A prolific litigant
A bit of good news at last:
Former president Donald Trump and his lawyer, Alina Habba, have been fined almost $1 million by a federal judge in Florida for what was ruled a frivolous lawsuit brought against his 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton and others.
Trump is a “prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” wrote U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks in his searing 46-page judgment published late Thursday.
“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions,” said Middlebrooks. “As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. Habba.”
…
“Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” Middlebrooks wrote, decrying what he called “abusive litigation tactics.”
In a blistering judgment he said the case was “intended for a political purpose” and showed a “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers,” undermining the rule of law and diverting resources. “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it,” he added.
…
Along with former secretary of state Clinton, Judge Middlebrooks said 30 individuals and entities were “needlessly harmed” by the case in a bid to “advance a political narrative.” Among them were former FBI director James B. Comey, the Democratic National Committee and Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by an opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign who compiled a now-infamous dossier alleging ties between Trump and Russia.
Middlebrooks described the legal complaint as “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion.” One example he cited was thealleged collusion between Comey and Clinton, a claim he said not only lacked substance, but was“categorically absurd” given the impact Comey’s announcements about the investigation into Clinton’s emails had on her 2016 campaign.
The final paragraph is the cherry on the sundae.
The judgment also referenced Trump’s other lawsuits, saying they demonstrated “a pattern of abuse of the courts.” Among them were legal complaints against Twitter, CNN, New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Pulitzer Prize board for a 2018 award given jointly to The Post and the New York Times for coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Hahaha he tried to sue the Pulitzer Prize.
Interesting. One can be sued for bringing a bad, nonsensical lawsuit?
@GW,
Not sued (at least in this case), but fined. Middlebrooks was the judge in the case that Trump brought; he dismissed the case a few months ago and now is fining Trump and Abba for such a colossal waste of time.
That’s very interesting. Thanks!
GW,
There is a cause of action for malicious prosecution. They’re often threatened but rarely filed because they’re very tough to win, for the same reasons sanctions for frivolous litigation are rare — courts want to leave breathing room for parties and attorneys to bring cases, and judges hate “litigation about litigation.”
But Trump and his attorneys are constantly pushing the limits of the system. That said, I doubt you would see a malicious prosecution claim here, because this sanctions award pretty much covers the damages that could be claimed.
Will they sue him when he doesn’t pay? Or will he be imprisoned just like ordinary people would be?
It will be interesting to find out.
The order awarding sanctions is functionally a judgment already. There’s no need (or point) to filing a new lawsuit to collect on it because the defendants already have access to all of the legal tools for enforcing judgments, e.g. having writs of execution issued to seize assets. (That’s an oversimplification, of course, as there are times when collateral lawsuits are filed to “domesticate” a judgment in another jurisdiction, or to go after a nonparty who is holding assets belonging to a judgment debtor, and there’s bankruptcy proceedings of course, but I assume nobody here wants a course in judgment collection 101.)
Also, people aren’t imprisoned for civil debts. (Again, there are nuances — if you violate an order to turn over a specific piece of property, or refuse to comply with a judgment debtor exam, etc., you’re subject to the usual remedies for contempt which can include jail.)
So suing everyone in sight makes him “sophisticated” and a “mastermind?” Anyone can be excessively litigious. Just because there was a political agenda doesn’t make it clever, more like the opposite of clever. If he’s such a goddamned mastermind then why sanction him, your honor? Trump is a moron.
He was on the other end of the process too, stiffing contractors and dragging things out in the courts in a war of attrition and who-has-the-deepest-pockets. Also not particularly sophisticated, but indicative of a willingness to use the court as an instrument to frustrate those seeking payment from him (when he gets sued), as well as political opponents (when he sues them). It’s his way of doing business, a part of his behavioural repertoire, and a reflex action that lets him put things off and tie up those who get in his way. Expedient, but not very sustainable. Not everyone gives up or steps aside; things catch up with you. Somewhere, somehow, someone will inevitably make you pay for those checks you figure nobody would be able to cash. You can’t run forever (bonespurs, you know). And, the courts (in this case at least) does not seem take kindly to this sort of opportunistic abuse of the legal system.
Trump’s behavior is childish and bullying. That’s who he is. Suing is his version of running to mommy when things don’t go his way. It’s about as unsophisticated as it gets. It’s not strategy, it’s his jejune temperament.
This reminds me (again) of the trial scene in Blackadder 4 where Melchett decides that it’s such an open and shut case that the defence should be fined just for turning up.