Twitler has a date with Ms Summer ZERVOS Tuesday. In state court

[UTUSN]

**************QUOTE***********

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-could-be-forced-to-testify-on-sexual-harassment-allegations-2017-12

Trump could be forced to testify on sexual-harassment allegations — and if he lies he could be impeached

…. The suit was filed by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice," who claimed last year that Trump "very aggressively" kissed her, groped her breasts, and began "thrusting" his genitals at her in a 2007 meeting at The Beverly Hills Hotel. Her claim is that Trump damaged her reputation when he called her a liar. ….

Zervos was one of 13 women who accused Trump last year of unwanted physical contact over a period spanning more than 30 years. Trump has denied Zervos' claims, saying he "vaguely" remembers her and that he never met her at a hotel. He later called Zervos and his other accusers "liars" during several campaign appearances and on Twitter. ….

*********UNQUOTE***********

[shraby]

1. K & R to keep it front and center.

[dalton99a]

2. Kick

[Ms. Toad]

3. This is a motion hearing.

Trump doesn't have a date. His attorney does.

[jberryhill]

12. This is getting to be a common theme here at DU

I'm ready to go full medieval on people who do this.

I realize that "news" sites live on clicks, but it's annoying as hell.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Yep.

I used to draft opinions for my stare appellate court. A lot of what it was reported that those opinions said was not recognizable.

[UTUSN]

16. Questions:

* "This" (common theme) : Are you talking about me/O.P. or the linked article?

* "people who do this" : Same question.

* " 'news' sites live on clicks...annoying as hell" : Just blanket question or request, could you be specific about who and what you are talking about, 'cause it's annoying as hell to have a vague floating slur hanging out there.


And as for the side discussion about legal terms, this is an internet discussion board, not a court and not a seminar. How about addressing the precision and legal standing of all the other threads about anything at all?

[jberryhill]

21. I'm talking about the article

There are a lot of stages to legal actions.

In a civil case, such as this one, a complaint will be filed with a court.

Most courts will then issue a scheduling order that basically sets out a series of dates where the parties will have to file preliminary motions (i.e. motions to dismiss, like this one), finish up exchanging discovery and conducting depositions, file various motions after that (i.e. summary judgment), and then some pre-trial and trial deadlines. That schedule can be changed by a whole roster of events.

For things like the initial scheduling hearing, or hearings on preliminary motions, sometimes even the lawyers don't actually show up in court. If the issues are fairly mundane, it is pretty common for courts to conduct hearings by having the lawyers literally phone it in.

It is normal, in any legal proceeding, for one side or the other to file what are called "preliminary motions" - most commonly a motion to dismiss one or more of the counts based on technical insufficiencies in the complaint itself. These types of motions don't involve evidence, testimony, or anything else that anyone thinks of as a court hearing. They are purely legal arguments, and the only people that show up, if the court even has a real hearing as opposed to "hearing on the papers" or by telephone, are the lawyers.

So, what bugs me is that internet news sites in need of traffic sensationalize mundane procedural steps as if "Trump is due in court" or some such nonsense, when it simply is not true.

Trump is not going anywhere over a hearing on a motion to dismiss. The motion itself is a fairly mundane one for civil suits filed against the president, no matter who it is. Success on the motion is not even the primary goal, since most civil litigation is simply an exercise in wearing down the other side and making them expend resources.

These sensationalized articles on preliminary motions in civil cases convey what is basically a false impression for the purpose of toying with people's emotions and expectations.

Trump is not due in court in this action, which has reached only a very preliminary stage.

I am simply pointing that out for the edification of anyone who may have gotten the impression that Trump is somehow going to trial on this thing anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Shrike47]

27. Very well explained, but those who need to read it probably will not.

I have tried to explain that a Summons telling a person to appear within a certain period does not require the person to show up personally at the courthouse, but I think it falls on deaf ears (blind eyes?)

[OilemFirchen]

30. Far be it for me to defend the odious "Business Insider"...

but you're barking up the wrong tree. The clickbait headline comes from the OP, not the article - which is not only accurate, but provides some useful insight as to the Trump team's basis for a motion to dismiss.

Did you read it? Be honest, now. I've got big money riding on this.

[jberryhill]

31. Yes, I read it

But putting “could be forced to testify” in the headline of an article on a preliminary motion is, imho, misleading. It obviously misled at least one person to believe drumpf is due in court.

[Leghorn21]

4. Bbbut - this could distract LOSER45, oh damn, he could lose focus, oh noes

"Trump's lawyers are expected to argue that the suit against him should be thrown out or delayed until after his term on the grounds that a sitting president can't be sued in state court. Part of their reasoning is that a trial could distract Trump from his official business as president."

(my emphasis)

[former9thward]

10. Bill Clinton paved the way to a delay in the case.

He made the same claim as Trump in Clinton v Jones which was decided by the Supreme Court. While a President can be sued for things he may of did before he was in office a court will likely delay it to the end of his term.

[Jim Lane]

15. Just the opposite

Bill Clinton did indeed make the argument you mention, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court. As the linked article points out, Clinton was compelled to give a deposition in 1998. That was when, as he later admitted, he lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The Trump lawyers' argument is that Clinton's case was in federal court but this one is in state court. That is a distinction, to be sure, but it doesn't strike me as a very persuasive one. Whatever court the case is heard in, the argument is the same -- that the deposition would distract the President from his important duties.

[former9thward]

18. Well, let's see if it is "just the opposite"

So, while the president can be sued while in office for things done outside of the job, any court would likely stay the case until the end of his or her term.

"I think following the Clinton v. Jones case, any court that didn’t act very deferentially would likely be reversed by an appeals court or the Supreme Court," says Richard Hasen, chancellor’s professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/why-suing-president-is-a-logistical-nightmare-944797

Which is exactly what I said.

Where do you teach law?

[Jim Lane]

20. Clinton appealed to the Supreme Court, LOST, and was deposed while President.

The article you link contains a link to the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones. In that case, the District Court had ordered that Clinton's deposition be deferred until after he left office (the argument Trump is making now). The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Clinton appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. That's why Clinton was deposed in the case in 1998, while still serving as President.

I agree with Professor Hasen that there's no absolute rule of ignoring the President's other duties. OTOH, there's also no absolute rule of shielding him from civil litigation. As the Court said (page 706), " In all events, the question whether a specific case should receive exceptional treatment is more appropriately the subject of the exercise of judicial discretion than an interpretation of the Constitution." Applying that standard, the Court held

that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to defer the trial until after the President leaves office. Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondent’s interest in bringing the case to trial. [page 707]

If I were Trump's lawyer, the decision in Clinton v. Jones would strike me as a significant problem.

It's not particularly novel to say that a court has discretion in managing discovery. It's not even novel to say that a court can take account of other circumstances of litigants' lives. I don't teach law anywhere, but I've actually litigated such a question. A prominent rock band (my client) had a contract dispute with its record label. The label's attorney wanted to depose the band members. He certainly had a right to the depositions, but the dates he set were ones on which the band had already booked expensive studio time to record their next album. A federal District Court judge agreed with us that the depositions should be postponed until after the recording sessions. A short delay wouldn't prejudice the opposing party.

By the same token, I assume that a court would make reasonable accommodations to the President's schedule. The holding in Clinton v. Jones, however, was to reject the argument that Bill Clinton was just too busy to testify on any day through January 20, 2001. The Supreme Court held that such a long delay would be prejudicial.

If the plaintiff suing Trump wants to depose him on a particular day, and it's the day of the State of the Union speech or a trip to Latin America, then, yes, the court should exercise its discretion to defer to Trump on the scheduling, and put the deposition over for a short time. That certainly doesn't mean that Trump can skate until he leaves office, any more than Clinton could.

[PearliePoo2]

5. "began "thrusting" his genitals at her ". I...I...I just can't rid that disgusting scene...

from my head fast enough!

'Scuse me for a sec...

Once more...

It's coming in waves...

arrghhhh!!

[lindysalsagal]

6. There are public cameras everywhere now. Stupid to attempt to claim he never met her.

Someone will have the tapes. Judges will approve the subpoenas to either get the tapes, the guest lists, the credit card receipts and testimony from others. He's going to eat his words.

[former9thward]

9. Its from 2007.

If there were tapes the court would have them by now. Lawyers don't wait until the day before to start getting these things.

[NCTraveler]

7. Does this boil down to.

1) A judge must determine if there was damage.

2) if yes to (1), was the damage cause by a dishonest claim knowing it would be see/heard by many.

3) It would then lead to settlement or a debate on the truth to the statement made by Trump. Was she lying or not.

[Jim Lane]

13. No, the case is very far from that stage.

The ultimate determination of the questions you list would be by a jury, unless both sides agreed to a bench trial (decision by a judge).

As jberryhill as explained, however, this is merely a preliminary hearing. Trump's lawyers want the case thrown out or at least stayed until he leaves office. The judge will decide that based on the law. There are probably no disputed facts involved. The issue is whether a sitting President can be compelled to defend a civil action in a state court.

[NCTraveler]

24. Thank you. Nt

[jberryhill]

22. No on all three

It doesn't boil down to jack squat.

It is a hearing on whether the complaint as filed, and accepting all of it as true for the sake of argument, does or does not satisfy the elements of the cause of action which it asserts. At this stage, whether what anyone says is the truth, lies, or whether there are any actual damages, are not even a topic of discussion.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Kicked, rec'ed and tweeted.

[jberryhill]

11. No he doesn't

This is a hearing on a preliminary motion to dismiss. It's not a trial, and none of the parties will be there. That case is a long way off from trial.

I am so sick and tired of preliminary motion hearings being oversold to people who don't know better.

Trump is not going to be in court on Tuesday. If anyone suggested otherwise to you, they are a liar.

[UTUSN]

17. Since you addressed me directly this time: Nobody "told" me personally anything.

Whether you and the other poster enjoy splitting hairs or flaunting supposed legal credentials, my own words were never pretending to be artifacts in legal discourse, and how you two projected that interpretation on them is your own thing.

[jberryhill]

23. I'm not flaunting jack squat...

I am pointing out that the subject line "Twitler has a date with Ms Summer ZERVOS Tuesday. In state court" is misleading.

Trump is not appearing in any court on Tuesday.

That is all.

[Shrike47]

28. Supposed legal credentials? Some of us is lawyers. Some isnt. Berryhills a lawyer.

[UTUSN]

29. & DU threads are not predicated to be Legal fodder.

& not perceiving common idiomatic conversation looks clueless.

[ATL Ebony]

19. Tell it to the Judge DJ, nobody believes you.

[Vinca]

25. Wouldn't it be great if they could subpoena the "Apprentice" tapes?

The ones that supposedly have Don making sexually explicit remarks to the contestants.

[Iliyah]

26. t-rump is appointing judges that will favor him.

That said, motion to quash the defamation suit 1) because t-rump is a sitting president is weak as hell.

[dchill]

32. K&R.