My Cart



Zervos v Trump THIRD DENIAL for Trump MARCH 2019 update

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on June 14 2018



as previously discussed, Trump’s attempt to dismiss Ms. Zervos’ lawsuit, DENIED in late May 2018, here

Trump’s second attempt to dismiss Ms. Zervos’ Complaint, again DENIED, see entry here.

Three STRIKES and your OUT?


Courts have yet to rule on the merits 

No really Kasowitz/Trump effectively argued: Supremacy Clause, I’m president I’m above the law...

And of course Kasowtiz has no plans of backing down, earlier today he issued the following statement to ABC News:

The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the issue at stake here (an issue first raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones) —- namely, that, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state courts do not have jurisdiction over a sitting President," a spokesperson for the president’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, said in a statement.

Kasowitz claimed in previous filings r that the Supremacy Clause in our Constitution bars any and ALL state court lawsuit against a sitting president:

“this issue will likely reach the Supreme Court of the United States.”

I now refer you to pages 14 & 15 (concurrently marked Pages 2 & 3) of Trump’s July 7, 2017:


 SupremacyClause of the United States Constitution prevents this State Court from hearing this action,whatever its merit or lack thereof, against a sitting President. The action therefore should bedismissed without prejudice to Ms. Zervos refiling after the President leaves office, or stayeduntil such time.

Oh the sweet sweet IRONY, Trump used the Clinton case to support his flawed argument

Twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court permitted a private federalcourt action to proceed against President Clinton, but explicitly distinguished the situation therefrom that presented here, where a plaintiff asks a state court to hear claims against the sittingPresident. The Supreme Court’s distinction is critical, and the Court pointed to the SupremacyClause as the key distinguishing impediment to a state court entertaining a case such as this one.See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 691 n.13 (1997).

The Court raised as an “important constitutional issue[]” whether a state court may hear an action against the President -- i.e.,whether a state court’s resulting exercise of “any direct control . . . over the President, who hasprincipal responsibility to ensure that [federal] laws are ‘faithfully executed,’ may implicate” issues of federalism, comity, and concerns over local prejudice, so as to be improper. Id. at 690,691 n.13


Not surprisingly Kasowtiz then doubles down on the Supremacy Clause, if I’m going to be intellectually honest, then I must admit this particular argument may have tiny legs but to date neither the State Court or State Appeals Court have ruled on the “merits” of Trump’s Supremacy Clause argument.

In fact, the Supremacy Clause and our federal system of government require that stategovernments, including their courts, refrain from interfering in the operations of the federalgovernment. The Supreme Court has long made clear that high-ranking federal officials cannot be “interfered with and controlled for any period by . . . tribunals of another [state] sovereignty.”


Earlier today the New York Appeals Court released a 12 page Report/List of cases. I now refer you to page 12, the Zervos v Trump matter was literally the last case on the report, you can read it here.

Mo. No. 2018-550 Summer Zervos, Respondent v. Donald J. Trump, Appellant.

On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Motion for a stay dismissed as academic. (emphasis added)

 May 17, 2018, DENIED

I refer you to page 6, found here. M-1699 Index No. 150522/17


At a Term of the Appellate Division of the SupremeCourt held in and for the First Judicial Department in the County of New York on May 17, 2018.

An appeal having been taken from an order of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered on or about March 20, 2018,

And defendant-appellant having moved for a stay of the
action pending hearing and determination of the aforesaid appeal,

Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the
motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is ordered that the motion is denied. ENTERED:


March 20, 2018 DENIED.

I now refer you to page 2, which reads in part:

United States Supreme Court held that a sitting president is not immune from being sued in federal court for unofficial acts. It left open the question of whether concerns of federalism and comity compel a different conclusion for suits brought in state court. Because they do not, defendant's motion to dismiss this case or hold it in abeyance is denied.


June 5, 2018 ORDER on DISCOVERY

Judge Jennifer Schecter issued the following 4 page Order, which sets a Schedule for Discovery in the Zervos v Trump Defamation Case:

1 Paper Discovery Demands:

(a) Demand for a bill of particulars, demand for discovery and inspections and interrogatories shall be served by all parties on or before July 13, 2019

(b) Written responses and non-ESI (electronically stored information) documents shall be served by all parties on or before September 7, 2018

Both parties are ordered to submit third party subpoenas by March 23, 2019.


Both parties to submit to depositions, with a deadline of Jan. 31, 2019. Setting a 7 hour per day time-limit

( deposition timelimits do vary from state to state)

All depositions of people who are “non-parties” to the case must be conducted by Feb. 28, and fact discovery to be completed by April 12.


And I should probably re-emphasize that the New York Courts haven’t weighed in on the merits of Trump’s Supremacy Clause Argument, although one could certainly say that the March 20, 2018 denial could be contruted that the Courts have adjudicated on Trump’s (horribly flawed) arguments, when Judge  Schecter unambiguously stated: “no one is above the law, including the president”

-Spicy Out me is super tired




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.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing