The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 17, 2018, 02:05:55 pm
-
Trump lawyer claims up to $20m in damages
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Latest on Stormy Daniels and President Trump (all times local):
7 p.m.
Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, wants a lawsuit brought by porn actress Stormy Daniels moved to federal court, and claims the woman could owe $20 million in damages for violating a non-disclosure agreement.
The Friday court filing seeks to move Daniels’ case from a state-level court to federal court in Los Angeles.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking to invalidate the non-disclosure agreement. She has offered to return the $130,000 she was paid.
The filing accuses Clifford of violating the agreement more than 20 times.
more
https://apnews.com/3a123dc6efc4424f88626f8c8413b685/The-Latest:-Trump-lawyer-claims-up-to-$20m-in-damages
-
$20 mil? Well, I guess Trump needs the money. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Of course Cohen wants it moved to federal court. He screwed up by placing the arbitration process in California. The odds of getting a friendly jury and judge in a challenge case are high.
-
From a common sense perspective, Mr. Cohen would appear to have a point. Of course, I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV) so my common sense may be trumped (pun intended) by some arcane legalese. Regardless, attorney Michael Avenatti's argument that the NDA is null and void appears to be premature to me since a judge has yet to rule on that.
-
Regardless, attorney Michael Avenatti's argument that the NDA is null and void appears to be premature to me since a judge has yet to rule on that.
Standard lawyer positioning. They do the same on the courthouse steps by declaring ‘my client is 100% not guilty of these ridiculous charges and he will be vindicated.’
-
Standard lawyer positioning. They do the same on the courthouse steps by declaring ‘my client is 100% not guilty of these ridiculous charges and he will be vindicated.’
I wasn't clear. His argument I actually understand but his actions (and those of his client) to act as though the NDA is actually null and void by talking about things covered by the NDA even though the judiary has yet to rule on it, seems premature to me and fraught with legal danger (about $20M worth of it in fact).
-
Very odd... If there is nothing to disclose and nothing happened, what is the basis of a $20 million suit for disclosure in violation of the agreement?
-
I wonder if Trump is paying this broad to stir the pot. He is giving his fans what they want.