Posted on 03/07/2024 12:36:43 PM PST by algore
TOTALLY IGNORE this ruling. Screw them.
Trump need NEVER go to England again anyway.
A rotten gov, using power not given, to destroy a man in their way.. The heartless, evil beings.. Have not considered God
The United States is not theirs..
The UK is done.
UK High Court— whoopee. Try collecting on such FALSE basis,for the completely fabricated HOAX you, Steele, were PAID by HItlery Clintoon to produce. You, sir are a FRAUD. and probably on the Epstein list along with your co-employer Prince Andrew and who could forget the harridan, Fergie. Pervo paedos in a pod, with hitlery and billy cokenose and of course the Mossad.
“Dismissing the claim, Mrs Justice Steyn said the ‘mere fact’ that Orbis had held copies of the memos could not cause Mr Trump distress.”
Alice just went down the rabbit hole
5.56mm
Easy, easy, easy....
It’s often the case that legal fees are split between victor and vanquished.
Unless you win gloriously, as in the other side really had no case and were just being difficult, you’ll likely get stuck paying into the legal fee kitty. IF, OTOH, you DO prevail on spectacular fashion, judges typically stack the legal fees upon the defeated party as something of an economic penalty for having forced such a threadbare case into courts in the first place.
Agree
How is that bad?
And in an order, the judge also said the Republican front-runner will pay Orbis's costs 'of the entire claim'.
Trump: "Alright, I'll do it. Right after the folks who have sued ME, and failed, pay all of MY legal costs!"
I do not think the judicial result of lawsuits is the loser pays the legal costs of the winner.
I think many frivolous and wrongful lawsuits would be avoided in the U.S. if we had that rule.
And if we had that rule I would want the rule to apply to the government as well when the gpvernment loses a lawsuit. That would end the federal government (DOJ) from using its power to keep the defendent in court until they are broke, forcing the defendent to take a “setttlement”, while admitting no guilt, yet still incurring some sort of “penalty”; all just to end an endless suit in which the defendent knows they are not guilty. The loser pays rule would put the DOJ on notice that when their case is weak, they can’t keep pursuing it, because the loser-pays-rule is mounting up costs against THEM!!!
If the loser has to pay the winner it keeps frivolous suits from even being filed.
Or maybe judges shouldn’t allow them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.