Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[WilliamSeger]

In the ACTUAL court, Judge Otero dunked on little Micky LookatMEvenetti three times today.

That bit about the case not being the most important on his docket? Damn, that is a poster dunk right there.

Don't count your chickens before the dealin's done. Avenatti seems to have a danged good "public policy" argument in ACTUAL court, too. We'll see, but meanwhile I'm enjoying the thought of Republican incumbents tearing their hair out over whether or not they want Little Donnie stumping for them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Don't count your chickens before the dealin's done. Avenatti seems to have a danged good "public policy" argument in ACTUAL court, too.

well the footnote at the end kinda deflated that balloon, huh?

Bit rich that the person making these "public policy" arguments accepted the 130k, huh? I think law talking guys refer to that as "unclean hands."

Oh well, I am certain that the Judge knows that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over civil campaign financing disputes.

 

[acbytesla]

Seriously if my lawyers ginned up a premature motion, that violated the page limits, did not include info about the service date and ended with the Judge reminding my lawyers that the case wasn't the most important on his docket, and that was the first salvo out of the box?

Yeah, I'd let them know I did not expect to see any of that work showing up on my bill.

It's a big mistake to read in to comments judges make. Also, FYI, the judge's comments are pretty much exactly what Rikki Klieman said yesterday on TV. That Avenatti's request for a trial in 90 days was never going to happen.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's a big mistake to read in to comments judges make.

I am not reading "in" anything, I am simply reading. But you know what? I know a super lawyer who may need your advice:

"Passages in the court's order do not bode well for the defendants," Avenatti tweeted. He said sections of the order "suggest that there is a strong likelihood that the court will ultimately agree with our requests for discovery and a trial."

Sensational!

 

[acbytesla]

I am not reading "in" anything, I am simply reading. But you know what? I know a super lawyer who may need your advice:

"Passages in the court's order do not bode well for the defendants," Avenatti tweeted. He said sections of the order "suggest that there is a strong likelihood that the court will ultimately agree with our requests for discovery and a trial."

Sensational!

I don't think you get all of Avenatti's game. His remarks are not a legal strategy but a promotional one. You could even argue he stole a page from Trump on that. All press is good press.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't think you get all of Avenatti's game. His remarks are not a legal strategy but a promotional one. You could even argue he stole a page from Trump on that. All press is good press.

Actually he better start working on his legal strategy, because the Judge who just chastised him three separate times in a single order ain't gonna be too impressed with Mike's press clippings, you dig?

And saying that "all press is good press" is silly, particularly when they are reporting that Mike just got his ass handed to him.

Maybe Mike should hire me. I promise I will, you know, read the Judge's orders, which will make one person on Stormy's team who does so.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually he better start working on his legal strategy, because the Judge who just chastised him three separate times in a single order ain't gonna be too impressed with Mike's press clippings, you dig?

And saying that "all press is good press" is silly, particularly when they are reporting that Mike just got his ass handed to him.

Maybe Mike should hire me. I promise I will, you know, read the Judge's orders, which will make one person on Stormy's team who does so.

He didn't chastise him. He just denied a few motions and said Avenatti's request to depose Cohen was premature.

 

[The Big Dog]

He didn't chastise him. He just denied a few motions and said Avenatti's request to depose Cohen was premature.

No he said that he should read the orders and the rules "very closely." Shade

He said that "Given that the Plaintiff has failed to follow certain of the Court's procedural guideline." SMACK.

He said: The parties are reminded that this case is not the most important on the docket and motions for expedited treatment not supported by the record are "discouraged." CURB STOMP!

As a lawyer what intentionally adding those comments to an order means (it means the Judge ain't happy and the motion was slovenly done. If I am wrong i am certain the thread lawyers will appear to let us know)

 

[acbytesla]

No he said that he should read the orders and the rules "very closely." Shade

He said that "Given that the Plaintiff has failed to follow certain of the Court's procedural guideline." SMACK.

He said: The parties are reminded that this case is not the most important on the docket and motions for expedited treatment not supported by the record are "discouraged." CURB STOMP!

As a lawyer what intentionally adding those comments to an order means (it means the Judge ain't happy and the motion was slovenly done. If I am wrong i am certain the thread lawyers will appear to let us know)

You're so precious. You're reading in your own bias into everything. Take a breath.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You're so precious. You're reading in your own bias into everything. Take a breath.

I don't think it is bias. I think it is experience.

In other words: You'd probably see it the same way if you knew as much about Federal litigation practice as TBD does.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think it is bias. I think it is experience.

In other words: You'd probably see it the same way if you knew as much about Federal litigation practice as TBD does.

confused:

 

[ddt]

Meanwhile, David Schwartz has been on Megyn Kelly's talk show at NBC, and it was hilarious. The audience laughed several times because they were incredulous about Schwartz' claims, e.g., that Cohen had paid the money himself out of love for his boss, and about his claims how nice and courteous Cohen behaves. Per the Huffington Post:

Kelly fired back that “Michael Cohen does have a history of making vulgar and allegedly or arguably threatening comments.”

“I myself have been on the receiving end of those, as you know,” said Kelly.

She then pointed to one instance, after a 2016 election debate, in which Cohen retweeted a series of threatening messages ― one of which included a call to “gut” Kelly.

“So you’re not Michael’s favorite person,” said Schwartz. “It’s not a love connection, OK, so all right.”

Kelly didn’t like that response. “You make light of it now,” she said, “but I’m telling you, in response to that allegation that I received death threats, I had security guards following me around and that my old boss called Michael Cohen directly to say, ‘If Megyn Kelly gets killed, it’s not going to help your client Donald Trump get elected.’ And Michael Cohen didn’t care.”

Schwartz suggested that Cohen was actually “trying to help.”

“He was trying to help me!?” said Kelly. “He was trying to help me? By suggesting that I should be gutted?”

The guy sounds like a complete idiot.

Link on youtube to the whole interview

 

[Shalamar]

confused:

The assumption that TBD has no knowledge about Federal litigation practices.

 

[Craig4]

The assumption that TBD has no knowledge about Federal litigation practices.

And has demonstrated a determination to not learn them throughout this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't think it is bias. I think it is experience.

In other words: You'd probably see it the same way if you knew as much about Federal litigation practice as TBD does.

Oh you... flattery will get you nowhere...

 

[acbytesla]

The assumption that TBD has no knowledge about Federal litigation practices.

I thought it was sarcasm. But hey, it's the internet.

The way I view this case is no way does anyone award more than a few hundred K to Trump at most if he wins. But it is worth millions of dollars in negative publicity to Trump and it's worth at least a million dollars in pub to Avenatti.

Also, i think Avenatti has a good public interest case for dismissal. Now TBD keeps saying some crap about this falls under the FEC's domain. But I think he's dead wrong in regards to this case. Avenatti is simply asking a judge to void a specific contract based on several things including the public's right to know about a Presidential candidate. I don't see how this request has anything to do with the FEC. However, when all the facts come out, they might be interested.

 

[The Big Dog]

The fec already has a complaint

Filed by common cause

Which cohen rerred to in his statements

Cmon folks. You cannot learn if you dont read my posts.

 

[acbytesla]

The fec already has a complaint

Filed by common cause

Which cohen rerred to in his statements

Cmon folks. You cannot learn if you dont read my posts.

So? That has nothing to do with the enforceability of this specific agreement.

 

[logger]

I don't think you get all of Avenatti's game. His remarks are not a legal strategy but a promotional one. You could even argue he stole a page from Trump on that. All press is good press.

Is he auditioning for The Apprentice?

Promotions aren’t going to work for his client.

 

[logger]

confused:

He saying TBD obviously knows what he is talking about.