Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Bob001]

Curious how so many people were hailing the Porn Star's Lawyer's brilliant and fiendishly clever strategy, and then after getting his teeth kicked in by the judge it becomes a "minor procedural matter."
....

The lawyer doesn't get his teeth kicked in unless/until he loses the case. Right now he's exactly where he would have been if he hadn't filed his action "prematurely." No prejudice, no penalty. What's his loss, other than some office time?

 

[acbytesla]

Well seeing as how there is no way to do that once one has been sued as a defendant, the smart thing is to shuffle as much of the case over to arbitration and get that locked down tighter than a tick on a titmouse and get whatever is left dismissed or stayed.

He can't. Because the moment he does Avenatti probably gets his discovery motions granted which will drag on with more teases and threats from Avenatti. That means depositions from Cohen and Trump opening them up to campaign finance violations and more embarrassment. And for what? Maybe a few hundred K at most...if they are lucky.

While they don't want to embolden others and just let it go, it's way too much trouble than it is worth.

 

[The Big Dog]

The lawyer doesn't get his teeth kicked in unless/until he loses the case. Right now he's exactly where he would have been if he hadn't filed his action "prematurely." No prejudice, no penalty. What's his loss, other than some office time?

Well actually the Judge went out of his way THREE TIMES in a single order to lay the smack down on him, so he dug himself a fine deep hole right off the bat.

Yikes.

 

[The Big Dog]

He can't. Because the moment he does Avenatti probably gets his discovery motions granted which will drag on with more teases and threats from Avenatti. That means depositions from Cohen and Trump opening them up to campaign finance violations and more embarrassment. And for what? Maybe a few hundred K at most...if they are lucky.

While they don't want to embolden others and just let it go, it's way too much trouble than it is worth.

Hi! take a few seconds and read my first sentence (as the judge would say) very carefully.

Avenatti should lose his motion to seek discovery because that is purview of the arbitrator as I have expertly explained a half dozen times at least.

 

[acbytesla]

Curious how so many people were hailing the Porn Star's Lawyer's brilliant and fiendishly clever strategy, and then after getting his teeth kicked in by the judge it becomes a "minor procedural matter."

I don't know what you think happened but it clearly isn't something to gloat about. This is one of those situations where Trump can only lose...even if he wins. At best, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for him. In contrast, Avenatti and his client really can't lose. Oterro basically said to Avenatti, that he is going to go at his own pace not Avenatti and he isn't going to entertain his motions to depose before Cohen files to send it to arbitration. My bet is Cohen won't and they will end up releasing Daniels from the NDA.

 

[Thermal]

I don't know what you think happened but it clearly isn't something to gloat about. This is one of those situations where Trump can only lose...even if he wins. At best, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for him. In contrast, Avenatti and his client really can't lose. Oterro basically said to Avenatti, that he is going to go at his own pace not Avenatti and he isn't going to entertain his motions to depose before Cohen files to send it to arbitration. My bet is Cohen won't and they will end up releasing Daniels from the NDA.

May have been discussed already, but could arbitration be compelled without DD's signature on the Agreement? If it was not fully executed, the arbitration clause wouldn't matter yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't know what you think happened but it clearly isn't something to gloat about. This is one of those situations where Trump can only lose...even if he wins. At best, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for him. In contrast, Avenatti and his client really can't lose. Oterro basically said to Avenatti, that he is going to go at his own pace not Avenatti and he isn't going to entertain his motions to depose before Cohen files to send it to arbitration. My bet is Cohen won't and they will end up releasing Daniels from the NDA.

oy vey....

 

[WilliamSeger]

Hi! take a few seconds and read my first sentence (as the judge would say) very carefully.

Avenatti should lose his motion to seek discovery because that is purview of the arbitrator as I have expertly explained a half dozen times at least.

It appears that Avenatti intends to reply to the arbitration motion by claiming (in every way possible) that it isn't an enforceable contract. Although you're presuming the arbitration motion will be granted automatically, the judge will need to decide Avenatti's issues first, summarily or otherwise. At this point, I'd guess he might grant discovery on those issues, if only to see what the hell the defendants are really claiming. We'll see.

 

[acbytesla]

May have been discussed already, but could arbitration be compelled without DD's signature on the Agreement? If it was not fully executed, the arbitration clause wouldn't matter yet.

Cohen has to file for arbitration for it to be sent to arbitration. Otherwise, we are in limbo. As to DD's signature, I can't say. But I don't see how Cohen can even attempt to enforce the contract until DD (Disgusting Donald) steps forward.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Cohen has to file for arbitration for it to be sent to arbitration. Otherwise, we are in limbo. As to DD's signature, I can't say. But I don't see how Cohen can even attempt to enforce the contract until DD (Disgusting Donald) steps forward.

Yes, the judge may be curious about Cohen's claim to having authority to negotiate and sign a contract on behalf of DD without identifying who DD is. The judge may want to ask DD if such authorization was granted.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, the judge may be curious about Cohen's claim to having authority to negotiate and sign a contract on behalf of DD without identifying who DD is. The judge may want to ask DD if such authorization was granted.

That's how I see it. You can't enforce contractual terms from a contract that has not been fully executed yet, in this case by DD's Sig.

 

[alfaniner]

So... how about that Amanda Knox trial, huh?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, the judge may be curious about Cohen's claim to having authority to negotiate and sign a contract on behalf of DD without identifying who DD is. The judge may want to ask DD if such authorization was granted.

If Trump doesn't admit to being DD, how can whatever Daniels divulges about Trump be considered a violation of the contract?

 

[acbytesla]

So... how about that Amanda Knox trial, huh?

OT, but hey, the thread is still active. Have you noticed? Bizarre.

 

[pgwenthold]

If Trump doesn't admit to being DD, how can whatever Daniels divulges about Trump be considered a violation of the contract?

That's a problem. Daniels has only disclosed information about an encounter between her and Trump. In order to hold her in violation of the contract, they have to

1) Admit that DD is Trump, and
2) Admit that it happened.

 

[acbytesla]

That's a problem. Daniels has only disclosed information about an encounter between her and Trump. In order to hold her in violation of the contract, they have to

1) Admit that DD is Trump, and
2) Admit that it happened.

At which point it becomes a campaign finance issue as well a violation of Bar ethics.

 

[SOdhner]

That's a problem. Daniels has only disclosed information about an encounter between her and Trump. In order to hold her in violation of the contract, they have to

1) Admit that DD is Trump, and
2) Admit that it happened.

It seems like a hilariously glaring flaw in this whole plan. Use "DD" and don't have him sign, but if anything happens "DD" has to be the one to enforce it so...

I mean really, how was this ever going to work? I feel like I must be missing something but I keep seeing actual legal experts saying the same thing so I guess it's just stupid.

 

[Thermal]

It seems like a hilariously glaring flaw in this whole plan. Use "DD" and don't have him sign, but if anything happens "DD" has to be the one to enforce it so...

I mean really, how was this ever going to work? I feel like I must be missing something but I keep seeing actual legal experts saying the same thing so I guess it's just stupid.

My bet is general sloppiness. DD and Cohen are not detail oriented. Was treated like a low priority errand, throw some money at the problem and on to the next thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

At which point it becomes a campaign finance issue as well a violation of Bar ethics.

That, as the saying goes, is the money shot.

 

[acbytesla]

It seems like a hilariously glaring flaw in this whole plan. Use "DD" and don't have him sign, but if anything happens "DD" has to be the one to enforce it so...

I mean really, how was this ever going to work? I feel like I must be missing something but I keep seeing actual legal experts saying the same thing so I guess it's just stupid.

Simple, if Daniels just takes the money and walks, it is over with. Also, there are huge penalties spelled out in those contracts. That's enough to scare most people.

Also, probably lots of lawyers might have been scared off, given they are dealing with a sitting President. Avenatti though saw it as a huge opportunity and has received millions of dollars worth of promotion for his practice.