My Cart




Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on April 30 2019




See May 2018 entry here

See June 2018 entry here

See September 2018 entry here

See October 2018 Saudi Arabia entry here

See February 2019 entry here.


What  you may have forgotten is there are TWO Emoluments Complaints Trump is the Defendant. For purposes of clarity below are the pertinent case numbers 

Trump Emoluments MTD DENIED

Case No 8:17-cv-01596:



DC & MD AGs v Trump Case 8:17-cv-01596, link to original complaint, here at the present time, we are awaiting on the 4thCCOAs

Case Information:  No. 18-2486:


In re Trump: Petition for writ of mandamus to compel district court to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b); whether Emoluments Clauses provide cause of action for injunctive relief and whether petitioners have alleged legally cognizable injuries sufficient to support standing to obtain relief against the President.

No. 18-2488, District of Columbia v. Trump: Appeal as to individual capacity claims brought against the President under the Emoluments Clauses.


4thCCOAs Dockets as of March 01, 2019


4thCCOAs Oral Arguments

held on March 19, 2019

Case No. 18-2486


4thCCOAs Oral Arguments

held on March 19, 2019

Case No: 18-2488👈🏻


You can also access the archived MP3 file straight from the 4thCCOAs website, via this audio link (as I saw some on twitter wondering if I would place a bad link into my previous write up. By how you should know I only source my material from Court Websites and/or PACER or CourtListener. I would never intentionally embedd a suspicious link, that’s not nor has it ever been my style).

For those who are unfamiliar with how our Circuit Court Of Appeals work, some Circuits provide a Video link (the 9thCCOAs uses YouTube) and other Circuits use MP3 for the public to listen to Oral Arguments (SCOTUS uses audio only). So weird how a “fake paralegal” would know this basic judicial media preference or have the ability to dissect filings.

In the 4thCCOAs Trump’s argument is the District Court errored and impermissiblly foreclosed on Trump’s Absolute Immunity. At the 7:33 minute marker (I think it’s Judge  Niemeyer because I know his voice but if I’m going to admit my favorites are Wilkinson and Motz) that asked the Government “if the Plaintiffs have abandoned the claim of “prosecuting under his [Trump’s] personal capacity versus his official capacity...while the DOJ hinged their arguments on both Article III and Rule 42 “an appealee can not unilaterally dismiss their own case” wit an interesting back and forth ensues (Minute marker 8:46)



Case 1:17-cv-01154-EGS


 BLUMENTHAL v Trump in his official capacity 


And perhaps this doesn’t matter to you. But it sure matters to me, at no time did Donald J. Trump seek or receive consent or approval from Congress to violate our Constitution. His “revocable trust” is not a blind trust. The money Orange Voldemort placed his hand on the Bible (I’m surprised Trump or the Bible didn’t spontaneously combust) he violated our Constitution. So much for the Rule of Law. Sooner or later the Courts are going to figure out that Trump’s “presidency” is a disgusting huge grift; That Trump & his family are in fact robbing us blind. It’s disgusting and frankly it’s vulgar. As such Trump’s MTD DENIED


The President has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim because, inter alia, he contends that “Emolument” should be narrowly construed to mean “profit arising from an official’s services rendered pursuant to an office or employ.” Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss


The following isn’t my opinion, these are FACTS, Trump attempts to redefine what is considered an EMOLUMENT. In short the Orange Voldemort is pulling a Clinton. And I’m doing so, Trump is essentially trying to re-write the Constitution and the definition of emolument(s). It is the most disgusting and repugnant abuse ot Office since Nixon. And rightfully so, the Judge is having none of it:


President’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years.


And the the Judge just unloads in one Of the more spectacular judicial bench slaps. It is glorious (also be mindful that this judge has deferred judgement on the following three areas:


And then what (I’ve been personally waiting for) the Judge just lays down the Judcial gavel with authority:


President’s motion to dismiss, the opposition and reply thereto, the relevant
arguments of amici and for the reasons explained below, the Court finds that:

(1) plaintiffs have stated a claim against the President for allegedly violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause;

(2) plaintiffs have a cause of action to seek injunctive relief against the President; and

(3) the injunctive relief sought is constitutional.


The Court therefore DENIES the portions of the motion to dismiss that were deferred in the Court’s prior Order.


As I’ve always said, you should READ the footnotes as indicative and enumerated on page 8, the footnote affirms the “Judge Peter J. Messitte’s persuasive analysis of that argument and conclusion that the Clause does indeed apply to the President in the only other judicial opinion construing the Clause”


 I bet you thought I was being hyperbolic when I said that Orange Voldemort is trying to rewrite the definition of “emoluments”, I wasn’t, that’s exactly what Trump and our DOJ tried  to do. It is by far one of the most onerous unjust enrichment, the irony is not lost on me that had Trump truly set up a Blind Trust. He may have had a far more persuasive argument. But the fact Trump tried to gas light the Court and Congress, by strategically redefining the word Emoluments...




And if the name Judge Sullivan rings a bell, well it should, see Flynn Hearing transcript here.  See August 2018 ACLU Court Transcript where Judge Sullivan Ordered the Government to and I qoute “turn that plane around forthwith” Archived Thread found here.

ps Who boy, Special Counsel Mueller ...See Washington Post Article Of Mueller’s objection and rebuke of AG Barr. Who’s expected up on the Hill tomorrrow which means William Barr is so screwed.

Barr needs to be IMPEACHED forthwith 


While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.



  • Marie G: May 09, 2019

    Thank you, Spicy. Orange Voldemort, though, is an insult to Voldemort. LOL I agree, Barr must be impeached, especially in light of all that has happened since your last blog entry. I hope all is well and that you’re taking time for some self-care during your break. Still miss you on twitter and hope some day you’ll be back. Very grateful for your work here.

  • Mandy: May 02, 2019

    How anyone could think you aren’t a top notch paralegal is beyond comprehension. In fact, I’d venture a guess that you keep your attorneys on their toes! Thanks for your unending curiosity. I appreciate you.

  • Stacey ZM: May 01, 2019

    Thank you Spicy, for continuing to educate us with the facts!

  • modernhomesla: May 01, 2019

    Profit, Advantage or Benefit, yo.

    Thanks, Mic.


Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing