Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In response we get "danth's law," which of course makes no sense at all.

Sure it does, it is all about the context.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure it does, it is all about the context.

'k.

Before we move on, any questions about the cases I cited or need further information regarding course of dealing/performance?

Or perhaps the enforcealibity of the arbitration agreement? I got a case I'd be happy to share with you that combines both subjects (it is from Ohio, but it is kind of groovy)

Removal to federal court?

Just let me know.

 

[plague311]

'k.

Before we move on, any questions about the cases I cited or need further information regarding course of dealing/performance?

Or perhaps the enforcealibity of the arbitration agreement? I got a case I'd be happy to share with you that combines both subjects (it is from Ohio, but it is kind of groovy)

Removal to federal court?

Just let me know.

Does it include the exact circumstances of this case? Someone using illegal campaign contributions to pay a previous sexual partner to keep quiet, while threatening them, and then not signing the NDA that they originally requested, and that someone being the POTUS who was in an active campaign time?

Just curious. Context and all that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

'k.

Before we move on, any questions about the cases I cited or need further information regarding course of dealing/performance?

Or perhaps the enforcealibity of the arbitration agreement? I got a case I'd be happy to share with you that combines both subjects (it is from Ohio, but it is kind of groovy)

Removal to federal court?

Just let me know.

Rule of 'k.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does it include the exact circumstances of this case? Someone using illegal campaign contributions to pay a previous sexual partner to keep quiet, while threatening them, and then not signing the NDA that they originally requested, and that someone being the POTUS who was in an active campaign time?

Just curious. Context and all that.

Oh, we're going to finally get around to you supporting your assertion that the NDA was not enforceable because illegal? That is something.... Looking forward to it!

protip: the star of Camp Cuddly Pines Powertool Massacre did not claim she felt coerced or threatened when agreeing to the agreement, and pocketing 130k

 

[Cain]

That is just so creepy. That guy. What will his daughter think of that

She'll think it's hot. Trump's a good-looking man! Just ask him.

 

[plague311]

Oh, we're going to finally get around to you supporting your assertion that the NDA was not enforceable because illegal? That is something.... Looking forward to it!

protip: the star of Camp Cuddly Pines Powertool Massacre did not claim she felt coerced or threatened when agreeing to the agreement, and pocketing 130k

That's not what I said, I said the payoff used illegal campaign donations. Which there seems to be an extremely good case for according to the 60 minutes presentation last night. It won't be much of a penalty, they said generally just a fine.

Pro-tip: Stop giving pro-tips.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's not what I said, I said the payoff used illegal campaign donations. Which there seems to be an extremely good case for according to the 60 minutes presentation last night. It won't be much of a penalty, they said generally just a fine.

Pro-tip: Stop giving pro-tips.

"IANAL, so if someone is maybe they could correct me, but if this turns out to be an illegal campaign donation doesn't that make the NDA moot? You can't have an NDA for illegal activity, unless I'm missing something."

Gotta tell you, my paraphrase is a heck of a lot more accurate than yours.

It is cool, tho.

 

[plague311]

"IANAL, so if someone is maybe they could correct me, but if this turns out to be an illegal campaign donation doesn't that make the NDA moot? You can't have an NDA for illegal activity, unless I'm missing something."

Gotta tell you, my paraphrase is a heck of a lot more accurate than yours.

It is cool, tho.

I asked a question, and openly stated that I could be wrong. I don't know the answer, and specifically said that. In fact, it's the first acronym of your quote. No, your paraphrase sucks. Do you know the answer to the question? Does your Ohio case say anything about it? Do any of your magical cases you've linked to address it at all? Is this a variable that will change the outcome? I don't know, but I would like to know. Hence why I said there is information we're not privy too.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Avenatti thinks he has already one by getting his face splashed all over the place. You think if he really cared about Stormy and her "righteous" cause he would have filed the action without first seeking to do so under seal and let Stormy and her Dondi Eyeballs run off at the mouth on 60 minutes without securing a judicial ruling first?

Wow, you and I are old.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And keep in mind that Hillary had a shot at winning the presidency until the FBI announced they were investigating the email issue again. How could that have hurt her? After all, the email issue had been out in the open for months, so the "surprise" revelation of more email investigation shouldn't have really mattered. But it did; it caused a few more potential voters to turn away. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for some voters.

I suspect Stormy Daniels may be the same way. Yeah, Trump has his regular block of racists and religious hypocrites supporting him. They stuck to him through the Bush "grab em by the pussy" tape, the multiple affairs and the general sexism. But for a few this might be the straw magazine that broke spanked the camel's back[side].

And they say print is dead!

 

[The Big Dog]

I asked a question, and openly stated that I could be wrong. I don't know the answer, and specifically said that. In fact, it's the first acronym of your quote. No, your paraphrase sucks. Do you know the answer to the question? Does your Ohio case say anything about it? Do any of your magical cases you've linked to address it at all? Is this a variable that will change the outcome? I don't know, but I would like to know. Hence why I said there is information we're not privy too.

You literally just gave the answer!

you said that, assuming it was a campaign contribution, that the failure to properly report will likely result in a fine, which is a civil matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC for the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance law, and is certainly not something that the star of Spreading my Seed can act as some kind of roving states attorney sans portfolio.

The answer was there the WHOLE time, and we just had to tease it out of you.

 

[plague311]

You literally just gave the answer!

you said that, assuming it was a campaign contribution, that the failure to properly report will likely result in a fine, which is a civil matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC for the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance law, and is certainly not something that the star of Spreading my Seed can act as some kind of roving states attorney sans portfolio.

The answer was there the WHOLE time, and we just had to tease it out of you.

Are NDA's not civil matters? Is there any precedence for this in any case? Is there case law to support that an NDA paid using illegal funds would still hold up? The punishment for breaking campaign laws is what I was referring too. I have no idea how it will effect the NDA case.

 

[alfaniner]

Wouldn't it be great if Stormy Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, turns out to have originally been "Stephen" Clifford?

 

[plague311]

Wouldn't it be great if Stormy Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, turns out to have originally been "Stephen" Clifford?

I think she gave birth to a daughter. While hilarious, unfortunately I don't think we'll get that lucky.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are NDA's not civil matters? Is there any precedence for this in any case? Is there case law to support that an NDA paid using illegal funds would still hold up? The punishment for breaking campaign laws is what I was referring too. I have no idea how it will effect the NDA case.

I just got done explaining that the failure to comply with campaign financing reporting requirements is a civil matter, and under no circumstances makes the "funds illegal."

 

[plague311]

I just got done explaining that the failure to comply with campaign financing reporting requirements is a civil matter, and under no circumstances makes the "funds illegal."

I'm aware you've said things. I'm just not sure if what you say is a reflection of reality. So, I will wait to see how everything shakes out. She seemed to know what she could and couldn't say in the interview. I don't see any case law, or precedence that handles this, and you have provided zero evidence that you have any legal knowledge or background at all. So I'm happy seeing how this shakes out.

 

[The Big Dog]

and you have provided zero evidence that you have any legal knowledge or background at all. So I'm happy seeing how this shakes out.

yeah, you know except for all the directly controlling legal authorities I have been citing in this thread....

 

[BobTheCoward]

yeah, you know except for all the directly controlling legal authorities I have been citing in this thread....

I don't think you specifically answered what laws govern whether the source of the money matters.

 

[Loss Leader]

Relieving my porn star client from the agreement she willingly and voluntarily signed is a "righteous" quest!

That's hardly the issue. Regarding the NDA, the issue are: 1) whether it is enforceable without a signature; 2) whether it the amounts of money are penalties or enforeceable damages; and 3) whether the whole thing wasn't just void as a matter of public policy from the beginning.

They are wrong, she accepted the cash and Trump has clearly indicated his assent to the agreement through Course of dealing.

Has he, though? He didn't pay Daniels any money (according to him and his lawyer), he didn't affirmatively actually do anything. Other than the payment of the money, the contract doesn't require he do anything at all. Everything in it is one-way: she stays silent, she doesn't disparage, she hands over evidence. I don't think he's done anything to indicate that the agreement is in effect.

Also, course of dealings usually means multiple dealings. Imagine I ask you to deliver 100 cases of widgets to my factory for a $10,000 every week, and you do so every week and I pay you every week. One week, you deliver them to the train station and tell me to get them to my factory my damn self. Well, we never signed anything but our "course of dealings" over several independent instances shows what we considered to be the terms. The phrase doesn't apply here. I'm not surprised you used it incorrectly as you are not a lawyer and I, um, am that thing.

This court In re CFLC, Inc. (9th Cir.BAP1997) 209 B.R. 508, 513.) wrote:

Both California and Washington law recognize that a party acting pursuant to a contract, whether signed or unsigned, accepts the benefits of that contract and will be bound by it. See J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 598, 568 F.2d 1292, 1294-95 (9th Cir.1978); Southern Cal. Acoustics Co. v. C.V. Holder, Inc., 71 Cal.2d 719, 79 Cal.Rptr. 319, 322, 456 P.2d 975 (1969).

Sounds like them "long time" lawyers ought to get their asses back to law school.

First of all J.A. Jones Construction doesn't turn on the fact that anyone accepted any benefit. It was decided on the fact that the court needed to take into consideration the law of a new case that had just been decided. In any case, both parties performed acts under the unsigned contract. Jones didn't pursue arbitration and the Plumbers went back to work. In the Trump case, he hasn't taken any affirmative act.

Southern Cal. Acoustics is almost the same as the hypothetical I gave you before. One party paid for shipments from the other regularly despite there being no written contract. In that case, both parties had taken affirmative actions that showed they were choosing to act as though they had a written contract. Once again here, Trump has done nothing.

Much more important than any of this stuff, though, is the US Supreme Court's opinion in Town of Newton v. Rumery (480 U.S. 386):

The relevant principle is that a promise is unenforceable if the interest in its enforcement is outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy harmed by enforcement of the agreement.

IANAL, so if someone is maybe they could correct me, but if this turns out to be an illegal campaign donation doesn't that make the NDA moot? You can't have an NDA for illegal activity, unless I'm missing something.

No, the NDA does not depend on that. The NDA isn't asking anyone to do anything illegal. Daniels wasn't asked not to disclose an illegal act. She didn't know anything about how the attorney got the money. That's an entirely separate issue that has no bearing on the NDA.

It seems wrong to me that the courts should enforce contracts with aliases. Now maybe there is a justifiable reason for this that I have not thought about. But transparency in the law should be valued more.

There is a justifiable reason, and it's a good one: lots of people don't go by their given names. A person can call himself any name he wants so long as it's not for the purpose of fraud. In the past, people readily did. John Smith III may be called "Trey," Margaret Eliza Jones may go by "Lizzy." Marvin Lee Aday is called "Meatloaf." A contract requires a meeting of the minds. So long as the parties know who they're dealing with, it doesn't matter what anybody chooses to go by.

William Shakespeare signed his name 5 times that we know of and never once signed the same thing:

Willm Shakp
William Shaksper
Wm Shakspe
William Shakspere
Willm Shakspere
By me William Shakspeare

But all the parties knew they were dealing with "that writer guy over there."

Contract law attempts to bring order to what average people already do. People use aliases. Contract law protects them.