Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Bob001]

and the arbitrator will decide that as I have explained previously.

There is no contractual requirement for arbitration if there is no contract. That's a matter for the courts.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is no contractual requirement for arbitration if there is no contract. That's a matter for the courts.

Hi, actually I have explained this previously with citations to authority.

The arbitrator will decide if the the contract is valid. Arguably had Stormy and her Drama Queen Lawyer challenged only the arbitration clause, the result might have been different, but as it stands?

Arbitrator.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Even Breitbart puts more effort into making themselves look legitimate.

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way? Drama Queen the Lawyer is pounding his fist about campaign finance violations and is claiming that is what the porn stars suit is all about. However, the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance law.

Not Stormy or her lawyer or even the Federal Court.

And that, as they say, you can take to the bank.

 

[The Big Dog]

Even Breitbart puts more effort into making themselves look legitimate.

Not sure what that means, but absolutely every time Avenatti gets way over his skis he does look less and less legitimate.

 

[acbytesla]

Hi, actually I have explained this previously with citations to authority.

The arbitrator will decide if the the contract is valid. Arguably had Stormy and her Drama Queen Lawyer challenged only the arbitration clause, the result might have been different, but as it stands?

Arbitrator.

You're funny. You act like you know what you are talking about. I think it is precious.

Now, I'm not a lawyer or a judge and unlike you I'm not going to act like I understand contract law to the degree that I can say with any certainty how judge may rule on the validity of a contract regardless if in that contract it calls for arbitration.

I can't help but think that a judge may rule the contract invalid because it runs counter to the public's right to know about a candidate running for the highest office in the land.

What do you think? Do you think that a Presidential candidate in the middle of an election should be able to pay off people to keep them from talking about them?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're funny. You act like you know what you are talking about. I think it is precious.

Now, I'm not a lawyer or a judge and unlike you I'm not going to act like I understand contract law to the degree that I can say with any certainty how judge may rule on the validity of a contract regardless if in that contract it calls for arbitration.

I can't help but think that a judge may rule the contract invalid because it runs counter to the public's right to know about a candidate running for the highest office in the land.

What do you think? Do you think that a Presidential candidate in the middle of an election should be able to pay off people to keep them from talking about them?

Well, that is super, but you see, here is the thing, the question of contract validity is one for the arbitrators.

The public's "right to know" is not absolute and even candidates running for Office have some modicum of privacy, particular personal things like sexual history and family relations.

Was the contract legal? From Trump's perspective, Of course. Does the fact he was running for President make it "illegal."? Of course not. Did he violate campaign finance regulations? That is not within THIS Court's jurisdiction to say as I have already said.

 

[The_Animus]

Let's say it does go to arbitration.

If the arbitrator decided the contact is invalid, would that not also invalidate the need for it to be decided by arbitration and either party could bring it to court to be decided again anyway?

Seems like it makes far more sense for it to be decided in court from the start

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Does the fact he was running for President make it "illegal."?

The textbook literally says so.

 

[plague311]

Jump through my hoops! then: "You not understanding things..."

Yeah, let me get right on spoon feeding you in compliance with all your demands.

As I said, I am WAY past caring whether you read the evidence I cited or not... may be one of those people who pointed out that I don't "understand things" can walk you through it.

Good luck!

Stolen directly from the Truther handbook.

"I don't care if you understand, I understand and that means that I am right!"

Seriously, that's what you're trotting out?

 

[The Big Dog]

Stolen directly from the Truther handbook.

"I don't care if you understand, I understand and that means that I am right!"

Seriously, that's what you're trotting out?

No, it means that I have politely answered your question, and have no desire to further waste my time when you refuse to read the rule and stridently demand that I cater to you.

Thanks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's say it does go to arbitration.

If the arbitrator decided the contact is invalid, would that not also invalidate the need for it to be decided by arbitration and either party could bring it to court to be decided again anyway?

Seems like it makes far more sense for it to be decided in court from the start

But Stormy can not seek that answer in arbitration. And of course arbitration is enforceable even when it is legally the wrong decision. Or rather a mistake in the application of the law is not a valid reason for overturning a arbitration.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's say it does go to arbitration.

If the arbitrator decided the contact is invalid, would that not also invalidate the need for it to be decided by arbitration and either party could bring it to court to be decided again anyway?

Seems like it makes far more sense for it to be decided in court from the start

No. The arbitrators determination is binding and thus the contract cannot be enforced. You see, you can't say that the arbitrator found that the contract is invalid so that means the arbitration in invalid and therefore enforce the contract.

But you have indeed cottoned to why the courts sometimes decide whether the arbitration clause (not the whole contract) is valid!

 

[Thermal]

Let's say it does go to arbitration.

If the arbitrator decided the contact is invalid, would that not also invalidate the need for it to be decided by arbitration and either party could bring it to court to be decided again anyway?

Seems like it makes far more sense for it to be decided in court from the start

I testify now and then in construction litigation, and although there are arbitration clauses in most construction contracts, we go straight to civil. Never saw one slow down a complaint

 

[applecorped]

This pitterin', patterin', beatin' and spatterin' drives me mad

 

[The Big Dog]

But Stormy can not seek that answer in arbitration. And of course arbitration is enforceable even when it is legally the wrong decision. Or rather a mistake in the application of the law is not a valid reason for overturning a arbitration.

actually she can! She can say, hey arbitrator the ARBITRATION CLAUSE is unenforceable and you need to decide that first.

And the arbitrator can find that indeed she does not have jurisdiction because there was no enforceable arbitration agreement. In fact the agreement here refers to that by reference to the Rules.

How nifty is that!

Then it goes to the court, but the parties are bound by the arbitrators decision on enforceablity/jurisdiction! So fun.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, that is super, but you see, here is the thing, the question of contract validity is one for the arbitrators.

Not if the contract isnt valid to begin with. And a judge who has responsibilities to the public as a whole as opposed to the parties to a contract might have a different perspective.

The public's "right to know" is not absolute and even candidates running for Office have some modicum of privacy, particular personal things like sexual history and family relations.

Was the contract legal? From Trump's perspective, Of course. Does the fact he was running for President make it "illegal."? Of course not. Did he violate campaign finance regulations? That is not within THIS Court's jurisdiction to say as I have already said.

I don't care if the contract was considered legal by the parties to the contract. One party is asking that the government void that contract because the electorate has a right to be informed. The question, I have is it in the interest of the people to enforce an agreement that runs counter to the needs of the people to be fully informed about their leaders? You see, I don't think you should be able to hide just because you have deep pockets if you want me to employ you.

I don't care if the contract is legal. Should we enforce it is the question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not if the contract isnt valid to begin with. And a judge who has responsibilities to the public as a whole as opposed to the parties to a contract might have a different perspective.

The Federal Arbitration Act, which governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements, "reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2002). Ambiguities regarding the scope of an arbitration clause are resolved in favor of arbitration.

 

[acbytesla]

The Federal Arbitration Act, which governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements, "reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2002). Ambiguities regarding the scope of an arbitration clause are resolved in favor of arbitration.

It has NOTHING to do with ARBITRATION. It has to do with what is in the best interests of the public and the electorate. This was a contract that was designed to subvert an election. The details of the contract are irrelevant until a judge rules that the public doesn't have an interest in voiding the contract based on the public's right to know.

I think that alone is reason enough for the judge to void the contract.

 

[The Big Dog]

It has NOTHING to do with ARBITRATION. It has to do with what is in the best interests of the public and the electorate. This was a contract that was designed to subvert an election. The details of the contract are irrelevant until a judge rules that the public doesn't have an interest in voiding the contract based on the public's right to know.

I think that alone is reason enough for the judge to void the contract.

The public has the right to know that Donald Trump rode Stormy Daniels and put her away wet in 2006, and in fact should "subvert" not only the public policy favoring arbitration but also the Federal Arbitration Act ?

How utterly ridiculous, but you are CERTAINLY entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.