Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
from the sorry-charles dept
Lawyer Charles Harder (who, yes, was once the lawyer for the guy who sued us) has built up a nice reputation now of the lawyer who tries and fails to stop people from saying stuff that upsets President Trump. You may recall that Harder, representing the president, threatened former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for his supposed quotes to author Michael Wolff. More recently, Harder, representing the Trump Campaign, has sued the NY Times, the Washington Post and CNN over various articles (often opinion pieces) that portray the President negatively.
His latest move, representing Donald Trump's brother, Robert Trump, is to sue Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece, over her new book that is quite critical of the President. The argument in the lawsuit? That Mary Trump was violating a confidentiality clause that was part of the settlement of a legal dispute over the estate of Fred Trump -- another of Donald's brothers, and Mary's father. It took all of about a day for the judge to reject the lawsuit, basically because Charles Harder messed up the filing.
At the outset, the court finds that the submissions suffer from several improprieties. First, a preliminary injunction is an order obtained by motion in a pending action or special proceeding... The caption utilized refers to a probate proceeding which terminated in 2001 by entry of a decre and is, therefore, non-existent. Consequently, a motion seeking injunctive relief may not be made in that proceeding. To the extent the accompanying petition, bearing the same caption, is supposed to provide the jurisdictional basis for said motion, it cannot do so as that petition is fatally defective.
Beyond that, they picked the wrong forum for this request:
Insofar as the petition seeks a declaratory judgment, this forum is presumptively improper as such relief should be obtained by means of an action in the Supreme Court and not a special proceeding in this court....
Of course, it appears that Harder is planning to just keep going and try again by fixing his mistakes:
“Today, the Surrogate’s Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute,” Harder said in a statement. “Therefore, Robert Trump will proceed with filing a new lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court.”
Mary Trump's lawyer, Ted Boutrous, said he hoped that Harder would stop, but recognizing that's unlikely, points out that no court may violate the 1st Amendment by imposing prior restraint and blocking publication of a book that is "core political speech."
of utmost public importance and concern. We hope this decision will end the matter. Democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas, and neither this court nor any other has authority to violate the Constitution by imposing a prior restraint on core political speech.” 2/2
— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) June 25, 2020
Given Harder's history, it seems unlikely that he much cares about the 1st Amendment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, charles harder, donald trump, free speech, mary trump, prior restraint, robert trump, venue
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Understatement of the year that is this week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is probably why Trump loves him so much. He's willing to do stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Given Harder's history, it seems unlikely that he much cares about the 1st Amendment.
I'm sure he does, but only to the extent that he or one of his clients benefits from it at a given moment.
Someone goes after him for something he or one of his clients wrote/said? 'First amendment, you can't sue me/them for that!'
He or one of his clients is upset by something someone else said/wrote? 'First amendment? Never heard of it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
It is called "zealous representation". It's a thing that lawyers do when they are lawyering.
Mind, Harder probably harbors great respect for the first amendment personally. We can't know from his filings.
... unless the fact that this filing was fatally defective indicates some amount of sandbagging going on. Or perhaps micromanagement by his employer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don’t typically ignore the laws — or, y’know, the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your comment has an error, the or.
The US constitution is a set of laws within the superset of US laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Two terms connected by an “or” need not be entirely distinct from each other. As long as it’s possible to have one and not the other, “or” is perfectly fine to use here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Mind, Harder probably harbors great respect for the first amendment personally. We can't know from his filings.
We might not know definitively but his actions do seem to indicate that no, no he does not, as someone who respects the first amendment wouldn't run around filing cases attacking those that are making use of their first amendment rights at every opportunity.
A person who supports bridges is very unlikely to repeatedly argue for their destruction, nor take as clients people who are doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
I have a great respect for a lot of things, including WINNING!
A few of our most notable accomplishments (BIG WINS!) are:
In 2019, we successfully defeated a federal battery and collective action employment discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the President of the United States and his campaign, filed by a former campaign worker as a representative for other former campaign workers. The campaign worker subsequently was self-incarcerated permanently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because of his obvious embarrassment.
In 2019, we filed a multi-million dollar right of publicity, breach of contract, and accounting lawsuit on behalf of three-time US Olympic Snowboarding gold medalist, Shaun White, against Oakley and Luxottica, none of which were transexuals.
In 2019, we filed a major defamation lawsuit against Univision on behalf of Pastor Carlos Luna, a well-known and highly successful church pastor in Latin America. He was later promoted to Vice-Pope in a private ceremony in the Vatican.
In 2018, we successfully defeated a federal defamation lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels on behalf of the President of the United States, and won a $293,000 award for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and court-ordered sanctions. There were additional private concessions that I can't talk about here, use your imagination. What would you ask Stormy for, given the opportunity?
In 2017, we obtained a multi-million dollar settlement payment, full retraction, and apology, for the First Lady of the United States Melania Trump in a defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail. Melania was really happy about that, and made me a Knight of the Trump Roundtable in a private ceremony in the Lincoln Bedroom in the wee hours and after a lot of really good wine.
In 2017, we filed a $100 million defamation case against Univision and Telemundo on behalf of the heir to Mexican pop icon Juan Gabriel. Don't remember how that went, but Telemundo sucks, that's for sure.
In 2016, we obtained a $140 million jury verdict for Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) in a right of privacy action against Gawker Media, which caused Gawker Media to file for bankruptcy and sell its assets in a bankruptcy auction. We used the money to try to draw Mike out of his basement and admit he' a degenerate dickhead, but he found a way to get the judge to dismiss the case because of some Deep State connections, some kind of genetic disorder that the judge wanted to keep private. Oh well, next time, baby, next time. We're not done with you Techdirt idiots yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Bring it on, assclown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Oh well, next time, baby, next time. We're not done with you Techdirt idiots yet.
Yeah, next time plan ahead for that deep state stuff so you don't end up having to chalk one up in the loss column. Makes you wonder if that failure set up Shiva for his bigly election loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Yeah, maybe you're right about that. Shiva was really said, we were all really sad. We were hoping that Mike might be held accountable for his perverted disgusting business practice of defaming complete strangers in return for really small money, but, oops, it didn't go like we planned. Kind of like Kim Jong Un, I offered him a good deal, a great deal actually, but he still swims in his own small minded poverty stricken toilet of a country too, just like Mike. That's all right, no harm, no foul, who cares, we pretty much forgot about it already. BUT SOMETIMES, you know, with all the WINNING we're doing, we want our record to be PERFECT and not BESMIRCHED by you lefties, so HEY WHAT THE HELL, let's GO AGAIN. Easy for us, everything is free when you're rich, famous and live in the White House. Not like Mike, he's got to PAY and PAY and PAY because we're going to CHANGE the LAW and CRUSH HIM LIKE A PEANUT in a Republican Elephant's MOUTH! What's that, honey? Sorry, gotta go. Wifey wants some warmth. What's that honey? Tell Mike "Hi"? Ok, honey (I don't really think he cares but) Hi Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
A loser is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
with all the WINNING we're doing
I know! With all that winning, you'd think conservatives wouldn't be whining like little bitches all the time.
What's with that, anyway? Aren't they aware that they're winning? Or are they just so used to complaining all the time, they don't know how to stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
They got what they wanted, but are slowly realising that actually doing things is much harder than whining about others not pandering to them. Also, that Trump is clearly dead set on killing them off so long as he thinks he can reboot the economy in time for re-election (hint: given the new spike in COVID-19 cases over there, it won't, but he might be pushing for a million dead instead of the measly 127,000 he's got killed so far)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
If it wasn't guaranteed to get a lot of other people killed I'd almost chalk Trump and his fans dismissing covid as no big deal as a self-solving problem, as they either die off and earn themselves a whole slew of darwin awards or smarten up and leave him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use tha
Yeah, if only there were a way to let the idiots infect themselves while allowing sane people to remain safe it would be a self-correcting issue. Instead, you had late inadequate responses and reopening way to early to placate those morons.
Where I am, we've had a decent (though flawed) response with people largely obeying rules about movement and masks as things started to reopen. My main concern when I was at a birthday party yesterday was not infection but rather that it's my last weekend off before starting a new job, and that I have to make a 5 hour round trip to Granada on Monday to collect my equipment for that job. Truly a first world issue.
Meanwhile, this is still a problem in the US: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-coronavirus-birthday-party-family-cases-a958 7051.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Aside from the Hulk Hogan verdict—which is well known—and the Stormy Daniels defamation lawsuit—which I know happened, do you have any evidence that those things actually happened? (That does include the allegations about Mike.) And if the alleged 2017 action against Univision and Telemundo ended in failure (which you implicitly conceded was possible), then why should we care?
Also, you seem to be claiming some sort of affiliation with Harder or his firm. If so, then how are you affiliated with them, if you don’t mind me asking. I don’t need anything specific, but are you an associate, partner, paralegal, secretary, assistant,… what?
Regarding the alleged thing with Mike at the end, what was the supposed case supposedly about? Just being a “degenerate dickhead” isn’t enough to sue or be sued over; what specific law and action/policy was this supposed lawsuit over?
Also, regarding the alleged 2019 lawsuit on behalf of Shaun White, why would it matter if any of the three named individuals were transsexuals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They sure make it bloody obvious how much they just like to suppress speech.
Obvious is actually a fitting standalone word for describing this collection of tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to have
Talk. Talk some more. Say a lot. I'm happy to hear it. I've got a dozens of individuals who have contacted me about Techdirt slander and defamation. Soon, 230 will be gone, and Techdirt will be liable for everything said here. Maybe not soon, maybe now.
Talk. Talk some more. I love it. (Honey can you get me some more popcorn?)
I made a lot of money and had a lot of fun last time. Next time will be even better.
Tehdirt Marxists are fun to litigate against. They are morally bankrupt godless depraved animals, without guilt, remorse, self-awareness or common decency. Fortunately, I am an attorney, so none of that bothers me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to have
Psst - the liars that exist entirely in your head aren't real people, Spamiltard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to hav
How can they be liars, then? HAHA! That's a legal argument, you weren't prepared for THAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they’re in your head, and they’re liars, try and guess what that makes you. (Other than a prime example of a troll who needs to lay off the 5-Hour Energy/Mountain Dew combo.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to
To say "Techdirt defamed me!" is to lie.
To tell a lie makes one a liar.
Ergo, anyone claimed to say "Techdirt defamed me!" whether they exist or (more likely) not, is a liar. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know ho
QED? Queers Eat Dirt? That's not true. Look at Mike's friends. They just change their sex and run for president.
Defamed has a LOT of meanings. There's your meaning, my meaning, and God's meaning, just to name a few. Techdirt defames a lot of people. What a hint? Shityard. Look it up.
Are you throwing stones? Do you live in a glass house? Are you crying wolf? Are the pigs going to blow your house down? Those are the questions that haunt me before I can fall asleep. Especially when I drink too much coffee in the evening.
Sorry, there's a mental patient next door screaming at the top of his lungs, gota go. But 230 will soon be gone, that's for sure.
AND I'LL BE BACK! BACKBACKBACK! BARACK BACK! BARACK OBAMA (sucks). By the way, did you see that picture him conspiring about General Flynn? Flynn is OUT, Barrack is GOING DOWN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legal definition is the only one that matters here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would that be true? Are you Bill Clinton, arguing about the meaning of the word sex? Yeah, you sound like him, making essentially the same point about twisting words and imagining you are somewhere where you are not, you delusional Marxist.
Marxism infects your BRAIN and makes you think you are in COURT and doing something IMPORTANT when in fact you are just posting SHIT on a SHIT web site while LYING about your NAME and LYING about TRUTH and LYING IN WAIT LIKE A SNAKE UNTIL SOME POOR UNSUSPECTING WHITE YOUTH STEPS ON YOUR DICK AND THEN YOU BITE WITH YOUR BIG SNAKE TEETH UNTIL THEY CRUSH YOU LIKE A BUG UNDER THE FOOT OF GOD AND COUNTRY.
Damn, I really should not drink coffee in the evening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering your bad grammar and spelling and the fact that you clearly don’t understand what ‘Marxism’ means—among other words and phrases, I don’t think you’re in any position to argue about what any word means.
And yes, please cut back on the coffee; you’re becoming more and more incoherent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't you know it -- "Shares true facts and reasoned opinion about odious individuals" ain't it.
Good for Techdirt, bad for liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you really think calling Ship Yard beer Shit Yard Beer is not defamatory? They wrote me me long ago, I've just been biding my time, accumulating evidence, analyzing the dates, times and speech patterns of various individuals, watching your bank accounts, tracking your movements, listening to your phone calls, reading your Emails, seeing what you buy, where your wife shops, where you surf, everything. I'm like that german spy in the ceiling listening to every conversation, watching your very move, hell, I knew when your wife was pregnant before you did, and your child will NOT look like you, Not look like the DEVIL SPAWN, he will look like ME ME ME! AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? DO YOU? DO YOU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170524/10131637447/brewery-sues-competitor-over-schooner-logos-u se-word-head.shtml
Times Techdirt, or anyone from Techdirt, called Shipyard Shityard: 0
Reality: 1
Gaslighting projecting compulsive liar Spamiltard: 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider this: Remember when I first came to this site, right after Trump got elected? Remember when I downloaded ALL your records? You remember, right, you password protected your stuff after that. BOOM! Ftp'd the whole thing, EMail addresses, internal conversations, passwords, articles, everything. I've got every original article for my clients, they have their original and certified records, I've got everything covered SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY!
WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE! ALL OF YOU! We have ALL your RECORDS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove it by emailing me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How I wish your delusions was true because then we could expect you to end up in jail. Sadly though, your just like the village-idiot wrestling imaginary pigs in the dung-heap while screaming obscenities at bystanders thinking he is doing the world a favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Delusional? Did you say I was delusional? I want you to talk to my friend Brittany. She's beautiful, smart, and will kick your ass all the way to Sunday!
Brittany Litzinger practices media, defamation, privacy, intellectual property and business litigation in federal and state courts.
Ms. Litzinger received her Juris Doctor from the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, and her Bachelor of Sciences, with Honors, in Finance and Economics from Georgetown University.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT & IP LITIGATION
Defamation (Libel and Slander)
Privacy Rights
First Amendment
Anti-SLAPP Proceedings
Trademark Infringement and False Advertising Claims
Copyright Infringement
Right of Publicity (name and image infringement)
GENERAL BUSINESS LITIGATION
Breach of Contract
Business Torts including Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment and Professional Negligence
Unfair Competition and Unfair Business Practices
Trade Secrets
Electronic Discovery
ADMISSIONS
California (2020)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
EDUCATION
Juris Doctor (2019), University of Southern California, Gould School of Law
Bachelor of Arts, Finance and Economics, with College Honors (2016), Georgetown University
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are getting really good at copy-pasting stuff, but I guess it comes at the expense of everything else you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Delusional? Did you say I was delusional? "
I'll say you're delusional, and I'll guarantee the grifter you just mentioned doesn't have jurisdiction anywhere near me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brittany Litzinger is NOT a Grifter! She's a trained attorney! She's young, extremely beautiful, and has taken the place of Melania in my very turbo charged imagination. Check her out, she's on Harder's web site, naked! Well, not naked, that was my turbo charged imagination again, but she is CUTE! In a really exciting way. She's not a Grifter, she's a Gifter! Her presence is a gift. Her sweet smelling warm breath passing through the outer parts and then moving on to the inner parts of my hairy ears get me ALL EXCITED. No, seriously though, I'd be careful with her. Hey, you know why women rule the world? It's because they own 50% of all the property and 100% of all the pussy. She told me that! Well, not really, she's a sweet young virgin, just out of law school, and Charles has to look at her every day and NOT make a move! Wow, what a man, what a Christian, he has more moral character than ALL of your DEPRAVED LEFTISTS COMBINED! LOOK AT HER! JUST LOOK AT HER!! https://www.harderllp.com/attorneys/brittany-l-litzinger/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound like a rapist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I don't think he's a rapist - yet! It's kind of hard to get laid when you have a toxic personality, so he sounds like an incel that has to have some kind of target for his rage and I doubt it will be enough for him to shit-post here in the end - hence the "yet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, she's a grifter and you're her deranged stalker. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, I bet you don't know me. But let's assume you are telling the truth and you have all this information. What does that accomplish? Also, if true, you likely could be charge under CFAA. For how broad CFAA has been used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I have no memory of that happening, but I’m also confident that nothing you might find would be defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I—and I’d bet most legal scholars and every justice in the Supreme Court—really think calling Shipyard Beer “Shit Yard Beer” is not defamatory. It’s not claiming any facts, implicitly or explicitly, which means it can’t be defamatory by definition.
Yeah, see, most would call that “stalking”, which is generally frowned upon and possibly unlawful. It also won’t turn a clearly non-defamatory phrase based on pure opinion into defamation. No amount of evidence can change that.
Seriously, stop drinking coffee. It’s clearly bad for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I kno
You seriously don’t know what QED means?
That’s not what queer means. Also, what “friends” are you talking about?
In the legal sense, there is only one, and it’s the only one that matters in this context. And I don’t think God determines what words mean.
I suggest you cut back on the coffee then. Like right now, since that meant absolutely nothing. Same with the stuff you said afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to
Did you know that fictional people and figments of one’s imagination can lie? It happens all the time.
Also, that’s not a legal argument. A legal argument would require a reference to a law or something like that. What you made might charitably be called a philosophical argument or a linguistic argument, but not a legal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many of them have an actual case instead of a complaint about their hurt fee-fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only GOD and the JUDGE have the INSIGHT to UNDERSTAND who have actual cases and who do not.
In the mean time, I get to eat popcorn and watch idiots like you twist in their seats. It's fun, really, you should try it. It's one of the benefits of actually finishing law school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like, say, the judge who ruled against Shiva Ayyadurai? 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I explained that already, in detail, and with mountains of evidence. It was the Deep State that influenced the judge, they found out about the baby with two thumbs on one hand. Who wouldn't want to hide that? Hard to argue, right? Just like you, Stephen, the Deep State has a LOT of information about YOU! About your disgusting habits! Your bad teeth! Your resulting bad breath! AND, we've been analyzing ALL YOUR POSTS! I predict we will NEVER HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN because you are a TOOTHLESS BAD SMELLING COWARD that PICKS HIS NOSE with the same finger he PICKS THE SHIT OUT OF HIS ASS!
Wow, drinking too much coffee in the evening kinndaaa makes me a little shaky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do we know it's really you? You're not you, I can tell. The real Stephen T. Stone has a LOT MORE to say, not just a two word quip. You're probably the idiot brother of Stephen T. Stone that he sends in after he has been EVISCERATED and HUMILIATED and CAN'T EVEN GET UP OFF THE FLOOR BECAUSE HE IS WRITHING IN LITERARY PAIN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a LOT MORE to say, not just a two word quip.
Maybe he meant "a lot more, touché"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a LOT MORE to say, not just a two word quip.
Yeah, a lot of guys that talk a lot of shit soon relent after facing someone MUCH HARDER and Charles at the same time. Really. Happens a lot, Stephen is not the first pussy that laid down like a teenage girl and went on to play with my dick while kissing my balls. NOT THE FIRST, nope, not at all. Won't be the last, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice to see Stephen taking up so much office space in your head, Charles. Way to fuck up the Shiva Ayyadurai case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Office Space?
The partners of HARDER LLP have served as lead counsel on the following cases (among many others), including representing the celebrities and celebrity estates:
President Donald J. Trump Litigation
Melania Trump v. Mail Media, Inc., New York State Supreme Court, Manhattan
Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media LLC et al., Florida State Court, Pinellas County
Ivan Aguilera v. Univision
Reese Witherspoon v. Marketing Advantages International, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court
Sandra Bullock v. ToyWatch USA, Los Angeles Superior Court
Bradley Cooper and Liam Neeson v. Vutec Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court
Jude Law v. Paloform, Los Angeles Superior Court
George Clooney and Julia Roberts v. DPI, Los Angeles Superior Court
Clint Eastwood v. Evofurniture, US District Court, Los Angeles
Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, Kate Hudson, Diane Keaton, Mandy Moore and Michelle Pfeiffer v. CompUSA, Los Angeles Superior Court
Julia Child Foundation Litigation
Brando Enterprises LP (Marlon Brando rights holder) Litigation
Techdirt (past) and Techdirt (future) on behalf of at least 16 American Inventors who were really upset about what was said here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That certainly is a list.
An honest person would supply sources, status and outcomes, and other context for the list. But, you're not one of those, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm still waiting on that list he has of "thousands of inventors" hurt by Techdirt's existence. It's been two years and Hamilton hasn't done anything beyond shitting out a few SEO scam artists and a lady who doesn't even have a grudge against Wendy Cockcroft.
He's not even shooting blanks at this point. He's taking a dump on the toilet while thinking he's firing a machine gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose that's fair. Posting on Techdirt is akin to taking a dump on a toilet. I've said that maybe 1,000 times. In fact, I think I copyrighted it. (c) Copyright 2020 by Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So where's my pay, asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So...you don't know who has an actual case? Seems like an odd choice for a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignoring for a moment that the 'dozens of individuals' are almost certainly nothing more than figments of their delusional and demented mind given the kind of people that hire Harder I've no doubt that any even remotely legitimate case, or even one groundless that might not be immediately laughed out of court would have been filed far in the past, so the absence of such legal actions makes clear the answer to that is 'zero to none'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You obviously never finished law school. I did. And, I'm the lawyer for FLOTUS, is that cool or what? Who are you again? Nobody? That's OK, let me explain the LAW to you.
FIRST, there is nothing unusual about being delusional or demented. What do you do with delusional, demented but otherwise brilliant people? Send them to law school! Judges too, they're almost all delusion and demented. That's FINE for the practice of LAW.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's obvious to any delusional demented nutcase practicing law.
IPSOFACTO, I win, again. I win every time, actually, even with Mike. I WIN I WIN I WIN. You don't know the GAME! Only I know the GAME! I ALWAYS WIN!
WINWINWINWIN! I'm a WINNER!
So, that's my case, your honor. You're delusional, I'm delusional, and PaulT thinks he is NOT DELUSIONAL. He is, of course, mistaken. Please rule for me, and I won't tell anyone about your two thumbs on the right hand.
I WIN AGAIN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absence of evidence does mean you don’t have a successful case. If you have no evidence, you lose on summary judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It also doesn't help that the sole source of all content that is even in the same ballpark if defamation has only snd ever been Spamiltard himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, you look upset, did I strike a nerve? Wait until I get you in COURT and I STRIKE A NERVE! "if" did you mean "of" ... oooooops, YOU LOST IT! YOU LOST YOUR NERVE. I'm going to CRUCIFY YOU on the stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it, coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Which is, of course, impossible for you, because you are a Marxist.
Admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You couldn’t afford the price I’d ask for making me say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“We rig the game so it can work on the left side” admits another Techdirt employee, who agrees that the company “100%” favors the left.
A content moderator at Cognizant, a firm that handles content moderation for Techdirt, can also be heard saying she would accept a $81 million bounty placed on President Trump’s head by the government of Iran.
Shocking, really, how depraved Marxists are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except Cognizant doesn’t handle content moderation for Techdirt, or at least you have provided no verifiable evidence that it does. Last I checked, Techdirt’s moderation is left almost 100% to users, not anyone employed by Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’d just like to point out that Marxism in itself has absolutely nothing to do with defamation or free speech. It also has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to have
Until then, you got nothing.
Also, it should be noted that even without §230, it’s highly unlikely that Techdirt would actually be found liable for others’ comments given how hands-off they are about moderating them.
Last time? You mean the Shiva lawsuit? The one Techdirt won? How is that a success?
Setting aside that there doesn’t appear to be any real intersection between any of the political beliefs or stances held by anyone at Techdirt and Marxism—meaning that Techdirt Marxists don’t actually exist—last I checked, the only time someone actually litigated against Techdirt or any of its members (current or former) was the Shiva lawsuit, which—again—Techdirt won! So how can you say they’re fun to litigate against?
That says more about you than anything or anyone else, and it’s not really good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like Charles Harder.
Zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They say a man representing himself has a fool for an attorney
But that's not the only option for that outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for an attorn
In 2018-19, Mr. Harder defeated two federal lawsuits and three federal agencies (the FBI, the CIA and DEA) filed by Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford, real breast size 42DDD) on behalf of client, President Trump, which included a six-figure award of attorneys’ fees for his client, free sex for 10 years (assignable), and sanctions for his client’s favorite cause.
In 2017, Mr. Harder won a multi-million dollar settlement payment and full retraction and apology and a foot massage and full body scrub on behalf of his client, First Lady Melania Trump, in a defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail. The Daily Mall soon went bankrupt and ceased all publication.
In 2016, Mr. Harder won a $140 million jury trial verdict for his client, Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea), in an invasion of privacy lawsuit in Florida against Gawker Media, causing the company to file for bankruptcy and say they were really sorry. This was followed by a lawsuit against the anarchist Mike Masnick, who never fully recovered, even though the suit was thrown out. No one understood why this happened, but it was rumored it had something to do with two thumbs on a relative's left hand. Techdirt still publishes trash today, but no one takes it seriously.
In 2011, Mr. Harder won an $18 million trial verdict for his client, Cecchi Gori Pictures, and obtained valuable film rights to seven motion pictures including The Departed and Shutter Island and Deep Throat, and also defeated a $5 million counterclaim filed by the opposing party, all while writing all his documents with his left hand, while standing on one foot, with one eye on Linda Lovelace.
In 2009, Mr. Harder won four separate ICANN domain name arbitrations on behalf of four different A-list actors. Each case involved a three-arbitrator panel, and each decision sided 3-0 for Mr. Harder’s client. Soon after, Melania Trump sought him out for personal counsel, though the details are private (damn).
In 2007, Mr. Harder defeated an $11 million arbitration case on behalf of his client, UBISOFT, a Top 5 worldwide videogame publisher. Mr. Harder is an accomplished video game player, and is #1 the world for several categories, but never uses his own name, because he's modest, kind and loves animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for an at
That's amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for an at
AREAS OF PRACTICE
REPUTATION, PRIVACY, ENTERTAINMENT & IP LITIGATION
Reputation Protection and Brand Protection
Defamation (Libel and Slander) (see Techdirt)
Terminating Internet Defamers, Impostors & Infringers (See Stephen T. Stone)
Privacy Rights (See Facebook)
Right of Publicity (name and image infringement) (See PaulT)
First Amendment
Anti-SLAPP Proceedings
Profit Participation, Royalty and Audit Matters
Restraining Orders and Injunctions
Trademark Infringement and False Advertising Claims
Copyright Infringement
Talent Agencies Act & California Labor Commission Proceedings
Internet Domain Name Disputes & Cybersquatting
GENERAL BUSINESS LITIGATION
Breach of Contract
Business Torts including Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment and Professional Negligence
Unfair Competition and Unfair Business Practices, including Business and Professions Code § 17200
Trade Secrets
Employment Litigation
Electronic Discovery
Driving lefties crazy until they explode (#1 in the world)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for an at
"The Daily Mall soon went bankrupt and ceased all publication"
If that were true I'd have a lot more respect for the guy lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for a
Nitpicker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They say a man representing himself has a fool for an at
You do understand that some of what you wrote can be considered to be libel of Mr. Harder? It would be eternally funny if he went after you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ticklish Position
Some folks might think that there is at least some potential for winding up with a conflict of interest, where an atty represents one member of a family, suing another member of the family, while representing a third member in a separate case.
Such opinions could be a sign of careful thought. Avoid this. Mr. Harder clearly has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ticklish Position
Frankly, to have a conflict of interest here, Mr Harder first would have to act in the interest of his clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For lawyers, it's not about winning; it's about playing the game. As long as you're playing, you're getting paid (with rare exception).
The game is rigged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean that Shiva clow how did NOT invent email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, the guy who decided that after decades of failure of doing anything else significant in his life decided to pretend that his school project overrode the work of those who actually invented email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…and then went on to lose an election so badly that even the second-place finisher trounced him by double digits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and has then apparently abandoned both paths to fleece anti-vaxxer morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:anti-vaxxer morons.
You mean anti-FACTSER. Same meaning - similar sound. Nice and convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, and even the anti-vaxxer morons realized that Shiva has had dealings with people they disagree with and put up a webpage to detail why anti-vaxxers shouldn't trust him.
If anti-vaxxers are saying you're untrustworthy, well... I'd measure the standards you have, but numbers don't go that low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is going exactly as harder expected
Harder didn't make a mistake. He's an expert on forums. This first court was the one stipulated in the NDA as the agreed forum. So he filed there to check that box so the defendants won't be able to point to that agreed jurisdiction later when he files in the court of his choice. This is going exactly to plan.
It's very dumb to celebrate this first move as a mistake or incompetence when it is nothing of the sort.
Harder is the anti-free speech bully to the stars. He's scary because he's good at what he does, and he's always well funded so he can out spend his opponents. He only needs to out last them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn’t he lose to Techdirt despite a similar war of attrition, though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation vs. NDA
Techdirt didn't have an NDA with Harder's client Shiva Ayyadurai, so it wasn't remotely as strong a case. Plus winning the case in the end isn't necessarily the goal. Frequently the goal is to cost the defendant ruinous amounts of money and make them wary about ever talking about his client again. Techdirt lost a huge amount of money and likely came close to bankruptcy. Techdirt has not mentioned Shiva Ayyadurai since the settlement over a year ago. Two years of litigation hell will do that to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation vs. NDA
Techdirt has not mentioned Shiva Ayyadurai since the settlement over a year ago. Two years of litigation hell will do that to you.
Given the final article on the subject as I remember it was basically 'we apologize for nothing, we still maintain that we are correct and the only thing we're giving him is a single link per article so you can waste your time reading his garbage claims if you care to' I'm pretty sure that Shiva hasn't cropped up on TD since then simply because he hasn't done/said anything that would fall into TD's interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation vs. NDA
"Techdirt has not mentioned Shiva Ayyadurai since the settlement over a year ago."
Yes, after the settlement and an embarrassing election defeat, Shiva changed paths and instead of lying about email he became an anti-vaxx scammer. While he's still a shitty person, that particular type of con artist is not something that's usually discussed here. If he returns to trying scam money from the graves of the people who actually invented email, OI'm sure he'll be mentioned here again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defamation vs. NDA
Or if he starts losing SLAPP suits against anyone who debunks antivaxxism or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation vs. NDA
Or, in the alternative, nothing new has happened with Shiva that falls within the stuff covered on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [harder client shiva "e-mail guy"]
In Florida, Shiva would still not be considered to have invented e-mail. He might be considered an annoying litigant, but not an inventor of e-mail. He would likely lose here, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY courts
The judge said "such relief should be obtained by means of an action in the Supreme Court".
An important tidbit is that NY has weird nomenclature for its courts, the "Supreme Court" is actually (in the case of NYC) a consolidation of 5 county courts. In the rest of the state, I believe each county has its own Supreme Court. Above that is the "Appellate Division of the Supreme Court", and above that is the "Court of Appeals", which is what any other state would call a "Supreme Court".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]