Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
So what do you think, Big Dog? You've done some legal analysis on this. Let us assume that Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, and that Donald Trump didn't know about the contract. Who was the contract with, and what was it for?

Some things to keep in mind

1. The contract says it is with David Dennison, presumably a Trump alias. You can't enter a contract without knowing. It's just impossible.

2. Contracts require that the contracts give benefits to both sides. Assuming that the contract was with Michael Cohen's LLC, what was the benefit to Cohen? Without a benefit, there's no contract.

In general, I'm just confused. In truth, I do not believe that Trump had no knowledge of this agreement, but until proof is offered I guess we go with the assumption that Cohen's lawyer is telling the truth. If so, how can there be a valid contract?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how any observer would take the assumption that Cohen is telling the truth when the story is frankly unbelievable. Here's a reasonable question. Why would he do that in a middle of an election? And how did he know that this woman was going to share her story and must be stopped? Is he on Bimbo patrol? And he called Miss Clifford a liar saying that the affair didn't happen. So why would he pay her off? Whether the contract is valid is another question. Why does this lawyer think that potentially violating Bar ethics and campaign finance laws is a smart thing to do.?
 
Meadmaker said:
So what do you think, Big Dog? You've done some legal analysis on this. Let us assume that Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, and that Donald Trump didn't know about the contract. Who was the contract with, and what was it for?

Some things to keep in mind

1. The contract says it is with David Dennison, presumably a Trump alias. You can't enter a contract without knowing. It's just impossible.

2. Contracts require that the contracts give benefits to both sides. Assuming that the contract was with Michael Cohen's LLC, what was the benefit to Cohen? Without a benefit, there's no contract.

In general, I'm just confused. In truth, I do not believe that Trump had no knowledge of this agreement, but until proof is offered I guess we go with the assumption that Cohen's lawyer is telling the truth. If so, how can there be a valid contract?
Click to expand...

I'm running with the assumption that Trump called out to Cohen over his shoulder one day 'hey Mike, I'm running for office now, throw some hush money at anything I battered my mini corn dog in. Oh, and make sure my name isn't on the check'. Cohen did so, and sloppily.
 
Meadmaker said:
So what do you think, Big Dog? You've done some legal analysis on this. Let us assume that Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, and that Donald Trump didn't know about the contract. Who was the contract with, and what was it for?

Some things to keep in mind

1. The contract says it is with David Dennison, presumably a Trump alias. You can't enter a contract without knowing. It's just impossible.

2. Contracts require that the contracts give benefits to both sides. Assuming that the contract was with Michael Cohen's LLC, what was the benefit to Cohen? Without a benefit, there's no contract.

In general, I'm just confused. In truth, I do not believe that Trump had no knowledge of this agreement, but until proof is offered I guess we go with the assumption that Cohen's lawyer is telling the truth. If so, how can there be a valid contract?
Click to expand...

Well that Cohen's lawyer guy is quite a hoot, ain't he? Not a 100% sure who he is, or what he said or what his role is.... but lets run with the assumptions in your post that what he said was true.

As such, the topics we will be discussing today are delegated authority, apparent authority, actual authority and ratification. It should be a "Good" Friday! :D
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm confused about the discussion regarding the enforcability of the NDA.

She's already disclosed it all. That is out of the bag. You can't undisclose something.

Now, she could have to pay penalties for violating the NDA. But if she does it will because what she said was true (you can't deny that he had sex with her and at the same time claim that she violated a NDA by disclosing that they had sex), which means that it is still true that he cheated on his wife with a porn star, who was then paid hush money to cover it up.

And then there will be the questions about where the money came from, and the laughable assertion that they did it without Trump's knowledge, leading to questions about the ethics of campaign contributions.

None of that changes, regardless of the outcome of any legal wranglings going on now.

We can consider the significance of those facts, and the hypocrisy of the GOP in dismissing them, but that doesn't make it any less factual.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well that Cohen's lawyer guy is quite a hoot, ain't he? Not a 100% sure who he is, or what he said or what his role is.... but lets run with the assumptions in your post that what he said was true.

As such, the topics we will be discussing today are delegated authority, apparent authority, actual authority and ratification. It should be a "Good" Friday! :D
Click to expand...

You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)
 
Meadmaker said:
You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)
Click to expand...

Well you should start discussing them because therein lies the answers to your questions.
 
Meadmaker said:
You might be discussing those, but I'm not. I'm discussing the question of "Is there a contract?"

Some people don't understand that any old agreement made between people is not a contract. A contract has to meet certain requirements. Each party has to agree to the contract, and, this is the important part, each party has to get something from the contract.

It is being alleged that Stephanie Clifford has violated a contract, but that cannot be true if there was no contract in the first place. Donald Trump was unaware of the existence of the contract (so we are told) so the contract can't be with him. So, that leaves Michael Cohen. What did he get from the contract. If the answer is "nothing", or "the chance to collect if the contract is violated", then there's no contract.


(And our local real lawyers could jump in an correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of contracts. I would accept the word of an actual lawyer.)
Click to expand...

Ok, using your assumptions:

Stormy comes sniffing around looking for a payday. The Donald calls his good buddy Cohen and say "I got 99 problems and now this Stormy is one. Things are going so good with Melania right now... I need you to make this go away and you have my full blessings to do it any legal way possible and i don't wanna know about it, because i am too busy trying to get a big promotion at work"

As such, Big Daddy D delegates full authority to Cohen.

Big Daddy reaches out to Stormy's people and tells them to work with C, and they know that C is his fixer, so that they think he has authority to get the deal done, which legal beagles refer to as apparent authority. In fact, C has actual authority to do the deal.

So the deal gets done, Stormy gets fat cash, and a promise that Big D won't sue her for extortion, C gets the photos and other tangible stuff and Stormy's promise to keep quiet, and all are fat and happy until Stormy decides she wants more and claims that despite the fact that she got paid fat cash and other side totally lived up to the bargain.

So Big D learns the details and "ratifies" the whole agreement and instructs his team to go to arbitration. And here we are.

"Ratification"

The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed.

A principal can, for example, ratify something that has been done on his or her behalf by another individual who assumed the authority to act in the capacity of an agent.
Click to expand...
 
Fun bit of irony, Avenatti telling his opponents to "read" the order, which instructs Avenatti to "carefully read" the Court's standing order and the Court's Rules.

Oh mercy
 
The Big Dog said:
Fun bit of irony, Avenatti telling his opponents to "read" the order, which instructs Avenatti to "carefully read" the Court's standing order and the Court's Rules.

Oh mercy
Click to expand...

I think he may have been referring to the 'it will all come out in due time, no rush' bit?
 
Thermal said:
I think he may have been referring to the 'it will all come out in due time, no rush' bit?
Click to expand...

:confused:

You mean the part where the Judge said that this was not the most important case on his docket and that requests for expedited treatment should be supported by a record showing that they are entitled to such relief?

Because this one very clearly was not?
 
The Big Dog said:
:confused:

You mean the part where the Judge said that this was not the most important case on his docket and that requests for expedited treatment should be supported by a record showing that they are entitled to such relief?

Because this one very clearly was not?
Click to expand...

Not true. He said expiditing the matter was not the most important matter on the courts desk. There is a difference. A big one. Think about it.

And expiditing was, as the court said, merely premature. Again, big difference.
 
Thermal said:
Not true. He said expiditing the matter was not the most important matter on the courts desk. There is a difference. A big one. Think about it.

And expiditing was, as the court said, merely premature. Again, big difference.
Click to expand...

uhhh, about that?:

“The parties are advised that the instant litigation is not the most important matter on the Court's docket. Requests for expedited proceedings, hearings, and discovery not clearly supported by the record and law are discouraged.”

He said the entire motion was premature and that Avennati better think long and hard about bringing a motion to expedite where there are no real reasons to do so.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ok, using your assumptions:

Stormy comes sniffing around looking for a payday. The Donald calls his good buddy Cohen and say "I got 99 problems and now this Stormy is one. Things are going so good with Melania right now... I need you to make this go away and you have my full blessings to do it any legal way possible and i don't wanna know about it, because i am too busy trying to get a big promotion at work"

As such, Big Daddy D delegates full authority to Cohen.

Big Daddy reaches out to Stormy's people and tells them to work with C, and they know that C is his fixer, so that they think he has authority to get the deal done, which legal beagles refer to as apparent authority. In fact, C has actual authority to do the deal.

So the deal gets done, Stormy gets fat cash, and a promise that Big D won't sue her for extortion, C gets the photos and other tangible stuff and Stormy's promise to keep quiet, and all are fat and happy until Stormy decides she wants more and claims that despite the fact that she got paid fat cash and other side totally lived up to the bargain.

So Big D learns the details and "ratifies" the whole agreement and instructs his team to go to arbitration. And here we are.
Click to expand...

So, under this theory, the deal really is between Clifford and Trump. Cohen is just acting to facilitate the deal. He has been appointed by Trump to take care of the details because he is far too busy to go around worrying about paying hush money to every whore he has ever had sex with. He has people for that.

Hmmm.......and you think this will work out well for him?

But now The Donald says he knows nothing, and Cohen's lawyer says D knows nothing, and that doesn't really fit very well with the idea that there's a contract with Trump. Well, I guess it will all get straightened out soon enough.
 
The Big Dog said:
uhhh, about that?:

“The parties are advised that the instant litigation is not the most important matter on the Court's docket. Requests for expedited proceedings, hearings, and discovery not clearly supported by the record and law are discouraged.”

He said the entire motion was premature and that Avennati better think long and hard about bringing a motion to expedite where there are no real reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Instant litigation was not the most important. And the motions were premature. That's all. Normal for attys to take some swings with motions and be denied. You're reading way too much into the decision. No one knows enough yet, lacking the answer from Cohen et al. Avaretti just didn't want discovery to drag this out and took a shot. No biggie.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, under this theory, the deal really is between Clifford and Trump. Cohen is just acting to facilitate the deal. He has been appointed by Trump to take care of the details because he is far too busy to go around worrying about paying hush money to every whore he has ever had sex with. He has people for that.

Hmmm.......and you think this will work out well for him?

But now The Donald says he knows nothing, and Cohen's lawyer says D knows nothing, and that doesn't really fit very well with the idea that there's a contract with Trump. Well, I guess it will all get straightened out soon enough.
Click to expand...

He did? When?

Last I saw his lawyer said that he would be joining in the request for arbitration, you have different facts?
 
Meadmaker said:
So, under this theory, the deal really is between Clifford and Trump. Cohen is just acting to facilitate the deal. He has been appointed by Trump to take care of the details because he is far too busy to go around worrying about paying hush money to every whore he has ever had sex with. He has people for that.

Hmmm.......and you think this will work out well for him?

But now The Donald says he knows nothing, and Cohen's lawyer says D knows nothing, and that doesn't really fit very well with the idea that there's a contract with Trump. Well, I guess it will all get straightened out soon enough.
Click to expand...

Just a coincidence that his sig doesn't appear on the NDA to insulate him, I'm sure.
 
The Big Dog said:
uhhh, about that?:

“The parties are advised that the instant litigation is not the most important matter on the Court's docket. Requests for expedited proceedings, hearings, and discovery not clearly supported by the record and law are discouraged.”

He said the entire motion was premature and that Avennati better think long and hard about bringing a motion to expedite where there are no real reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

I dunno, the smart thing for TrumpCo to do at this point would be to shut this whole thing down by not filing any more motions and try to back out of this mess as painlessly as possible. So, you're probably right: next step, motion to compel arbitration followed by much more entertainment. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the thought that if Donnie ever collects any money from Daniels, which I seriously doubt, Melania will get half of that, too. :D
 
The Big Dog said:
He did? When?

Last I saw his lawyer said that he would be joining in the request for arbitration, you have different facts?
Click to expand...

Didn't he (or maybe it was his lawyer, or something) deny that the affair ever happened? Maybe not. It's kind of hard to follow each day's accusations and denials.
 
Thermal said:
Exactly. Instant litigation was not the most important. And the motions were premature. That's all. Normal for attys to take some swings with motions and be denied. You're reading way too much into the decision. No one knows enough yet, lacking the answer from Cohen et al. Avaretti just didn't want discovery to drag this out and took a shot. No biggie.
Click to expand...

HI! You might want to look up what "instant" means in that context, no?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/instant

He was referring to the whole case, and I ain't reading too much into the Judge taking three separate whacks at Avenatti in a single order.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I dunno, the smart thing for TrumpCo to do at this point would be to shut this whole thing down by not filing any more motions and try to back out of this mess as painlessly as possible. So, you're probably right: next step, motion to compel arbitration followed by much more entertainment. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the thought that if Donnie ever collects any money from Daniels, which I seriously doubt, Melania will get half of that, too. :D
Click to expand...

Well seeing as how there is no way to do that once one has been sued as a defendant, the smart thing is to shuffle as much of the case over to arbitration and get that locked down tighter than a tick on a titmouse and get whatever is left dismissed or stayed.
 
The Big Dog said:
HI! You might want to look up what "instant" means in that context, no?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/instant

He was referring to the whole case, and I ain't reading too much into the Judge taking three separate whacks at Avenatti in a single order.
Click to expand...

Yes. The instant litigation. The motion for expiditing the case. It was premature. Not the entire case, as you keep claiming. The instant matter. What confuses you about that?
 
Thermal said:
Yes. The instant litigation. The motion for expiditing the case. It was premature. Not the entire case, as you keep claiming. The instant matter. What confuses you about that?
Click to expand...

Uh, going to have to go ahead and disagree with you again. "instant litigation" refers to the whole case. If Judge Otero wanted to refer to the "instant motion," as you seem to believe he is doing?

Yeah, he really knows how to do that, mmmyay?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...nstant+motion"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,321&as_ylo=2018

There are lots more.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well seeing as how there is no way to do that once one has been sued as a defendant, the smart thing is to shuffle as much of the case over to arbitration and get that locked down tighter than a tick on a titmouse and get whatever is left dismissed or stayed.
Click to expand...

All Daniels' suit asks for is to invalidate the NDA, which is completely meaningless at this point anyway. Anyway, just to add my own conspiracy theory about why Trump is determined to fight this to the bitter end, other than his narcissistic compulsion to "win" at all costs, is that if he doesn't, we're gonna hear about a lot more of these NDAs. (And I think we will, anyway, since Daniels' NDA seems to be a boilerplate.)
 
WilliamSeger said:
All Daniels' suit asks for is to invalidate the NDA, which is completely meaningless at this point anyway. Anyway, just to add my own conspiracy theory about why Trump is determined to fight this to the bitter end, other than his narcissistic compulsion to "win" at all costs, is that if he doesn't, we're gonna hear about a lot more of these NDAs. (And I think we will, anyway, since Daniels' NDA seems to be a boilerplate.)
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, she wants the entire contract invalidated, including the damages provisions and the parts about the photos/copyrights rescinded.

Basically what she has done is breached the **** out of her contract and now is going ahead and asking the court to declare that is OK.

Protip, that is something else the courts really don't like either.
 
The Big Dog said:
Uh, going to have to go ahead and disagree with you again. "instant litigation" refers to the whole case. If Judge Otero wanted to refer to the "instant motion," as you seem to believe he is doing?

Yeah, he really knows how to do that, mmmyay?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...nstant+motion"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,321&as_ylo=2018

There are lots more.
Click to expand...

But what does it matter? A premature motion was denied. Happens all the time. So? Its not exactly case closed, or significant at all. How important the judge views the motion or case is not relevant, unless a decision is fatal. This was a typical litigious swing and miss by Daniels team, not a harbinger of doom.
 
The Big Dog said:
No it doesn't, she wants the entire contract invalidated, including the damages provisions and the parts about the photos/copyrights rescinded.
Click to expand...

By convention, when people introduce a rebuttal with "No it doesn't..." they are asserting a contradiction. Yes, she asking to void the entire NDA, not just the non-disclosure clauses.
 
WilliamSeger said:
By convention, when people introduce a rebuttal with "No it doesn't..." they are asserting a contradiction. Yes, she asking to void the entire NDA, not just the non-disclosure clauses.
Click to expand...

Deep breathe..... ahhh.

It is a settlement agreement that includes within it non-disclosure agreements. Not all NDA's are settlement agreements and not all settlement agreements include NDA's. When one says that she wants to void the NDA in a settlement agreement that means to me she wants to void the NDA in the settlement agreement only.

One must endeavor to speak precisely.
 
Thermal said:
But what does it matter? A premature motion was denied. Happens all the time. So? Its not exactly case closed, or significant at all. How important the judge views the motion or case is not relevant, unless a decision is fatal. This was a typical litigious swing and miss by Daniels team, not a harbinger of doom.
Click to expand...

It is a harbinger of doom of an expedited schedule.

Ask a judge whether someone faking up an emergency that isn't one is something they enjoy.
 
Thermal said:
But what does it matter? A premature motion was denied. Happens all the time. So? Its not exactly case closed, or significant at all. How important the judge views the motion or case is not relevant, unless a decision is fatal. This was a typical litigious swing and miss by Daniels team, not a harbinger of doom.
Click to expand...
It matters because TBD really hasn't had a lot to smugly crow about in this administration. He tries, bless his heart, but there's no getting around Trump being a clueless, treasonous moron who's completely out of his depth in any legal system he can't bribe or intimidate his way out of.

This may only be about a minor procedural motion that's the kind of thing you expect a good lawyer to be trying in the off chance it works, but let him have this. Trust me, the next time the tables are turned he'll return the favor by disappearing from the forum for a few days until the conversation moves on and he can slink back without calling attention to himself.
 
The Big Dog said:
uhhh, about that?:

“The parties are advised that the instant litigation is not the most important matter on the Court's docket. Requests for expedited proceedings, hearings, and discovery not clearly supported by the record and law are discouraged.”

He said the entire motion was premature and that Avennati better think long and hard about bringing a motion to expedite where there are no real reasons to do so.
Click to expand...

Actually, even though I'd like to hit fast-forward on this too, it's kinda reassuring that the federal courts have more important matters than this silly case.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
It matters because TBD really hasn't had a lot to smugly crow about in this administration. He tries, bless his heart, but there's no getting around Trump being a clueless, treasonous moron who's completely out of his depth in any legal system he can't bribe or intimidate his way out of.

This may only be about a minor procedural motion that's the kind of thing you expect a good lawyer to be trying in the off chance it works, but let him have this. Trust me, the next time the tables are turned he'll return the favor by disappearing from the forum for a few days until the conversation moves on and he can slink back without calling attention to himself.
Click to expand...

Curious how so many people were hailing the Porn Star's Lawyer's brilliant and fiendishly clever strategy, and then after getting his teeth kicked in by the judge it becomes a "minor procedural matter."

But I did enjoy the "slink back in" nonsense, because I have always been such a shrinking violet, like in this thread where the thread lawyers and all the others have been ineffectually arrayed against me, yet I have been able to refute every objection and teach those who thirst for knowledge.
 
The Big Dog said:
Deep breathe..... ahhh.

It is a settlement agreement that includes within it non-disclosure agreements. Not all NDA's are settlement agreements and not all settlement agreements include NDA's. When one says that she wants to void the NDA in a settlement agreement that means to me she wants to void the NDA in the settlement agreement only.

One must endeavor to speak precisely.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself: All Daniels' suit asks for is to void the "entire contract," which is completely meaningless at this point anyway, because Daniels already blabbed and Donnie will never collect that $20M. Better? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom