Folks, you probably don't even need me to break this one down for you, because judge Middlebrooks wrote most of it for a lay audience (most likely because he realized that included Trump's "lawyers"). Let's hit the highlights!
Here's the judge's summary of what specific nonsense Trump tried to argue
Brutality.
I mean, not just the "I agree" line, though that's an evisceration. But ... if the judge is gonna take some time to not just bounce you out of court, but to read you the riot act for what an organizational mess your complaint is as a legal document, you done fucked up
Ouch.
This is basically begging the Defendants to file a sanctions motion, and I have to wonder if they sent Rule 11 letters when they got the complaint. I certainly would have.
Alina. Habba. Does. Not. Know. Law.
And it's inexcusable. This isn't esoteric stuff buried in an obscure precedent somewhere. It's the first thing you'd find if you were competent and started your research by looking at the legal elements of your claims. Unreal
1) I may or may not have mentioned that exact thing.
2) YOUCH
I would retire to a monastery somewhere if a judge ever said this about me.
BTW, what are the odds that conservative lolyers will stop confusing "pleading" with "briefing" after this?
FLEE THE COUNTRY
I'm going to skip the section on shotgun pleading and how to properly name Doe defendants. Basically, unlike every other circuit, the 11th circuit dramatically disfavors "we incorporate by reference every prior allegation", and Habba, being from NJ, didn't know that.
To be fair, that's exactly the type of thing I'd expect my local counsel to warn me about, so that's not really on her - except to the extent that she was involved in picking local clownsel instead of someone competent
Here, Habba managed to get Trump's claims tossed by not remembering the Westfall Act, which Trump tried to use as a defense in E. Jean Carroll's suit against him (defamation for saying she lied about Trump raping her).
Trump's lawyer in that suit is now Alina Habba, btw.
More on why Trump's claims here Westfell on their face, including "you buffoons incorporated by reference the IG Report, meaning the judge can consider its conclusions when deciding whether to dismiss your complaint"
Those claims get dismissed without prejudice, meaning that if Trump wants to he can go to the House and FBI and ask them to pay him for his "damages" and THEN sue the defendants again ... except for the rest of the dismissal order saying it's meritless
Next we have the "what the fuck do I have to do with Florida" defendants.
Trump tried to argue "I can sue anywhere for RICO" which is true, but only if you, you know, have a valid RICO claim, which he doesn't. Otherwise, they need to have something to do with FL ...
which he didn't really bother to do.
Like what the hell even is this: you gave information to someone who passed it to someone else who used it in a way that impacted Florida? Or "you hurt the country as a whole"? How high were they when they floated this?
"they knew that Florida is a state in the United States which was an important one" MIGH GUD
1) Hooray, he cited linear time!
2) I can't believe that a real life federal judge needed to explain the part in red
Now for the substance. You have to work to plead yourself into dismissal on the statute of limitations, and oh boy did they ever manage it. How did they not oppose a request for judicial notice??
Oh, right, they were focused on the "no statutes of limitations apply to me because I was President" argument (which was dumb). You can't argue "it was impossible to sue because I was prez" when you were suing left and right as President
"Toll because I was waiting on the government's criminal RICO claims" doesn't work because, oops, there weren't any of those
Last, we've got "fraudulent concealment" - i.e. these bad people did things that prevented me from learning I had claims.
But MY DUDE. You have been banging this drum for years. Stop it.
Next we have "but I didn't really know I was injured until later" ... except you pled that you had expenses (which aren't an injury, but what you claimed as your injury) beginning in 2017. So ... no.
Trade secret not gonna save you either. Bye
Now in most cases, the court would stop there. The claims are time-barred. Why bother addressing whether they state a claim?
Middlebrooks doesn't - he eviscerates the substance as well. The normal reason to do this is to appeal-proof an opinion. But here, there's probably also a
"because fuck if I'm going to let him argue that he lost on a technicality" aspect to it, too
YEEEEP
Do you know how hard it is to file a RICO claim that doesn't satisfy ANY of the RICO elements? Not because RICO elements are easy to show. But because if you can't satisfy ANY, why the fuck did you think it was RICO in the first place?
All the
Wrong things
You did
This pleading
I'll take
One rip
At your
Stupid shit
Sorry it ain't so
This isn't how it goes
Turn the lights off
Wheelbarrow Trump home
Keep his head still
He's mentally ill
Turn the lights off
Carry him home
BTW, that red highlight? "MY. BOXES." cc @SonnyBunch
Anyway, thus ends the "trade secret" idiocy
Last (on predicate acts) wire fraud, which Trump tossed in at the desperate last moment. And I'm sure this is as much a surprise to you as it is to me, incompetently
Having not managed to identify a single predicate act, Trump obviously also failed to prove a pattern of predicate acts. But also, as I mentioned the first time around, he hasn't pled "continuity" (read that thread for a fuller explanation)
What about the enterprise requirement? He at least proved a RICO conspiracy, right?
Uh ... no.
How about injury?
Shocking
OK, moving on from RICO to "we can't plead defamation, so why don't we just call it 'injurious falsehood'"
Linear time strikes again.
And also, no, criticizing you isn't "injurious falsehood" you authoritarian garbage fire
"You hurt my reputation" isn't injurious falsehood; it has to be a loss of *business*. So Trump claimed to be disclaiming reputational damages. But he can't shoehorn this into the injurious falsehood bin; he has no property rights in a political career - and he WON in 2016
Plus, again, he missed ALL the elements. No injury, no falsity, etc. - and, oh, right, the First Amendment clearly protects people offering opinions on Trump's conduct in office.
Fuck off, Donny
Next, malicious prosecution, which fails to even get up off the couch since there *was no prosecution*
Plus - and thank you, Judge Middlebrooks, for reinforcing this - the Mueller Report *didn't* exonerate Trump. It expressly said as much. So it wasn't a "favorable termination"
Next we have the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim based on the DNS data, and yeah, we already know how that ends.
Not only didn't Trump bother pleading any unauthorized access to the DNS data, he didn't plead any resulting financial loss
On theft of trade secrets: again, lolno. But also, loltoolate
On to the Stored Communications Act in Judge Middlebrooks' disaster tour, and again, what the hell were you waiting for?
But also, he didn't really plead an SCA claim to begin with; Trump isn't an ISP or an email provider
Last (IIRC) we have agency (not a separate claim) and respondeat superior (same).
Like I said lo these many months ago, this is not a thing. There's no standalone cause of action for this stuff. And all the underlying claims were garbage. So ... in the trash this goes, too
Now come the hammer blows
First: LOL, no. I'm not letting you try a *third* time when you went with this abomination of a pleading after the Defendants had helpfully made all these points about what you screwed up before you filed your amended complaint.
GTFOH
And second ...
No. See, you're done with me. This case is finished.
But I? I'm not done with you.
Middlebrooks expressly retained jurisdiction to consider sanctions
That ... well, remember how often y'all ask me "will there be any consequences" and I say "probably not"?
There will be consequences here. There's absolutely zero question he's granting sanctions for this dumpster fire - the only questions are "against whom" and "how bad
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It may well be right if your goal is "neutering their influence".
But with respect, you know what else is important? Educating the public. And also grounding any practical response in a justification beyond "because i can".
Trust me, @mjs_DC & @Dahlialithwick, I get the frustration. But you and me? We're NOT going to be the ones having any practical mitigatory impact on the harm Cannon or other bad judges can cause. All we can do is explain, hopefully persuasively, why it IS harm
What do I propose to do about it? Nothing. Because from my seat here on Twitter, there's nothing I *can* do about it.
This is a terrible comparison. The reason contraception mandates violated sincere religious beliefs was that the *contraception itself* was religiously opposed.
Here, people are arguing about potential downstream choices by other independent parties. It's stupid
Who on earth has ever decided to have pre-marital sex and then changed their mind for fear of HPV?
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists, this ruling in New Mexico disqualifying a County Commissioner from office as an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is pretty important.
It's the first case to interpret the Insurrection clause's application to J6. Let's read
Note: The Insurrection Clause bars people from office unless Congress "removes the disability". The Madison Cawthorn case from earlier this year addressed the interplay between that clause and the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed the disability from civil war participants
Cawthorn argued that the Amnesty Act meant nobody who ever committed insurrection in the future could be barred from office either - and got a District Judge to sign off on that. The 4th Circuit went "LOL, no. Linear time, my friend"
OK, #LitigationDisasterTourists, let's take a run at a true litigation disaster - Judge Canon's order in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case. Will have to take a few breaks to help around the house, but let's do something different this time, and NOT start by reading the order.
The courts are not a super-legislature or super-executive. "I think this is bad policy" doesn't give you a road into court. Neither does "this federal expenditure may incentivize third parties to take economic steps that harm me down the road"
Hell, if that was a path to standing every taxpayer could challenge every federal expenditure - something that (as Cruz notes) the courts have roundly and correctly rejected.