My legal analysis of Trump's complaint is that it wasn't even intended--by Trump or his lawyers--to prevail in a court of law under the governing law. As far as I could ascertain, Trump and his lawyers used that lawsuit for outright open and notorious extortion--much like I'm certain Trump and his lawyers used other lawsuits previously.
Trump has essentially turned the US government into the O in RICO. It seems that even was his point in laying off or firing all the people who lost their jobs because of Trump. I'm seriously starting to think that Trump hired Guiliani (a former US Attorney who prosecuted organized crime in NYC) at least in part to advise Trump on how to do "business" like a mob boss.
I don't always reply to your posts, in fact, I actually rarely do.
I'd like to just say I value your posts, read them every time you post, and have learned, which is my intent, as a non-legal eagle, and mostly recognize how passionate, yet respectful, you react to cases as you follow them throughout the process.
You are a valuable contribution to independent thought and reporting as well as helping us all understand the cumbersome and uniqueness of the law process.
Bravo, Judge Merryday! It seems the lower courts have become fed up with Trump’s screeds costumed as “litigation”. Just hope the sentiment rises to the lofty, elite precincts of SCOTUS.
Bwa-ha-ha! Merryday calls it what it is: a preposterous abuse of the courts to publicize DJT's latest tyrannical, melodramatic attempt to quash free speech. Sunlight and laughter on a Friday afternoon! Thank you, Judge Merryday, for sparing us all.
So, speaking of judge shopping, will Team Trump (and the lawyer at whose child Trump's gun is surely still pointed) trim down and refile the complaint, or will they move to have the case shifted over to the courtroom of one Aileen Cannon? Just kidding, but wouldn't completely shock me.
I certainly agree Trump’s complaint was an abuse of the legal system. It was what the Montana Supreme Court in 2007 called “legal thuggery.” But federal judges must not respond to legal thuggery by violating our Constitution. A court could issue a different order. I even think I would support a civil contempt order in this case (imposing a fine for every day the complaint isn't remedied or withdrawn). I'm objecting only to the clear illegality (and unconstitutionality) of actually striking an entire pleading the way the judge did.
Article VI commands that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." That governs Trump and even Trump's private attorneys (as judicial officers of the court). It also governs all federal judges, as do their two oaths of office in 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 453.
“No person” may “be deprived” by any federal public servant “of life, liberty, or property" before affording them all “process of law” that is "due." Amendment V. Even Trump arguably is a person.
The very first rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 1) emphasizes that such “rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.”
The federal rules of procedure and evidence are not mere guidelines. They are governing law. They were approved by Congress, so they have the force of a federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2072, 2074. Federal law explicitly and clearly and precluded striking Trump’s pleading the way it was stricken.
Rule 12(f) is perfectly clear that “[t]he court may act" on "its own” only in a particular manner. “The court” only “may strike [merely] from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
Rule 12(e) is perfectly clear that a district “court may strike” an entire “pleading or issue any other appropriate order” only after affording the process of law that is due. The process of law that is due is prescribed immediately before the foregoing:
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.”
My legal analysis of Trump's complaint is that it wasn't even intended--by Trump or his lawyers--to prevail in a court of law under the governing law. As far as I could ascertain, Trump and his lawyers used that lawsuit for outright open and notorious extortion--much like I'm certain Trump and his lawyers used other lawsuits previously.
Trump has essentially turned the US government into the O in RICO. It seems that even was his point in laying off or firing all the people who lost their jobs because of Trump. I'm seriously starting to think that Trump hired Guiliani (a former US Attorney who prosecuted organized crime in NYC) at least in part to advise Trump on how to do "business" like a mob boss.
I don't always reply to your posts, in fact, I actually rarely do.
I'd like to just say I value your posts, read them every time you post, and have learned, which is my intent, as a non-legal eagle, and mostly recognize how passionate, yet respectful, you react to cases as you follow them throughout the process.
You are a valuable contribution to independent thought and reporting as well as helping us all understand the cumbersome and uniqueness of the law process.
Thanks for all you do, Chris.
Thanks so much for this.
It's easy to read and move on but taking the time to thank people is often something I don't do enough. It's deserved! Thanks for your reply!
Bravo, Judge Merryday! It seems the lower courts have become fed up with Trump’s screeds costumed as “litigation”. Just hope the sentiment rises to the lofty, elite precincts of SCOTUS.
I love that comment by the judge: "TEDIOUS."
Bwa-ha-ha! Merryday calls it what it is: a preposterous abuse of the courts to publicize DJT's latest tyrannical, melodramatic attempt to quash free speech. Sunlight and laughter on a Friday afternoon! Thank you, Judge Merryday, for sparing us all.
These Trump lawsuits are such a waste of everyone's time. At least "just the tip of Defendants’ melting iceberg of falsehoods" made me laugh out loud.
Why are the attorneys that write this crap up not being put under more scrutiny from the bar?
So, speaking of judge shopping, will Team Trump (and the lawyer at whose child Trump's gun is surely still pointed) trim down and refile the complaint, or will they move to have the case shifted over to the courtroom of one Aileen Cannon? Just kidding, but wouldn't completely shock me.
I certainly agree Trump’s complaint was an abuse of the legal system. It was what the Montana Supreme Court in 2007 called “legal thuggery.” But federal judges must not respond to legal thuggery by violating our Constitution. A court could issue a different order. I even think I would support a civil contempt order in this case (imposing a fine for every day the complaint isn't remedied or withdrawn). I'm objecting only to the clear illegality (and unconstitutionality) of actually striking an entire pleading the way the judge did.
Article VI commands that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." That governs Trump and even Trump's private attorneys (as judicial officers of the court). It also governs all federal judges, as do their two oaths of office in 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 453.
“No person” may “be deprived” by any federal public servant “of life, liberty, or property" before affording them all “process of law” that is "due." Amendment V. Even Trump arguably is a person.
The very first rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 1) emphasizes that such “rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.”
The federal rules of procedure and evidence are not mere guidelines. They are governing law. They were approved by Congress, so they have the force of a federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2072, 2074. Federal law explicitly and clearly and precluded striking Trump’s pleading the way it was stricken.
Rule 12(f) is perfectly clear that “[t]he court may act" on "its own” only in a particular manner. “The court” only “may strike [merely] from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
Rule 12(e) is perfectly clear that a district “court may strike” an entire “pleading or issue any other appropriate order” only after affording the process of law that is due. The process of law that is due is prescribed immediately before the foregoing:
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.”