Because you can buy Cohen's book there and download his podcast.
And maybe when Cohen was representing Trump, he flew into Miami. You know ... upon information and belief.
(FL is not the appropriate venue.)
I am suing Michael Cohen for breaching attorney-client privilege and talking smack about me, his onetime client, which is a breach of fiduciary duty.
Here are three pages of Cohen's onetime lawyer Robert Costello talking smack about him, which is totally fine.
"Individual 1" relying on Robert Mueller to dirty up Michael Cohen is A CHOICE.
Does breach of NY Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers create a private cause of action?
The guy is already disbarred, but, hey, knock yourself out.
You breached attorney-client privilege by telling dirty lies about me!
(Also, this looks uncannily like my dog.)
Breach of contract is when you host people who say mean things about me on your podcast.
Yes, that is the law. No, I will not be taking questions at this time.
I only including Trump saying this suit covers anything Cohen MIGHT SAY IN THE FUTURE because he made the opposite argument in the E. Jean Carroll case.
Trump repeated the Carroll defamation years later, got sued again, and claimed he was just commenting on pending litigation.
Astute observers will note that this passage appears to admit the allegations in the pending Bragg indictment about Trump knowingly reimbursing Cohen for rigging a candidate poll — something which was unambiguously a campaign expense.
Whoopsie daisy!
Also that Trump knowingly paid Cohen to reimburse him for the tax liability and called it a retainer.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever, it's not like DA Bragg is ever going to see this complaint, right?
The important thing is that Michael Cohen owes Trump $500 million for calling him a racist and breaching attorney client privilege by telling unspecified lies.
The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division.
(So, not Cannon or Middlebrooks.)
As yet unassigned, but ... I see one or two minor problems, whichever lucky jurist gets blessed with this $402 bag of dogsh-t. courtlistener.com/docket/6717587…
Trump lawyer John Sauer is arguing against the DC elections case gag order. He's getting knocked around pretty good with his absolutist 1st Amend argument.
Trump's argument is that no one has been threatened because of his words. He conveniently omits to mention that someone has been indicted for threatening to kill Judge Chutkan.
The Durham report is going to give me an aneurysm.
The absolute balls on this guy, prefacing this 316-p conspiracy rant by tut-tutting that the DOJ should never slander unindicted parties. justice.gov/storage/durham…
He goes on to cite former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein saying "we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation."
Anyone remember where that quote came from? Let's check out footnote 55, shall we?
Oh, lookee here, it's the memo Rosenstein cooked up to justify firing FBI Director James Comey.
And why?
Because Comey was *too mean* to Hillary Clinton when he said she showed bad judgment with her email server but would not be prosecuted.
Just cracking open this "unlawful abuses of power, wide-ranging sexual assault and harassment, wage theft, and other misconduct" complaint against Rudy Giuliani from former employee Noelle Dunphy (h/t @frankrunyeon) and OMGOMGOMG iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
Rudy hired Dunphy in secret to hide her employment from his wife's divorce lawyers, agreed to simultaneously represent Dunphy, convinced her to defer her compensation, and was all the time trying to sleep with her. ALLEGEDLY.
FTR, I'm not sure that "new source of potential liability" is contempt. This second case for defamation arose out of similar statements Trump made in October — it seems the court is implying that, if Trump keeps commenting, he's going to keep getting sued.
"Thus, while a litigant’s conduct in other cases would normally not be relevant, when the court is faced with a sanctions motion against a repeat offender, undeterred by admonitions, it has the authority to consider that litigant’s outside conduct."