This comes to my mind because of this squib in today's New York
Times:

"Trump threatened to sue The Times over its coverage[*] of his claims
to have been in a dangerous helicopter landing with Willie Brown, the
former mayor of San Francisco." (The article is here: <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter-
landing.html>
It's behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up to get a few
free articles of your choice each month.)

[*]That coverage consists in documenting that Trump's claims are
false.

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many
frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia
confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious
litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

If my memory is right, Trump would certainly qualify in the Federal
court system and in the systems of many some as a vexatious litigant.
I haven't counted his frivolous lawsuits, but even if we start in
2020, they must be in the hundreds.

If that's the case, why is he still allowed to file lawsuits? Is this
yet another instance of courts cutting him a break that regular
litigants don't get, or does he not meet the definition of a
vexatious litigant?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

This comes to my mind because of this squib in today's New York
Times:

"Trump threatened to sue The Times over its coverage[*] of his claims
to have been in a dangerous helicopter landing with Willie Brown, the
former mayor of San Francisco." (The article is here: <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter- landing.html>
It's behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up to get a few
free articles of your choice each month.)

[*]That coverage consists in documenting that Trump's claims are
false.

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia
confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

If my memory is right, Trump would certainly qualify in the Federal
court system and in the systems of many some as a vexatious litigant.
I haven't counted his frivolous lawsuits, but even if we start in
2020, they must be in the hundreds.

To be treated as a vexatious litigant, someone has to ask a court to
declare that to be the case. There are specific criteria, and the court
has to find the person meets those criteria.

Once someone is adjudicated a vexatious litigant, it doesn't mean they
can't file any more lawsuits. What it does mean is that they have to get
court permission before they do - show the judge that they have a case
that isn't frivolous.

If that's the case, why is he still allowed to file lawsuits? Is this
yet another instance of courts cutting him a break that regular
litigants don't get, or does he not meet the definition of a
vexatious litigant?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/11/2024 6:51 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia
confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

In California, someone who is designated as a vexatious litigant must
get permission from a judge before he/she can file a lawsuit.

There's just one problem: in order to get somebody designated a
"vexatious litigant", somebody must first go through trial and win
(finding for the defendant). Then they can request the judge to
designated them a "vexatious litigant".

So some people file lawsuits, then offer to settle for a lot less than
the cost of fighting it out in court. So nobody ever proves that his
lawsuits are groundless and he can go on doing it.

This might be the case with Trump. Of course, now that we know about
Trump's habits, you might be able to get one or more nonprofits to
finance the cost of fighting the lawsuit.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/11/2024 9:51 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

This comes to my mind because of this squib in today's New York
Times:

"Trump threatened to sue The Times over its coverage[*] of his claims
to have been in a dangerous helicopter landing with Willie Brown, the
former mayor of San Francisco." (The article is here: <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter- landing.html>
It's behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up to get a few
free articles of your choice each month.)

[*]That coverage consists in documenting that Trump's claims are
false.

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia
confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

If my memory is right, Trump would certainly qualify in the Federal
court system and in the systems of many some as a vexatious litigant.
I haven't counted his frivolous lawsuits, but even if we start in
2020, they must be in the hundreds.

If that's the case, why is he still allowed to file lawsuits? Is this
yet another instance of courts cutting him a break that regular
litigants don't get, or does he not meet the definition of a
vexatious litigant?

Honestly, I just don't think we have enough examples to prove this.
Trump does talk a lot about suing people and many of these do sound like frivolous lawsuits, but how many of these actually go to court? For
example, he talks about suing over the Willie Brown story, but will he
really do so? Probably not. There is no doubt Trump has a pattern of
talking about or, one might say, even threatening numerous what we might characterize as frivolous lawsuits, but when you actually get right down
to it, I'm not sure how many he has really filed. I can really only
think of a few.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

This comes to my mind because of this squib in today's New York
Times:

"Trump threatened to sue The Times over its coverage[*] of his claims
to have been in a dangerous helicopter landing with Willie Brown, the
former mayor of San Francisco." (The article is here: ><https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter-landing.html>

I'd heard this story on the tv/radio, but it's fun to read it again. I
think Harris should take him up on his offer for both of them to take
mental acuity tests, but she should make sure that he takes his first,
and that he releaes the results first or irrvocably authorizes the
tester to do so. .

It's behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up to get a few
free articles of your choice each month.)

Tne NYTimes and Wapo both give subscribers the ability to create links
for 10 articles a month that can be posted here and in more than one
place that give an unlimited number of people the ability to see the
article, for 30 days from the day one creates the link.

I think in one case the option to do this is at the top and in the other
it's both at the top and bottom of the text of the article.

I notice that the Carolyn Hax column, advice, didn't have such a link,
maybe only news.

For the article above, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter-landing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.CU4.Iqk-.-MRF-dbN6LKA&smid=url-share

This one just has an addition to the original url, which means FWIW it's
Wapo where the link is shorter, just 8 or 10 characters, and doesn't
hint at what the article is about.

[*]That coverage consists in documenting that Trump's claims are
false.

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many >frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia

Trump has been involved in 1000's of lawsuits, but I don't remember
reading how many were as a plaintiff and how many as respondent. (NY
iirc reserves defendant for criminal cases.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
he and his businesses Over 4000

confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious >litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

If my memory is right, Trump would certainly qualify in the Federal
court system and in the systems of many some as a vexatious litigant.
I haven't counted his frivolous lawsuits, but even if we start in
2020, they must be in the hundreds.

If that's the case, why is he still allowed to file lawsuits? Is this
yet another instance of courts cutting him a break that regular
litigants don't get, or does he not meet the definition of a
vexatious litigant?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

This comes to my mind because of this squib in today's New York
Times:

"Trump threatened to sue The Times over its coverage[*] of his claims
to have been in a dangerous helicopter landing with Willie Brown, the
former mayor of San Francisco." (The article is here: ><https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/trump-helicopter- >landing.html>
It's behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up to get a few
free articles of your choice each month.)

[*]That coverage consists in documenting that Trump's claims are
false.

I seem to recall something called a "vexatious litigant", someone who
has a pattern of filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, or many >frivolous motions in a lawsuit that itself has merit. Wikipedia
confirms that this exists. Several US states have lists of vexatious >litigants, and apparently some US courts do too. Once designated a
vexatious litigant, the person can be barred from further litigation.
Lawyers that aid a vexatious litigant can be disbarred.

If my memory is right, Trump would certainly qualify in the Federal
court system and in the systems of many some as a vexatious litigant.
I haven't counted his frivolous lawsuits, but even if we start in
2020, they must be in the hundreds.

If that's the case, why is he still allowed to file lawsuits? Is this
yet another instance of courts cutting him a break that regular
litigants don't get, or does he not meet the definition of a
vexatious litigant?

The New York Times article was archived a couple of days ago and can
be found here:
https://archive.ph/AXVHj

Anytime somebody wants to archive an article themselves all they need
to do is paste the url into the search box at https://archive.ph

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

Honestly, I just don't think we have enough examples to prove this.
Trump does talk a lot about suing people and many of these do sound like frivolous lawsuits, but how many of these actually go to court? For
example, he talks about suing over the Willie Brown story, but will he
really do so? Probably not.

You're probably right. It just seems so unfair that he files a lot of
suits and motions whose only purpose, obviously, is to delay, delay,
delay, or to harass people who have displeased him. Meanwhile, how
many ordinary Americans have justice delayed (which is justice
denied) because their courts are tied up with Trump's self-serving
maneuvers?

There is no doubt Trump has a pattern of
talking about or, one might say, even threatening numerous what we might characterize as frivolous lawsuits, but when you actually get right down
to it, I'm not sure how many he has really filed. I can really only
think of a few.

I was thinking that all the lawsuits he filed against elections
officials in 2020 and 2021 would be enough to establish a pattern. If
I recall correctly, there were upwards of fifty such, and every one
was dismissed by the judge concerned. ISTR he also filed a bunch of
motions in the Georgia state election-interference case, where he was defendant, and those all got rejected as well.

I know merely losing a lot of lawsuits doesn't make one a vexatious
litigant: you have to have lost a lot of _frivolous_ lawsuits or
filed a lot of frivolous motions.

Maybe nobody wants to take the trouble, given that he would
undoubtedly appeal being classified as vexatious and the corrupt
Supreme Court would give him a free pass under the immunity ruling
they've already issued.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/12/2024 5:31 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

Honestly, I just don't think we have enough examples to prove this.
Trump does talk a lot about suing people and many of these do sound like
frivolous lawsuits, but how many of these actually go to court? For
example, he talks about suing over the Willie Brown story, but will he
really do so? Probably not.

You're probably right. It just seems so unfair that he files a lot of
suits and motions whose only purpose, obviously, is to delay, delay,
delay, or to harass people who have displeased him. Meanwhile, how
many ordinary Americans have justice delayed (which is justice
denied) because their courts are tied up with Trump's self-serving
maneuvers?

There is no doubt Trump has a pattern of
talking about or, one might say, even threatening numerous what we might
characterize as frivolous lawsuits, but when you actually get right down
to it, I'm not sure how many he has really filed. I can really only
think of a few.

I was thinking that all the lawsuits he filed against elections
officials in 2020 and 2021 would be enough to establish a pattern. If
I recall correctly, there were upwards of fifty such, and every one
was dismissed by the judge concerned. ISTR he also filed a bunch of
motions in the Georgia state election-interference case, where he was defendant, and those all got rejected as well.

I guess I was thinking most of those suits were filed by individual
state officials, Congresspersons or other people or groups friendly to
Trump. I didn't think he actually filed most of the suits under his own
name. If I recall the numbers, there were 62 suits filed and something
like 61 of them failed. If they were all literally filed under his own
name, that would definitely be a pattern.

I know merely losing a lot of lawsuits doesn't make one a vexatious
litigant: you have to have lost a lot of _frivolous_ lawsuits or
filed a lot of frivolous motions.

Maybe nobody wants to take the trouble, given that he would
undoubtedly appeal being classified as vexatious and the corrupt
Supreme Court would give him a free pass under the immunity ruling
they've already issued.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:31:09 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

[quoted text muted]

You're probably right. It just seems so unfair

Lifes not fair.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

You're probably right. It just seems so unfair that he files a lot of
suits and motions whose only purpose, obviously, is to delay, delay,
delay, or to harass people who have displeased him.

Perhaps this will make you feel better. I don't think this lawsuit
(link follows) is to delay or even harass, but to give the appearance
that the malefactor did nothing wrong, prior to the election in which he
is running. Is that any better?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-plans-file-100-million-lawsuit-justice-department-mar-lago-searc-rcna166208

Meanwhile, how
many ordinary Americans have justice delayed (which is justice
denied) because their courts are tied up with Trump's self-serving
maneuvers?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)