First Stormy Daniels tried to blame Tom Brady for threatening her. And now this…
Today, Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, sued Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Clifford v. Trump, Case No. 1:18-cv-03842 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2018). The complaint is short (which is surprising given how stupid it is) and centers on a tweet Trump wrote after Stormy published a sketch she commissioned of the unidentified man she claims threatened her to keep quiet about her alleged sexual affair with Trump.
Specifically, Trump called the sketch and Stormy’s related allegations a “con job,” which Stormy alleges is defamatory. Ken has written enough about the merits, so I will just refer you to Ken’s post. If you don’t want to read it, just suffice to say the Complaint is weaker than that pink drink you bought for the stripper last time you got dragged to a champagne room, you fucking rube.
So since Ken wrote about the fun shit, I’ll just give you a primer on why Trump most likely can invoke the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute, even though the case was filed in the Southern District of New York. This is good shit for anyone who finds that a censorious asshat from a state with a good Anti-SLAPP statute decides to file in an alternate forum, presumably to avoid the Anti-SLAPP consequences.
New York does not have a strong Anti-SLAPP statute. This is most unfortunate, as the defendants in l’affair du Rakofsky will tell you. It is sorta funny that New York doesn’t have one, what with all the so-called media companies based there. You would think they would be able to hire some decent lobbyists one of these decades.
But I digress…
Stormy lives in Texas, which has a strong Anti-SLAPP statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 27.001-27.011, aka the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”). Similar to the California and Nevada Anti-SLAPP statutes, the TCPA allows a defendant to bring a special motion to dismiss any claim that “is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party’s exercise of . . . the right to free speech.” TCPA, § 27.003(a). If the motion is granted, the court is required to grant the defendant’s costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as impose sanctions against the plaintiff. Id. at § 27.009(a).
Stormy’s claim is based on Trump’s exercise of his free speech rights. Trump was writing on a public forum about a highly publicized dispute. The dispute would have been a matter of public concern anyhow, but Clifford and her attorney have fluffed the public relations value of this case like nobody has fluffed anything since the invention of Viagra (which made the fluffery sciences as a porn career go the way of the buggy whip)
The Southern District of New York has subject matter jurisdiction over Clifford’s claims because the parties are citizens of different states and she is alleging damages of over $75,000; this basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is called “diversity jurisdiction.” In diversity cases where there is a conflict between the laws of the states of the parties, the federal court has to determine which state’s laws to apply. New York federal courts will use a multi-factor test to determine which state has the “most significant relationship” to the legal dispute, and will use that state’s laws.
To make things even more complicated, choice of law is determined on an issue-by-issue basis, meaning that the court could decide that Texas law should apply for some issues, while New York law should apply for others. Now drop your foie gras and grab your baguettes, because you’re gonna learn some French today, whether you like it or not.
This issue-by-issue determination is known as dépeçage. When you say dépeçage, you should yell it out really loud followed by “motherfucker!”
Do it for me: DÉPEÇAGE MOTHERFUCKER!
For the purposes of Stormy’s case, Trump is a citizen of New York. Courts presume that the state where the plaintiff’s injuries occurred is the state with the most significant relationship to the suit. That means there is a strong argument for Texas law to be applied. Stormy may prefer this when establishing the merits of her claim, since the New York Constitution is more protective of free speech than the U.S. or Texas Constitutions. This would be a double-edged sword for her, though, since it would open the door to Trump using the TCPA. Nevertheless, she may not be able to avoid the TCPA even if she insists on applying New York law. And, dépeçage motherfucker! The court may apply both laws – just New York law to some parts of the claim and Texas law to other parts of the claim.
click here to continue reading this on the original source
Trump’s lawyers are citing free speech as a reason Stormy Daniels’ defamation suit should be tossed
President Donald Trump’s lawyers want to squash a defamation lawsuit filed against him by the adult-film star Stormy Daniels, arguing that it “chills the president’s free speech.”
Trump’s team filed a motion in a Los Angeles court this week requesting that the court dismiss the lawsuit. The president’s lawyers also claim that Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, benefited financially from her “highly publicized” interactions with the president.
Clifford, who has said she and Trump had an affair in 2006, claimed a man she did not know approached her in Las Vegas in 2011 and told her to keep quiet about her story.
She said the man told her to “leave Trump alone” and made veiled threats at her in the presence of her then-infant daughter.
Trump has publicly dismissed her claims, calling them “a total con job.”
“This suit is designed to chill the President’s free speech rights on matters of public opinion,” Trump’s legal team said.
“Plaintiff has capitalized on her dispute with the president, embarking on a nationwide tour of adult live entertainment venues (a.k.a. strip clubs) for which she admittedly is being paid at least four times her normal appearance fee because of her public controversy with the president.”
The motion also cited Daniels’ career as a slight to her credibility. “There is nothing about Plaintiff’s career as an adult entertainer that requires a reputation for honesty,” the motion said.
Click here to read the full article on it’s original source.
