Posted on March 14 2019
Orange Hate Goblin:
lying sexual predator...
See June 2018 entry, found here.
See Archived September 2018 Twitter thread, here. (I’d post more but I’m sick of trying to find archives of my previous research)
CASE MOVES FORWARD, forthwith
For those who have followed me for the better part of two years, you know that this particular case continues to be on my radar. And when judicial updates occur I do my best to update you in a timely manner. It is my privilege and pleasure to inform you...Trump LOST again, and again and again and again:
At the time you might recall I had an apolitically stance that the law is the law yet every goddamn time Trump and his legal “army” believe Trump is above our laws and our Constitution. This “guy” argued that the Supremacy Clause puts him out of reach of a State, who has their own Sovereignty. Granted if Trump was smart he would have argued the Dual Sovereignty and further argued that if there’s a conflict between Sovereignty then the Fed reigns supreme but NOPE that’s not what he (Kasowtizd yup still trying to make that happen) Trump argued.
Donald Trump really does think he’s above both Federal and State Laws and respective Constitutions and when those arguments failed Trump, pivoted to Anti-SLAAP statutes.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered March 21, 2018, which denied his motion to dismiss the defamation complaint or in the alternative to stay the action, and denied his special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAAP statute.
The Appellate Division, First Department just ruled AGAINST Donald Trump. The opening paragraph concisely explains the issue before this New York State Appeals Court:
This case raises a constitutional issue of first impression: whether the Supremacy Clause of the United StatesConstitution requires a state court to defer litigation of a defamation action against a sitting President until his terms end.
The Court goes on to explain in the following three paragraphs why they found Trump’s arguments unpersuasive:
Personally this is my favorite sentence in their ruling because it perfectly encapsulates the issue of dual sovereignty and a current president who repeatedly argues he’s above our laws and Constitution:
We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court - and every other state court in the country - from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state's constitution. (emphasis added)
The Court goes on to articulate their rationale in deny Trump’s motion to dismiss, specifically stating that the (New York) Trial Court did not error in their previous ruling that Trump is “not above the law”:
Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limitingstate court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercises jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss.
The Court goes on to state with perfect precision how flawed Trump's immunity arguments were and how he is not immune from matters. In leaning in to forward issues that may arise, the Court essentially cuts Trump’s (predicable) argument off at the knees. Should the trial court find Trump in contempt. It’s a perfect articulation of why Trump’s arguments are fatally flawed. Also keep in mind that President Clinton hired Emmet Flood during his civil Complaint...so the symmetry is beyond ironic:
trial court should hold defendant in contempt, the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction over the President to do so can be determined as a discrete issue. Concerns about contempt, however, should not be the underpinning for a conclusion that the Supremacy Clause renders defendant immune from this civil lawsuit while he is serving as President.
The Court then provided a recitation of the various legal arguments and actions undertaken by Defendant Trump. To date all of which have failed, in terms of procedurally and substantively. This is and has always been Trump’s litigate, litigate, delay, obfuscate, deny and then litigate more. This is what Roy Cohn taught Trump because this is what monsters do, they try to undetermine our Judicial system and process with the only goal of bleeding their opponent dry in regards to litigation cost.
The Appealate Court then addresses the Plaintiff’s arguments and actions. I am actually slightly pleased to see my predictions from that last year come to fruition. I repeatedly stated “actual malice”, the flawed (trump) “Supremacy Clause” and previous SCOTUS Jones v Clinton landmark ruling would all play critical roles in favor of Ms Zavros. Turns out, YES. THEY. DID. As in the aforementioned items did come in to play and in fact played a critical role...in favor of Ms Zervos.
🌶SpicyFiles Sidebar🌶 fundamentally the facts of Ms Zervos’ Complaint had a high bar to meet and she met them at every turn, although I was a bit worried when I saw who was her original attorney and felt it was a prudent move for Ms Zervos to obtain an attorney in New York. I know that you might assume I like Gloria Allred or her daughter Lisa Bloom, I do not. More broadly I have never been a fan of any attorney who employ tactics of aggressive media blitz. In general I do not like seeing attorneys litigating important matters (such as this) in the Court of Public Opinion. Most decent attorneys I know and work for do not under any circumstance proactively seek to give on camera interviews.
The original trial court, relied heavily on the Jones v Clinton SCOTUS ruling, at the time Judge Schecter explicitly stated: “no one is above the law, including the president”. Not to belabor the point Trump slapped down the “Supremacy Clause” while completely ignoring separation of powers, dual sovereignty and the previous SCOTUS ruling, all of which factored in to Trump’s repeated arguments that he is immune. And when those arguments failed he predictably pivoted to “free speech”
The Appellate Panel concluded their opinion by stating the following:
Finally, we find that the motion court correctly declined to apply the California anti-SLAPP statute here, and that even if the motion to strike under that statute were to be considered, it would likely be denied. Plaintiff has established that the defamation claim has the requisite "minimal merit"....Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered March 21, 2018,which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint or in the alternative to stay the action, and denied hisspecial motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAAP statute, should be affirmed, without costs.
All concur except Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
You can read the Appellate Court’s ruling in its entirety, found here.
Therefore Ms Zervos’ case moves forward and discovery (which I really think is what Trump wanted to avoid) also moves forward as does the March 4, 2019 Scheduling...
The Original Case and documents can be located via New York’s unified court system known as SCROLL you can pull down the entire case docket.
👇🏻TRUE STORY TRUMP NEVER SUED👇🏻
Trump is a pathological liar
a misogynistic mobbed up thug
a con man, a fraud
he thinks he’s above our laws and constitution, he’s NOT.
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.