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…
"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."
"This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no."
"We are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed."
"Now, with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s initial motion or to issue any orders in response to it."
Bye bye special master Judge Dearie. Also the remaining shreds of Judge Cannon's reputation.
Is it good when the judge describes your case as "mere conjectural claims of potential injuries" and says, while that's fine for TV and social media, "Rule 11 requires more?"
The DOJ's appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's imposition of a special master in the Mar-a-Lago case is beginning.
Sopan Joshi is up now for the government.
Panel is Judge Pryor and Judges Brasher and Grant, two Trump appointees who ruled in favor of the government in the last round
First question for Joshi is whether there has ever been an exercise of equitable-anomalous jurisdiction when the search was lawful.
There hasn't, and there's been no demonstrated need for the return of the materials.
Remember, the 4 Richey factors to justify jurisdiction are callous disregard of plaintiff's rights, plaintiff's individual interest in material seized, irreparably injury by denial of the return of the property; and whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.