Hey, there! Log in / Register
Being sickened by sight of Donald Trump not good enough reason for lawsuit against him, judge rules
By adamg on Thu, 06/22/2017 - 9:37am
A federal judge today tossed a Plymouth woman's suit against Donald Trump for allegedly causing her great anguish, ruling, essentially, come on now.
Rossi Wade had sought $1 billion in damages in her suit, filed in US District Court in Boston in March. She alleged that from the time he announced his candidacy in 2015:
I have experienced loss of enjoyment of life, I have been tormented by the thought of him, as well as, sight and the sound of his voice frightens me, I am unable to sleep, focus or believe in a secure future for myself and daughter.
In his ruling, Judge George O'Toole sited actual legal reasons why he was tossing the suit, from the concept of sovereign immunity to a 1982 Supreme Court case involving Richard Nixon:
The President of the United States enjoys broad, absolute immunity Presidential immunity from civil suits for damages for his official acts within the outer perimeter of his authority.
Also, she presented no evidence that Trump was negligent specifically towards her:
To the extent that plaintiff brings a claim for President Trump’s conduct prior to his presidency, she has failed to allege a duty owed to her by President Trump. Furthermore, as to a claim based upon “strict liability” plaintiff has failed to allege any factual or legal basis that would support a claim for strict liability.
Finally, federal law requires that anybody who wants to sue the government first has to file a claim with the agency in question. Wade, O'Toole wrote, showed no proof she had submitted a claim to the White House.
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Wade's complaint | 187.78 KB |
| O'Toole's ruling | 56.02 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Much as I sympathize with her
Much as I sympathize with her distress, can you imagine a world where someone could sue the president for these reasons? We would never have another president again.
You live in that world now
Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. Trying to sue a Donald Trump is a loser, for ordinary people. He can afford more lawyer than they can.
Here's a stupid lawsuit that should be thrown out, but hasn't been yet:
At least the stupid lawsuit
At least the stupid lawsuit you bring up addresses false advertising. With Trump, we knew what we would get.
Should be billed for wasting
Should be billed for wasting the courts time.
What lawyer took her case?
I don't expect civilians to have a feel for what's a stretch-but-legit and what's clearly out of bounds. I do, on the other hand, expect attorneys to know better.
I'd much rather see the attorney get smacked around than the plaintiff.
No lawyer took her case
She filed it herself. If you look at the judge's ruling, he actually says she's eligible for a court-appointed attorney - and then says, psych, get outta court with this nonsense.
The British System ...
My understanding is that, in the British (UK) system, if the plaintiff loses a civil case, the plaintiff is assessed court costs.
The U.S. system tends to encourage these 'nothing to lose' nuisance suits. And heck, you might just get a sympathetic judge.
LOL
That's nice
Lets see all the Drumpf et al tweets from the past that we now know are utter and complete LIES.
Start with Scalese.
Drumpf
Not his name...but there's always Barry Soetoro:
OK, gang
This isn't the place to re-litigate past elections. Please stop.
Why not?
Where else am I supposed to decry the bag job that Justin Guarini got?
That isn't Putin
It is clearly photoshopped for some reason - and what does it even mean outside of Kikistan?
Please explain
Who is the guy on the right? One of your bogeymen that nobody knows?
Dmitry Medvedev
The "President" of Russia in 2012, when Putin was term limited into being Prime Minister. Obama told him not to worry about the rhetoric in the US, that he will be practical after the elections. Mitt Romney really lit into the President for cozying up to Russia. Romney saw Russia as America's biggest threat. Ah, good times.
This has exactly what to do with Pelosi?
Explain.
Sounds a lot more like those One Bad Ass Mistake America types that you hang out with - the ones who filed many similar lawsuits - and birther ones, too!
Orly Taitz called
She wants you in the Motel 6 ASAP - she'll even leave you the key.
I could have saved her a lot of trouble
Come on, lady
Kramer didn't sue Mary Hart.
How did the court even allow this lawsuit to be filed?
Barratry
As a lawyer could point out...
...he or she would be sanctioned for the case. Ordinary people have rights. Facepalm, but still rights.
An Extreme Birther was fined for frivolous lawsuits
Was that because she is a lawyer?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/birther-leader-orly-taitz-order...
Liberals Terrible, Horrible Very Bad Day (Week?)
Well, in no particular order, the wake that was CNN and MSNBC held Tuesday night for the kid in Georgia that didn't even live in the district. His DNC fundraising spanned from the coast of San Diego to the coast of San Francisco. I guess he lives with his girlfriend of twelve years...when called on it, he apparently proposed to her.
Poor guy, lost the election and still has to get married...
Michael Mann's back in the news. There's a recently published tome and here's a link:
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/...
I can't read it (apparently money is involved) but those that have seem to think (and there's an abstract at the site) that Mother Earth isn't cooperating with the computer models. I guess it's time to cook the books, or as they say, "...model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."
What's an 'external forcing"? I have no clue. Maybe it's like making hockey sticks.
Powerline: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/blac...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Dr. Mann tried to get this video removed. It's still up thanks to another group...
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/...
They made a sequel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk
More:
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.hidethedecl...
But...the trees were fine until 1960.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-tric...
That's OK, the 'divergence problem' has been solved. It's caused by, wait for it, global warming or sun dimming or sharks or something.
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-div...
Abortion film maker David Daleiden, the guy that caught abortionists saying bad things, well, "The San Francisco Superior Court on Wednesday dismissed 14 of 15 criminal counts" But they can re-file...
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/21/court-dismisses...
Sorry if a pro-life website haunts you, but hey, libs, when you've lost Mother Jones...
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/cali...
Speaking of Mother Jones, well, they (and the Guardian) blew the whistle on the UN faking cancer data against Monsanto. And by 'faking' I mean the non-peer-reviewed (because it was 'written by the peers') hit was totally fake. As in Fake News. As in "Sprayed With Bullshit".
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/mon...
"So why on Earth would a scientist fail to mention his own work—and blithely let a powerful agency come to a conclusion that his own data suggested was wrong? IARC told Reuters it’s because Blair’s data wasn’t published yet, and the agency has a policy against taking unpublished data into consideration. For his part, Blair told Reuters that the data wasn’t published in advance of the IARC’s decision because there was too much of it to fit in one paper. (Reuters asked two outside experts to weigh in, and neither could understand the decision not to publish the data.)"
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report...
Also, there seems to be a problem with the sun...it's not living up to expectations...but I'll leave you with this good news:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-cancer-tr...
AND NOW THIS INJUSTICE PERPETRATED AGAINST ROSSI WADE?
When will it end?
When will it end?
When you stop posting irrelevant stupidities and massive link farms to fake nonsense sites, that's when.
I don't see a liberal or conservative poster here that is saying that this woman had any case or isn't a nutjob.
You are reacting to nonexistant nothing with your little Readers Digest link-of-the-month club.
You and this woman are both nutjobs.
Very amusing
Just reading the website names that you rely on for your "facts" is a howler.
skepticalscience? justfacts? AHAHAHAHAH!
You are every bit as deluded as Ms. Drumpfreaktout, above.
Bravo...
A job well done.
Also, our Georgia friend who ran (and lost) the most expensive house race ever called for "campaign finance reform"...God bless these people.
Nearly forty years of campaign finance "reform"
hasn't worked. What we need are restrictions on campaign SPENDING. And that should include limits on how much media advertising a candidate can purchase.
Don't blame the candidates
The problem isn't SPENDING it is DONATIONS.
The problem of DONATIONS starts and ends with a very sloppy and shitty Supreme Court decision that needs to be overruled with a constitutional amendment.
If you aren't working on that amendment, you aren't solving the problem by devolving it to individual levels.
This is amazing...
As part of the decision, he should have confined her to a mental hospital for the foreseeable future.
Wishing her a speedy recovery.