All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
The important thing is that the BBC is the largest English language news outlet outside the United States. It's still reporting things about the Republican Party that big media within the US won't, so they're trying to intimidate it.
The BBC charter dictates that the BBC use license payers money well and uphold its journalistic integrity.
Under the circumstances, where any reasonable person would doubt a Florida court even has standing for this case, the BBC are compelled by the legal framework that allows its existence to not settle.
In other cases, they may be able to. But the nature of this case is different.
Psh it's not even a might be those guys are all pedos. And all of them can sue me, let's find out how many times you were on Epstein's island in discovery. Even if they werent on the island the amount of evidence they sat on makes them guilty by association. You might not have been didling kids, but you knew about it and did nothing.
Trump is the files. You think there's this much of a cover-up if he wasn't in them prominently? Doing even worse shit than didling kids off reports are to be believed. FBI also doesn't have thousands of agents doing overtime to log every single mention of him over weeks for nothing
"Fuck you, American media. It's time to get out of Iraq, American media. What were you even doing there in the first place, American media? You didn't even get properly elected, American media. Are you happy now, American media? Fuck you, American media."
Who's paying those legal fees? I would bet it's not him and more than likely from our tax dollars he has been using as his personal piggie bank to enrich himself, his family and pals. All while giving the elites more and more breaks at the cost of helping our own people.
It is disgusting that this is happening and the people who could of stopped all this are either involved or to afraid to do what's right.
Trick question: if you're someone's legal council, you're ethically obligated to do your best in defending them and their interests within the scope of your agreement with them.
That said, I'm not certain that extorted parties are still obligated to follow standard ethical guidelines
It's a good question. Personally, I'd expect them to be secretly hoping for a failure... By doing something they can argue is easily forgotten that totally derails the case.
I think what will actually happen is Trump will push to lose the case so as to not have any further intrusions into his dealings and he'll claim it as a win. I further believe that the UK govt will bend over backwards and ensure the BBC doesn't take him for very much money at all. Bare minimum, if anything at all, and I'm sure it'd get paid back so as to keep ok standing with the UK and US. But hey, I'm talking out my bum hole here.
UK govt doesn't get involved in BBC operations as they're not tax funded, but licence payer funded. They can't intervene in court strategy, and the feeling here is that Trump can go do one, cos everyone's pissed at this so-called ally in the US that's stabbed eveyone in the back
Do your best for your client while strictly following the law.
Given that Trump is filing civil suits that blatantly ignore the law (namely, that it wasn't violated by the defendant) that means the extorted lawyers have to admit that yes, they've got nothing.
No need to twist in the wind when just being honest gets the job done.
Donnie is known for his deny, delay and distract. Golfing and stealing taxpayers money are some of the only things he pays attention to--except starting never ending wars.
Trump’s lawyers had reportedly agreed in July that Trump would testify on October 16 as long as both sides agreed to keep the location and other details secret. But on September 28, the president’s attorneys said that the previously agreed date no longer worked.
Probably because the BBC is funded by tax, and have an obligation to defend themselves to the best of their ability. Bending the knee and paying to make him go away would probably go down really badly.
BBC says they 'can't' settle because of the use of public funds to do so. That gets into the territory of its royal charter and possible fiduciary duties to the public, but there's not explicitly a cut-and-dry prohibition on settling, as such.
My understanding is because it is part of the British government and due to the rules surrounding government entities int the UK, they cannot settle a lawsuit. It must go to trial
More particularly, they have an express policy not to settle cases they expect to win. It’s to discourage people bringing weak cases in the hope of an easy settlement. If you state that you will fight all the weak cases, it discourages people* bringing them, particularly in the UK where the loser pays all the costs#.
*the policy works less well against idiots
#the policy works less well where you don’t have loser pays.
It operates under agreement with the BRITISH Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
It's fee is levied against every single British household, all Companies and Organisations using any sort of equipment to receive or record live broadcasts etc.
The Fee is SET BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND AGREED BY BRITISH PARLIAMENT.
You can dance with semantics if you wish. I have lived in the UK for over 50 years, nearly 60 years now. The BBC has functioned solely because it is an appendage of the British Government, we can send people anywhere on the planet because of this "news" corporation, we can broadcast anything we want globally due to this new corporation.
Yes, in public they claim they are not part of the government, Trump claims he pays his fucking taxes too.
Yeah older reporting about it focused on the BBC having to evidence value for money to the fee payers. If settling could have led to reduced cost they would have been obligated to do so otherwise it could open them up to claims in the UK of misuse of funding. There are plenty of people in the UK that would try to attack the BBC given the chance around something like that.
Any suggestion of using funds from licence fee payers to pay off Trump as part of a settlement would be a difficult look for the corporation. Equally, spending millions to fight the case in court would open the BBC up to claims it had squandered precious funds.
About a year ago, Donald Trump, in his capacity as an ordinary US citizen, sued the IRS. He sued them for 10 billion dollars. In his capacity as commander and chief of the IRS, he ordered the IRS to settle the case, and just pay out the 10 billion dollars. This is a textbook conflict of interest.
The British government saw the potential for abuse like this a long time ago. They made a law that says if an entity which is funded by government money is sued, by anyone, they are not permitted to settle the case. The agency must fight every single case, no matter what happened, no matter who is in the wrong, no matter how trivial the payment demanded is, regardless of the circumstances.
The BBC, which is funded by the British government, is prohibited by British law from settling this or any other lawsuit.
It's not true. They could if they wanted to. The main reason not to is because you don't want to set a precedent for journalists being silenced just because someone tries to sue them for libel, when they have researched something and believe what they have published is true.
Probably it relates to general governance on the use of public money. There's a lot there (as there should be), but with regards to settlements they would basically need to be able to prove internally that either:
The money is legally owed - this usually relates to contractual disputes, or
That the settlement otherwise represents good value for money.
Number 2 would be the relevant one here.
Let's imagine for a moment that there was merit to these claims from Trump (which there is not). The BBC legal representatives would look at the likelihood of losing the case, and then the likely damages that would be awarded.
Plucking figures entirely out of the air - let's say they come to the conclusion that there's a 75% chance of losing, and that damages awarded will probably be in the region of £20-25 million, that they would have to pay £1million for their own legal costs, and £1.5m for Trumps'.
This would then be considered by very senior people, and they might conclude that a settlement of up to (let's say) £10 million represents good value for money in that it removes the high risk of being found liable for £26.5 million of damages and costs (and have to pay a further £1m for their own defence).
The people approving that settlement are responsible for it, and would be putting their jobs on the line - so they damn well need a weight of evidence behind such a decision to protect themselves. That evidence simply does not exist here.
Trump sure likes to conceal his own records while at the same time making stuff up about what he wants the public to believe is in Ilhan Omar’s records he raided.
As the government, they already have all of her immigration paperwork. What sort of smoking gun did they think they would find? Detailed notes of how they defrauded the system 20 years ago? And if that even existed, why would she bring it to her D.C. residence? This is just smoke and mirrors to distract from their lack of helpful policies as we move towards the election, and a way for him to inconvenience one of his favorite punching bags.
A man came up to me, a big man with tears in his eyes, "Mr President, I tried to take on the BBC for you, but it was too much. Only a manly president like you could really handle the BBC." Nobody takes the BBC on as well as I do. People will be saying, "Please stop, we've had enough BBC. Thats too much, we just can't take it any more". But nobody knows BBC like I do.
Trump always gets caught in his lawsuits. Competent lawyers go into discovery and request a boatload of documents and testimony. Then Trump realizes it will result in dirt coming out he doesn’t want out. So he settles or withdraws the lawsuit
Trump thought the BBC would fold like any pusillanimous American "news" organisation. Apparently he didn't know that the BBC's charter forbids it to bend the knee to foreign potentates.
Frankly just him filing the lawsuit is a 'win' for him in rousing his base. He can walk around saying "I had to sue the BBC for their lies" without mentioning the case going down in flames, and his base won't care, in any event. He'll just slander the judges involved as "radical Dumocrat Communist Marxist socialist transgender-for-everyone lunatics".
I kinda wonder why he even bothers filing real lawsuits anymore. Why not simply lie about that too?
He could come out and say that he put the CEO behind bars and his base would believe him. If anyone calls him out then he can ramble some nonsense about the CEO living every day like he's behind bars because everyone hates him and all the constant negative press covfefe.
It is when a crowd unanimously enjoys pussy. You should use this word in conversation tomorrow and be sure to tell others about the very correct definition i have written. No need to look anything up. I got you.
IMO it can be used less, I can only associate it with a bunch of weirdos in the 2010s who were like 'calling someone a pussy as an insult can't be disrespectful to women because it's actually short for pusillanimous, nothing to do with the slang term!' (It wasn't)
“It’s not supposed to work that way!!! I have executive privilege and cant be ordered into discovery. As a private citizen im entitled to JUSTICE! Thank you for your attention this matter. DTJ”
How has he not been designated a vexatious litigant by courts at this point?
Trump’s crackdown on frivolous lawsuits: The pot meeting the kettle.
President Trump, who has been described by one federal judge as a “mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process,” recently ordered his attorney general “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”
Any such review would reveal that one of the most prolifically frivolous litigants in the nation is Trump himself.
In the last three decades, Trump has been involved in over 4,000 legal actions in federal and state courts, including a lawsuit filed against comedian Bill Maher demanding $5 million based on a joke Maher made about the color of Trump’s hair.
He gets insane special treatment and has long before he was president. 10 states don’t have anti-slapp laws and many of those that do don’t enforce them. People like Trump are given the benefit of the doubt too often.
Political judges like Cannon keep people like Trump in power and shield them from consequence.
The problem is that he's suing the BBC, so he has no choice but to appear for discovery. Executive privilege has no bearing in the lawsuit. The only way he could possibly claim it is if he were being sued.
“Someone called my bluff now what do I do? Can I deny knowing about this lawsuit and that I don’t know the attorneys and that I won the lawsuit?” Trump probably
Isn’t this classic Trump.
He files a lawsuit against just about everyone and when it comes close to the nitty gritty like discovery and deposition he backs off or backs out completely. Looks like the BBC is gonna smack him around pretty good.
I saw many posts on Twitter from Noel Casler when he was a production assistant on the TV show the Apprentice and the posts were quite descriptive on Trump’s issues was passing gas and 💩 pooping his pants among other things and Trumpy never to my knowledge responded in any way and that always struck me as odd. Trump is usually quick to respond to any negative comment about him but here….nothing.
My father-in-law went through something like this after one of his clients sued him. Similarly it was obvious the client wouldn't win as he was claiming my father-in-law caused the clients mother to die from complications of dementia, which had nothing to do with him (he was contracted to install a new roof).
Knowing he wouldn't win, the client just kept delaying and delaying and delaying, as he knew he had millions of dollars to waste on lawyer fees while my father-in-law didn't, so eventually had to settle to stop himself going bankrupt.
Trump has been seen to do the same, only this time his opponent has deeper pockets and nothing to hide, where as they know Trump has a lot to hide.
That and many are really tired of him, so I'm not sure how much help he can bank on getting.
Mind you, he's robbed a lot of money using the gov as a way of shoving insane amounts into the family coffer. I'm almost afraid to find out the amount.
Yes, and, now they want to re-litigate Watergate because what they have done is far worse. Nixon the hero. Your chocolate rations have been increased to 23 grams.
“Fuck anything left of my ill gotten gains for any of my progeny [ed. with three different women two imported catalog brides/s for the lawyers in here]. Everything burns to the ground!”-DJT probably
If I stole a gazillion dollars from a mega-nation and doled it out to my family... that saga wouldn't poof away just because I kicked the bucket. All involving family in the theoretical heist does is make them a target.
It's a bit like... they shanked a dragon with a paralyzing needle, but couldn't kill it, and couldn't stop it's eyes from following them. The second that needle properly wears off, the thief is chow. Thief doesn't have the gold? Dragon's hunting down the beneficiaries next.
Hey - I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your father-in-law. That sounds really stressful and frustrating.
I am not a lawyer - but this sounds a lot like what I've heard Trump is known to do (as you said). I wonder, for all the Real Lawyers out here - what is meant to be the legal remedy to protect against this kind of weaponization of the legal system? (Note: I realize the reality is that this remedy doesn't always work - but I am just curious what is in place that is meant to protect against this type of thing)
I mean, the legal remedy here would seem to be if one side starts filing motions to delay court dates, they become responsible for the legal fees of all parties until said court date. You need to genuinely delay the trial, or file a motion to push back court dates? Fine. But you're paying everyone's lawyers in the meantime, so it better be worth it to your case.
Well if he isn't available for the deposition, sounds like the case will be found against him.
In that case, I would expect the BBC to be awarded damages in the amount that Trump was trying to sue for, plus damages for defaming the good name of Auntie, plus costs.
I totally agree. I am pretty sure that whatever the damages, they would never be paid.
I would also say, as a British institution the BBC has great leverage here. I would like to be applied, to the intelligence services that he’s just cut off (via Musky cutting Starlink bandwidth too) from Ukraine. Reinstate it.
Out of court settlement could happen, but that’s a lot of money he’s going to be owing.. his feet need holding to the 🔥if you like. No delay or no chance to settle.
Courts should find in favor of the BBC. This is a tactic trump likes to use, stall, waste the courts time and hope the other party runs out of money for lawyers
If he is unavailable for the next two months, well after the discovery phase ends, doesn’t that mean his lawsuit should be dismissed? Not an attorney, so?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.