Trump Sues NYT and Niece—Who Calls Him ‘F*cking Loser’

I am not asking you to. Simple question.....have they arrested Mary Trump for any illegal conduct?

 

Did F Trump change his will, or did D Trump trick him ( or persuade F Trump who was on his death bed in a diminutive state ) into signing a new codicil to the same will?

What actually happened, do you know?

What makes you think Mary Trump doesn't have high moral principles?

 

But is that the circumstance here?

I don't think it is.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ainst-n-y-times-niece-a-stunt-her-lawyer-says

 

You may be right. He might win the court case.

He’s still a fuc**ng loser.

 

Was the codicil signed by F Trump? Witnessed?

What actually happened, do you know?

Someone with 'high moral principals' would have made sure they obtained 'copies' of documents that weren't theirs to begin with, for no other purpose but to be used against the person whose documents they were. Intent is very clear. That isn't 'high morals'.

 

Hey man you're the one that let us charitably say couldn't remember his own reasoning post to post, I'm just helping you out. No need to be sore about it.

She's doing herself a favor only, don't confuse her actions to satisfy her vengeance boner and make money for altruism. You're the one that called her noble with stars in your eyes. Pointing that out should likewise not make you sore.

yadda yadda yadda what happened in that case and happens all the time, every day, all day. People cut their kids out. People are *******s. You're not entitled to an inheritance, people have a hard time accepting this and I deal with overbearing would be beneficiaries all the time.

That would be what the TESTATOR wanted. Its not about what's "fair" its a will: It goes how the person lays it out. If they want to cut out their grandkids, that's their right. They could leave their whole estate to charity if they wanted ffs.
You wouldn't get on the jury, your bias is so obvious I grow tired of pointing it out.

Yes a cure for whatever it is that causes you to engage in such projection and denial of your own clear and obvious bias. You should seek it out.
Here's the thing: To be insulted by something you say, I have to respect your opinion.

I don't make quips in the courtroom, so I really don't care what you think of my quips.

Not the lawyer whose office she took the documents from, her lawyer defending her on the NDA case. Two different ducks dear. Pay attention.

As stated more than once: I voted libertarian, yes. They produced the only candidate and policies I could even vaguely stomach if I held my nose.
My with such a stirring and rational argument as "they're whacko didn't you know", and from such an august personage as yourself, how could one think any other way than in hard lockstep with you? One would have to have absolutely no respect for your opinion at all to take such a tact.

I love how you are so blinkered by your bias you can't even examine the issue.

 

I can't read your mind, if you have something to say from whatever link you post to back it up then SAY IT.

 

GEEEZZZZ, the will was probated and found to be the will of F Trump and was his last directive. The grandchildren can be as mad as they want they have no claim to anything other than what is in the will.

 

Try google if that is your question.

 

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

 

I was kidding about 'wacko' and I so stated.

Yes, rich people screw siblings and relatives in wills all the time.

But what Trump did was get his dad ( I heard he was tricked ) to change the will to exclude his deceased brother's estate ( which would include Mary Trump ). When Mary sued, that is when Trump squelched the health care for the toddler with cerebral palsy ( because he, too, was part of the estate ).

There some reportage that Fred Trump was in a diminutive state, on his death bed, etc., and was 'tricked' into signing a new will, or okaying a new codicil, or something like that.

So, what I want to know is how much of that is true. I mean, it wouldn't be out of character for Trump to do that.

Now, it is True Trump squelched the health care of a toddler relative who was promised by others in the family the child wouldn't be. AFAIK.

See, while you say rich people pulls **** like that all the time, well, that's fine, but I don't want those cretons to be president, which is the essential point.

I commend her for her books because they are informative AND Trump is a threat to US National Security, so any effort to stop his, in my view, is commendable ( but it has to be factual information ), noting that she is not being sued for defamation. One would think Trump would sue her for defamation, but he's miffed about tax documents, where the tax docs were already approved for being released to congress ( and DOJ, I think ) elsewhere. I'll have to recheck this data, and get back to you

 

In that family, this would be of little surprise.

 

Yeah you know what happens when a will contest is had and a will is upheld? You get a judicial determination that the will was validly executed, which means the testator had testamentary capacity and intent and signed the document in front of witnesses.
That means whatever rumors you credit because of your bias, there was one actual judicially determined outcome IE the will was valid and the old man had the intent to have the will he signed be the way things worked. His son's estate was not entitled to any money from him, there was no one to screw. It wasn't theirs to expect in the first place.

 

No one is talking about 'entitled'.

As I understand it, the original will gave all five siblings one fifth, and after his brother died, Trump ( and I think his sister, a judge ) were instrumental in persuading Fred Trump to exclude the deceased brother's estate from getting 1/5.

If that is true, and I think it is, how would you feel if you were a member of the excluded estate?

There was a lot of money, plenty for everyone, Trump didn't have to put forth the effort to persuade his father to exclude his deceased brother's estate. He didn't have to, unless, of course, he is just greedy.

I mean, it's like the Father is pissing on the memory of his son. Surely his son would have wanted his heirs to receive his share of the inheritance.

Do you not agree with this?

Anyway, I'm going to research this and get to the bottom of what, precisely, went down. I should think Mary Trump's lawsuit has this information.

 

When you use the term "screwed out of" in relation to obtaining property, you're making the claim that the person who "got screwed" was entitled to that property.
Yes and the Testator revoked that will and executed a new one prior to their death.

I would feel that the Testator declined to include me as an object of their bounty and that would cause hurt feelings most likely. I would not feel that I was entitled to anything because obviously the testator revoked the will.

Plenty for everyone: Except the Testator whose money it was to divide as they saw fit in whatever proportion they saw fit to whomsoever they saw fit decided they didn't want to include 1 branch, as is their prerogative.

Maybe the Father didn't want his son to obtain an inheritance, even posthumously, because of some slight real or imagined he suffered from either that son or that son's spouse or that son's children?
Surely it is a matter of objective fact that the newest will was admitted to probate, challenged, and it succeeded making it the only valid expression of testamentary intent and its obvious that NO Fred did not in fact want his son's kids getting anything.

See above, obviously you're incredibly offbase as I've pointed out to you. It comes from an attitude, clearly expressed by yourself in the 3rd to last sentence though denied in the 1st sentence of your post, that the brother's estate was entitled to receive an inheritance. This is a flaw in your understanding.

 

so is Trump admiting the tax information she has is real?

 

Please respond rather than deflect
What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

 

that is not a deflection, to sue as he is, they have to be the real deal... do you think they are?

 

No, I'm just saying your characterization may be omitting facts of circumstance which just may paint an entirely different picture than the one you are portraying.

Therefore, as I stated previously, I'm going to research it.

That being said, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt long before I would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, based on what is publicly known about Trump (such as fornicating with a porn star just after his newly wed wife gave birth, which is just scratching the surface on his terrible character).

 

Deflection again and your refusal to answer as usual.

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

And real, not real, some real of no matter, even if they were fake for the purpose of a slander or libel he could still sue.

 

You are assuming that that is the case here, and it is not.

Mary Trump's lawyers got all of their documents on discovery from a previous lawsuit.

Though "IANAL" and "AFAIK" That means they are free to publish the documents.

 

That does not give free rein to release them, they don't become her "possession" to do with as she sees fit and in fact the court order/agreement said they could not be. That is why SHE is being sued. The NYT liblity is that they were actively encouraging her to violate the legal agreement and the law. If such documents show up at their office with no encourage or plodding by them they can print but if the seek and encourage someone to do so then they may have violated the law. Same thing came up when Maddow released the one year and they were very clear that they had not sought those records or encouraged anyone to obtain them of give them to them.

What if someone at your doctors office had a beef with you and released your medical records or someone at the bank release your banking records or someone at you accounts firm released you tax records to a local paper and that paper published them? You wouldn't sue both of them?

 

That is not why she is being sued. She is being sued because Trump alleges she violated her NDA.

Ahh yes, “tortious interference with contract,”, I believe is in wording in the suit.
well, it's premised on the validity of the NDA, and that is going to open up a can of Trumpian worms, i.e., discovery, depositions, if there
were any nefarious activities by the president regarding his taxes ( remember this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html )
what are the odds they are going to find all sorts of worms in the can, it will be depositions galore, requesting taxes he spend a few years trying to get the press from publishing, it will call come out in the open, and what are the odds her attorneys aren't going to find any?

I think she can easily prove that the NDA is fraudulent, and, as such, there is no 'tortious interference' thereby.

What I would do has nothing to do with this case: The basis for the suit is Trump is alleging she broke her NDA and NYTimes for 'tortious interference".

Proceeding from that basis, noting the NYTimes side of the suit will fail on first amendment grounds, well,..

This, from Atty at law Brian Sullivan, not party to the suit, who wrote in Forbes:

What’s stopping this suit from being taken seriously by most lawyers, myself included? For starters, the claims it contains, namely breach of contract and tortious interference, aren’t likely to withstand legal scrutiny.

The lawsuit alleges that, in disclosing Trump’s tax records to Susanne Craig and The New York Times, Mary Trump committed a breach of a prior settlement agreement reached in 2001 during litigation involving the estate of Fred Trump and Mary Anne Trump. The actions against Mary Trump may assert a colorable claim based in contract, because Mary was a signatory to the confidentiality agreement that Trump alleges she breached, but there is no viable or meritorious claim against The New York Times. This is due to the United States Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has uniformly upheld press protections, especially against public figures, and there is no greater public figure than the President of the United States. An example of press freedoms is found in the seminal case of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that The New York Times could publish “top secret” confidential government documents related to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, known as the Pentagon Papers, that were actually stolen from a research institute.

Because The New York Times’ liability (which is nonexistent) is based on negligent supervision of its employees, if Trump cannot demonstrate that Barstow, Craig, and Buettner committed any wrongdoing, The New York Times will not be held liable. Trump presents his argument against Barstow, Craig, and Buettner in the context of a contractual breach. As the journalists were not signatories to the confidentiality agreement, Trump is proceeding under the theory of “tortious interference with contract,” which is first premised on a contract’s validity. In Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424 (Court of Appeals, 1996), the frequently cited case on what constitutes tortious interference with a contract under New York law, the court ruled that a plaintiff must show, “the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, defendant's knowledge of that contract, defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom.”

Ahh, 'damages resulting therefrom." Problem there, for sure. NYTimes has published a four page spread on his family's dubious tax schemes. Considerable published essays, documented, on his corruption. Dozens of books, most in the negative, about Trump, not to mention his being accused of sexual misconduct by 25 women. How then, can Trump claim he was damaged? Is financial failings have nothing to do with the published documents, but everything to do with his maladministration, his failing reputation ( numbers building owners with his name on the building what his name taken off, because they are having difficulty getting tenants, etc ) how does he claim 'damages'?

Moving on:

While Trump attempts to intimidate through legal action, he is actually unwittingly opening himself up to broad-ranging discovery into his personal and financial affairs that could expose even more wrongdoings by him, his family, and his businesses. For example, to defend against the claims that he experienced damages, The New York Times and Mary Trump will certainly request copies of his financial records and additional past tax returns, which is something Trump has used every means possible to prevent from being disclosed in the past. The paper has already indicated that it will not be intimidated by this latest legal action and intends to put up a strong defense, with a representative for the company stating, "This lawsuit is an attempt to silence independent news organizations and we plan to vigorously defend against it."

So, here we have it—another frivolous lawsuit in a long and growing line of frivolous lawsuits, by a man that some would consider to be the most frivolous president in history.

 

How it's a commonplace requirement is such lawsuits to protect private financial information she did not gain ownership of them and that information.

Of course it does you are a private citizen just as he is in this matter would you want someone to do this to you and if they did wouldn't you sue the heck out of then?

The first amendment does not protect them if they urge and encourage someone to commit an illegal act to obtain that information. Perhaps the lawyer you are citing should consider that legal fact.

 

No, because the circumstance you presented to me is not the circumstance here. What I would do is irrelevant to what is occurring with Trump v NYT and
M Trump

Did you read the quote?

The lawsuit alleges: “tortious interference with contract,”

"contract"

Capiche?

They'll have to prove the NDA is valid. Because if it isn't valid, the lawsuit tanks.

To do that, defense will deposition Trump.

They will requisition tax documents, all sorts of documents to prove the NDA was fraudulently achieved, because you cannot NDA crime.

Understand?

They will, in a effect, do a lot of digging, and given Trump's history with tax evasion, this is going to go places that Trump does not want to go, and will likely invalidate the NDA, and thus, the lawsuit on which it is premised.

My guess is that the lawsuit is just intimidation, a stunt.

If it does go forward, my bet is that he will direct his lawyers to withdraw the suit.
No way in Hell does Trump want to be depositioned, nor will his lawyers allow him to be put in a position to be depositioned, it would become a spectacle, and Trump cannot tell the truth, it's not in his nature. You can bullshit in TV and the media all you want, but you can't do that in a deposition or before a judge.