Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Judge strikes down Trump's $15 billion suit against the New York Times [View all]Ocelot II
(127,253 posts)3. What did I tell ya?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20647485
If anyone wants to read this Truth Social post disguised as a lawsuit, here's the complaint in all its absurd glory: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf I feel like I lost a few IQ points just reading that mess. It's basically a blowjob on paper, extolling the brilliance and perfection and sheer genius of Dear Leader for about 75 pages. But I also flashed back to my federal civil procedure class, and made mental notes as to the many violations of the rules of pleading in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be found in this verbal dungheap. Let's start with Rule 8, which says that a complaint is to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." There's nothing short or plain about this statement. And: "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." I didn't see anything simple, concise or direct; the whole thing, complete with photographs, is just a big fat whine about how unfair NYT's reporting was. They claim actual malice, a requirement for a defamation claim against a public figure (this isn't NYT's first rodeo; the actual malice principle came from the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan). But Trump's crack team of lawyers doesn't seem to understand what actual malice means in this context - not personal malice or hatred, but the publication of a statement while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Nothing Trump complains about is factual - it's all opinion, which is protected speech. He just complains that NYT and its reporters hate him and it's so unfair that they don't recognize his genius.
He's trying to extort money from NYT the way he did from CBS. This is SO bad, though, that NYT's lawyers, once they've stopped laughing, should file a Rule 11 motion - sanctions for filing a court document without a reasonable basis in law or fact. But read the thing if you didn't just have lunch.
If anyone wants to read this Truth Social post disguised as a lawsuit, here's the complaint in all its absurd glory: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf I feel like I lost a few IQ points just reading that mess. It's basically a blowjob on paper, extolling the brilliance and perfection and sheer genius of Dear Leader for about 75 pages. But I also flashed back to my federal civil procedure class, and made mental notes as to the many violations of the rules of pleading in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be found in this verbal dungheap. Let's start with Rule 8, which says that a complaint is to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." There's nothing short or plain about this statement. And: "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required." I didn't see anything simple, concise or direct; the whole thing, complete with photographs, is just a big fat whine about how unfair NYT's reporting was. They claim actual malice, a requirement for a defamation claim against a public figure (this isn't NYT's first rodeo; the actual malice principle came from the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan). But Trump's crack team of lawyers doesn't seem to understand what actual malice means in this context - not personal malice or hatred, but the publication of a statement while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Nothing Trump complains about is factual - it's all opinion, which is protected speech. He just complains that NYT and its reporters hate him and it's so unfair that they don't recognize his genius.
He's trying to extort money from NYT the way he did from CBS. This is SO bad, though, that NYT's lawyers, once they've stopped laughing, should file a Rule 11 motion - sanctions for filing a court document without a reasonable basis in law or fact. But read the thing if you didn't just have lunch.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
8 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Judge strikes down Trump's $15 billion suit against the New York Times [View all]
LetMyPeopleVote
Friday
OP
A federal judge just sumamrily struck Trump's complaint against the New York Times, calling it, essentially, garbage
LetMyPeopleVote
Friday
#1
NYT didn't even file a motion to strike the complaint. The judge acted sua sponte.
rsdsharp
Friday
#27
What is your prediction, does trump replead or appeal to the 11th Circuit and then to SCOTUS?
LetMyPeopleVote
Friday
#23
It's not an appealable order. They will have to refile their complaint in compliance with Rule 8
Ocelot II
Friday
#25
If the revised complaint isn't cleaned up, the lawyers are subject to sanctions -
Ocelot II
Friday
#33
He will re-file consistent with the court's decision. I still think he'll lose on the merits.
onenote
Friday
#18
Yes. But the judge would've ignored most of that shit anyway. It was only included to stroke Trump's ego
onenote
Friday
#38
Exactly. But getting the judge to pay attention to it was never the point of the crap
onenote
Friday
#37
Why wouldn't he? He'll just publicly say that all that crap was part of his lawsuit.
onenote
Friday
#41
MaddowBlog-Judge rejects Trump's case against The New York Times, tells lawyers to rewrite it
LetMyPeopleVote
Friday
#24