amended complaint?

 

[RobDownSouth]

They can appeal the ruling.

What will you say if the appellate court reverses and reinstates the amended complaint?

Do you wish to nut up and go on record that you believe the appellate court will reverse the decision?
I have no problem stating for the record that I do not believe the appellate court will find sufficient grounds to reverse.
What say you? Hmmm?

 

[HisArpy]

Do you wish to nut up and go on record that you believe the appellate court will reverse the decision?
I have no problem stating for the record that I do not believe the appellate court will find sufficient grounds to reverse.
What say you? Hmmm?

It's easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to pick one side or the other. You have a 50/50 shot at being right and if you're wrong you can just hide your face until the shame goes away because there's no personal risk.

For myself, I try to refrain from choosing sides in situations where both politics and law are involved. Which is why I asked the question I did rather than voice an opinion like you have.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to pick one side or the other. You have a 50/50 shot at being right and if you're wrong you can just hide your face until the shame goes away because there's no personal risk.

For myself, I try to refrain from choosing sides in situations where both politics and law are involved. Which is why I asked the question I did rather than voice an opinion like you have.

Your lack of "testicular fortitude" is duly quoted and noted.

Unlike you, I have no issue whatsoever about owning up to the occasional mistake I make about facts.

 

[HisArpy]

Your lack of "testicular fortitude" is duly quoted and noted.

Unlike you, I have no issue whatsoever about owning up to the occasional mistake I make about facts.

dudly, the day YOU PERSONALLY step into a courtroom on behalf of a client is the day you can tell me about the size of your "testicular fortitude."

Can't do that? Fine, how about YOU PERSONALLY go climb a broadcasting tower in Oklahoma to change the light bulb. You can't? How about a base jump? Free climb?

Can't do those either? Then STFU you insufferable whiny little ball less bitch.

 

[ll74]

Lol...this is just too fucking much right there. I need that for my copy pasta.

 

[jomar]

And, we’re off!

 

[butters]

dudly, the day YOU PERSONALLY step into a courtroom on behalf of a client is the day you can tell me about the size of your "testicular fortitude."

Can't do that? Fine, how about YOU PERSONALLY go climb a broadcasting tower in Oklahoma to change the light bulb. You can't? How about a base jump? Free climb?

Can't do those either? Then STFU you insufferable whiny little ball less bitch.

*points and laughs*

 

[Comshaw]

It's easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to pick one side or the other. You have a 50/50 shot at being right and if you're wrong you can just hide your face until the shame goes away because there's no personal risk.

For myself, I try to refrain from choosing sides in situations where both politics and law are involved. Which is why I asked the question I did rather than voice an opinion like you have.

BAWAHAHA! The problem with your excuse sparky is you have never had a problem up till now spouting total utter hogwash on any subject. So what's changed. I think I know:
"My dick is sore from stepping on it soooo many times and I don't want to do that anymore."


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

BAWAHAHA! The problem with your excuse sparky is you have never had a problem up till now spouting total utter hogwash on any subject. So what's changed. I think I know:
"My dick is sore from stepping on it soooo many times and I don't want to do that anymore."


Comshaw

Yawn.

Do you really believe that I give a shit what your opinion is?

 

[HisArpy]

*points and laughs*

^ has hit and surpassed the age of senility.

 

[Comshaw]

Yawn.

Do you really believe that I give a shit what your opinion is?

Why should you give a shit? Most who are irrational and unhinged usually don't give a shit about anyone else. But if you REALLY didn't give a shit you wouldn't have replied to my post. That shows I did get under your skin, huh sparky?

Comshaw

 

[phrodeau]

^ has hit and surpassed the age of senility.

Nice.

 

[RobDownSouth]

dudly, the day YOU PERSONALLY step into a courtroom on behalf of a client is the day you can tell me about the size of your "testicular fortitude."
Can't do that? Fine, how about YOU PERSONALLY go climb a broadcasting tower in Oklahoma to change the light bulb. You can't? How about a base jump? Free climb?
Can't do those either? Then STFU you insufferable whiny little ball less bitch.

Ooooh, look like we've entered the "dick measuring" phase of the conversation now. What a treat for teh ladiez!

 

[jaF0]

^^^ You don't think the Arp'd one is the biggest dick?

 

[oggbashan]

dudly, the day YOU PERSONALLY step into a courtroom on behalf of a client is the day you can tell me about the size of your "testicular fortitude."

Can't do that? Fine, how about YOU PERSONALLY go climb a broadcasting tower in Oklahoma to change the light bulb. You can't? How about a base jump? Free climb?

Can't do those either? Then STFU you insufferable whiny little ball less bitch.

I've done all that or the equivalent in my youth. I've represented my Residents' Association against an appeal by a brewer complete with three barristers against me - I won.

I've climbed towers. I was a cliff rescue team first responder and jumped off many cliffs just with a rope wrapped around me. I've parachuted from airplanes and off cliffs.

But none of these qualify me to express an opinion. But I do anyway.

 

[butters]

so, back in september:

Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump’s suit in September, calling it a “manifesto.” The judge was even harsher in his ruling on Dolan’s motion for sanctions, saying the failings of the lawsuit were “basic and obvious” and that the lawyers’ conduct was “willful, not simply negligent.”

“Thirty-one individuals and organizations were summoned to court, forced to hire lawyers to defend against frivolous claims,” the judge wrote. “The only common thread against them was Mr. Trump’s animus.”

today:

Alina Habba, one of Trump’s most outspoken attorneys, and other lawyers involved in the case were ordered Thursday to pay $50,000 to the court and $16,274 in legal fees and costs to one of the defendants

“The rule of law is undermined by the toxic combination of political fundraising with legal fees paid by political action committees, reckless and factually untrue statements by lawyers at rallies and in the media, and efforts to advance a political narrative through lawsuits without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory,” wrote US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in West Palm Beach, Florida. “Lawyers are enabling this behavior.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=78de2035a87944c4f66a974770baa320

 

[HisArpy]

I've done all that or the equivalent in my youth. I've represented my Residents' Association against an appeal by a brewer complete with three barristers against me - I won.

I've climbed towers. I was a cliff rescue team first responder and jumped off many cliffs just with a rope wrapped around me. I've parachuted from airplanes and off cliffs.

But none of these qualify me to express an opinion. But I do anyway.

Which is probably why no one craps on your opinions.

The rest of the phonies here only wish they could dream about doing the same.

 

[HisArpy]

so, back in september:



today:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=78de2035a87944c4f66a974770baa320

Interesting how a judge decided to punish someone using their non-courtroom free speech activities as justification.

It makes me wonder if the judge perhaps is using his own brand of politics to replace his reason. Of a certainty it gives a basis for an appeal, if the lawyers involved choose to do so, among others.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Interesting how a judge decided to punish someone using their non-courtroom free speech activities as justification.

It makes me wonder if the judge perhaps is using his own brand of politics to replace his reason. Of a certainty it gives a basis for an appeal, if the lawyers involved choose to do so, among others.

Using the courts as a means to put a "legal veneer" on your toxic shitsludge ideology is a perversion of the Justice system. Kudos to the judge who called a spade a spade.

 

[HisArpy]

Using the courts as a means to put a "legal veneer" on your toxic shitsludge ideology is a perversion of the Justice system. Kudos to the judge who called a spade a spade.

Objective analysis of the events (as reported by the media) only show that the judge is the one who is using his personal beliefs here.

Whether you believe that, agree with it, or neither, only colors your position on the judge's ruling. What it does not do is change the facts.