---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g...@xny.io> Date: Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 8:11 PM Subject: Re: 492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________ To: <letitia.ja...@ag.ny.gov> Cc: Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) <adrienne.har...@dfs.ny.gov>, Reader, Shaun < srea...@curtis.com>, cypherpunks <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>, < i...@nypd.org>
Dear Attorney General James: The 492 highlighted tactics below are now in play. Today, xNY.io - Bank.org is implored to ask you to please contact FBI Director Ray concerning a potential Nicosia, Cyprus discretion. This matter seems "new" to other correspondence with your esteemed office. Warm regards, Gunnar ✌️ On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, 12:41 PM Gunnar Larson <g...@xny.io> wrote: > Ms. James: > > On top of everything else, we will need to blow the SDNY whistle tomorrow > morning on wire fraud. > > Thank you for your continued service. > > Gunnar Larson > -- > Gunnar Larson > xNY.io - Bank.org > 917-580-8053 > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024, 3:48 AM Gunnar Larson <g...@xny.io> wrote: > >> Attorney General James: >> >> A republican innovator like Gunnar Larson is proud of the election >> results. >> >> However, Ms. James, you saw our research on One Million Black Women >> recently. >> >> Word has it, Ms. Harris is part of a group of co-conspirators behind this >> all. >> >> Personally, I will be forced to engage the tactics below if you, Ms. >> James, do not solve One Million Black Women's sponsored discrimination by >> Ms. Harris. >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Gunnar Larson ✌️ >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Gunnar Larson <g...@xny.io> >> Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 1:19 PM >> Subject: 492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT >> OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. >> HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________ >> To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> >> >> >> >> March 24, 2022 >> >> 15 Highlights: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=drivesdk >> >> 1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and >> her cohorts >> orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is >> an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants >> maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican >> opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign >> sovereignty. >> The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, >> deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data >> sources - are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events >> of Watergate pale in comparison. >> >> 2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other >> political >> stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. >> They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald >> J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple >> Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would >> be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media >> frenzy. >> >> 3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level >> officials at the >> Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who >> attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.1 To >> start, the Clinton Campaign and the DNC enlisted the assistance of their >> shared counsel, Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep Democrat ties, in the >> hopes of obscuring their actions under the veil of attorney-client >> privilege. Perkins Coie was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find—or >> fabricate—proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia. >> >> To do so, Perkins Coie launched parallel operations: on one front, >> Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias led an effort to produce spurious >> ‘opposition research’ claiming >> to reveal illicit ties between the Trump Campaign and Russian operatives; >> on a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann headed a >> campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ >> connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-owned >> bank. >> >> 4. Marc Elias, in his mission to obtain derogatory anti-Trump ‘opposition >> research,’ commissioned Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, and its >> co-founders, Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and directed them to dredge >> up evidence—actual or otherwise—of collusion between Trump and Russia. >> Fritsch and Simpson, in turn, enlisted the assistance of Orbis Ltd. and its >> owner, Christopher Steele, to produce a series of reports purporting to >> contain proof of the >> supposed collusion. Of course, the now fully debunked collection of >> reports, known as the “Steele Dossier,” was riddled with misstatements, >> misrepresentations and, most of all, flat out lies. In truth, the Steele >> Dossier was largely based upon information provided to Steele by his >> primary >> sub-source, Igor Danchenko, who was subsequently indicted for falsifying >> his claims. Even more damning, Danchenko had close ties to senior Clinton >> Campaign official, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., who knowingly provided >> false information to Danchenko, who relayed it to Steele, who >> reported it in the Steele Dossier and eagerly fed the deceptions to both >> the media and the FBI. This duplicitous arrangement existed for a singular >> self-serving purpose – to discredit Donald J. Trump >> and his campaign. >> >> 5. At the same time, Michael Sussmann, in his hunt for damaging intel >> against the >> Trump Campaign, turned to Neustar, Inc., an information technology >> company, and one of its top executives, Rodney Joffe, a fervent >> anti-Trumper who had recently been promised a high-ranking position with >> the Clinton Administration, to exploit their access to non-public data in >> search of a >> secret “back channel” connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank. When >> it was discovered that no such channel existed, the Defendants resorted to >> truly subversive measures – hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private >> apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House. This >> ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading “inference” >> and submitted to law enforcement in an effort to falsely implicate Donald >> J. Trump and his campaign.2 All of these acts >> were carried out in coordination with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, >> at the behest of certain Democratic “VIPs.”3 >> >> 6. While their multi-pronged attack was underway, the Defendants seized >> on the >> opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a >> full-blown media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on >> a “mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia >> link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly >> promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake >> Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to >> proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through >> press releases, social media, and other public statements. >> >> 7. The fallout from the Defendants’ actions was not limited to the public >> denigration >> of Trump and his campaign. The Federal Bureau of Investigation >> (FBI)—relying on the Defendants’ fraudulent evidence—commenced a >> large-scale investigation and expended precious time, resources and >> taxpayer dollars looking into the spurious allegation that the Trump >> Campaign >> had colluded with the Russian Government to interfere in the 2016 >> presidential election. The effects of this unfounded investigation were >> prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton >> loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice and the >> FBI >> – James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, >> and Bruce Ohr. These government officials were willing to abuse their >> positions of public trust to advance the baseless probe to new levels, >> including obtaining an extrajudicial FISA warrant and instigating the >> commencement of an oversight investigation headed by Special Counsel >> Robert Mueller. As a result, Donald J. Trump and his campaign were forced >> to expend tens of millions of dollars in legal >> fees to defend against these contrived and unwarranted proceedings. >> Justice would ultimately prevail – following a two-year investigation, >> Special Counsel Mueller went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his >> campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with >> Russia. >> >> 8. The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and >> gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a >> DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date, >> he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others, >> for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As >> outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of >> the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into >> the inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on >> recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s >> investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are >> forthcoming. >> >> 9. In short, the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated >> a malicious >> conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about >> Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, >> his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of >> Hillary Clinton. When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump >> was elected, the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting >> their focus to undermining his presidential administration. Worse still, >> the Defendants continue to spread their vicious lies to this day as they >> unabashedly publicize their thoroughly debunked falsehoods in an >> effort to ensure that he will never be elected again. The deception, >> malice, and treachery >> perpetrated by the Defendants has caused significant harm to the American >> people, and to the Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, and they must be held >> accountable for their heinous acts. >> >> ____________________ >> >> >> BACKGROUND >> >> September 8, 2022 >> >> 190 Highlights: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=drivesdk >> >> Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the >> Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious >> conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious >> information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of >> destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential >> Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 177, Am. Compl. ¶ 9). On this >> general premise, Plaintiff brings a claim for violations of the Racketeer >> Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), predicated on the theft >> of trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and wire fraud (Count I). He >> additionally brings claims for: injurious falsehood (Count III); malicious >> prosecution (Count V); violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act >> (“CFAA”) (Count VII); theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets >> Act of >> 2016 (“DTSA”) (Count VIII); and violations of the Stored Communications >> Act (“SCA”) (Count IX). The Amended Complaint also contains counts for >> various conspiracy charges and theories of agency and vicarious liability. >> (Counts II, IV, VI, and X–XVI). Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth >> over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is >> difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. >> >> It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to >> distill it here. >> The short version: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants “[a]cting in >> concert . . . maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their >> Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign >> sovereignty.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants effectuated this >> alleged conspiracy through two core efforts. “[O]n one front, Perkins >> Coie partner Mark Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition >> research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump >> campaign and Russian operatives.” (Id. ¶ 3). >> >> To that end, Defendant Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic >> National Committee, and lawyers for the Campaign and the Committee >> allegedly hired Defendant Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele Dossier. (Id. >> ¶ 4). “[O]n a separate >> front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman headed a campaign to develop >> misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail >> servers at Trump Tower and a Russian- >> owned bank.” (Id.). Clinton and her operatives allegedly hired Defendant >> Rodney Joffe to exploit his access to Domain Name Systems (“DNS”) data, via >> Defendant Neustar, to investigate and >> ultimately manufacture a suspicious pattern of activity between >> Trump-related servers and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin, Alfa >> Bank. (Id. ¶ 3). As a result of this “fraudulent evidence,” the Federal >> Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) commenced “several large-scale >> investigations,” which were “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a >> small faction of >> Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of >> Justice”—Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, >> Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. (Id. ¶ 7). >> And while this was ongoing, the Defendants allegedly “seized on the >> opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown >> media frenzy.” (Id. ¶ 6). As a result of this “multi-pronged attack,” >> Plaintiff claims to have amassed $24 million in damages.1(Id. ¶ 527). >> >> Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of >> disconnected political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a >> sweeping conspiracy among the many individuals Plaintiff believes to have >> aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is >> warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is, >> foreclosed by the applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail >> on the merits “in multiple independent respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view >> it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising >> tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit >> as a lawsuit.” (Id.). >> >> I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended >> Complaint’s structural deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter >> jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain >> Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each >> of the >> substantive counts. >> >> ____________________ >> >> BACKGROUND >> >> October 31, 2022 >> >> 25 Highlights: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=drivesdk >> >> >> PlaintifP’s pleadings and theories were obviously and fatally defective >> from the very >> inceptionof this action. Plaintiff's initial Complaint spanned 108 pages >> and S08 paragraphs. DE 1 (March 24, 2022). It named 28 individual >> defendants, as well as 10 John Does and 10 ABC Corporations. /d. >> Less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved to >> dismiss it with prejudice. DE 52 (Apr. 20,2022). Defendant Clinton’s motion >> identified manyofthe fundamentalfactual deficiencies and legal flaws that >> would ultimately lead this Court to dismiss the Amended >> Complaint: namely, (1) that Plaintifs claims were untimely on their face, >> DE 52 at 1-5; (2) that Plaintiff's own tweets confirmed his knowledge ofhis >> supposed claimsno later than October 2017, DE 52 at 2-3; (3) that >> Plaintiffs Complaint was replete with inadequate and conclusory >> allegations, DE 52 at 6; (4) that Plaintiff failed to allege a RICO >> enterprise, DE 52 at 7; (5) that >> Plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of theft of trade secrets >> based on DNS information, DE 52 at 8-9; (6) thatPlaintifffailedtoallege the >> predicate act ofobstructionofjustice in part because >> he identified no “official proceeding,” DE 52 at 9-10; (7) that Plaintiff >> failed to allege a patter of racketeering activity, DE 52 at 11-12; (8) >> that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege RICO standing because his >> supposed injuries were almostentirely undescribed, DE 52.at 12-14; (9) >> that Plaintiffs injurious falsehood claim was barred by the First >> Amendment, DE 52 at 15-17; (10) that Plaintiff failed to allege almost >> every necessary clementof injurious falsehood under Florida law, DE 52 at >> 17-18; (11) that Plaintiff failed to allege a malicious prosecution claim >> as to any official proceeding and, in particular, as to the properly >> predicated Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DE 52 at 19-20; and (12) that >> Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for “agency” because it is not an >> independent cause of action under Florida law. >> >> In response, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend the >> Complaint. DE 66 (Apr. 21, 2022). Defendant Clinton did not oppose >> counsel's request for an extension of time in whichto amend. See, e.g., DE >> 102 (Apr. 27,2022). In the intervening period, other Defendants >> joined Clinton's motion to dismiss and filed their own motions >> alertingPlaintiff and his counsel to additional fatal defects in the >> Complaint. See DE 124 (John Podesta), 139 (Peter Fritsch, Fusion GPS, Glenn >> Simpson); 141 (DNC Services Corporation, Democratic National Committee, >> Debbie Wasserman Schultz); 143 (Perkins Coie); 144 (Nellie Ohr); 145 (Robby >> Mook): 146 (Michael >> Sussmann); 147 (Mare Elias); 149 (HFACC); 157 (Rodney Joffe); 159 (Igor >> Danchenko); 160 (Neustar, Inc.); 162 & 163 (Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr.); >> 165 (Jake Sullivan). With respect to each motion, Plaintiff's counsel >> indicated that they planned to amend in response to the motions, and >> Defendants did not oppose extensionsof time to allow them to do so. See >> DE 153 (May 17,2022). PlaintifP’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint >> approximately two months after receiving Defendant Clinton’s motion to >> dismiss and with the benefit of Defendants” additional motions in >> the interim. DE 177 (June 21, 2022). “But despite this briefing, >> PlaintifPs Amended Complaint failed to cureanyofthe deficiencies.”DE 267 at >> 63-64 (Sept. 8, 2022) (“0p.”). “Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages >> of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal >> sufficiency of his claims.” Op. at 64. The Amended Complaint is “193 pages >> in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs,” and “contains 14 counts, names 31 >> defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and >> 10 *ABC Corporations’ identified as fictitious and >> unknown entities.” Op. at 4. >> ____________________ >> >> BACKGROUND >> >> November 10, 2022 >> >> 66 Highlights: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=drivesdk >> >> The Complaint. In March 2022, Charles Dolan was among 29 defendants >> initially sued by Mr. Trump. (DE 1). He was identified as a former chairman >> of the DNC, a senior official in the Clinton Campaign, and a close >> associate of and advisor to Hillary Clinton. The Complaint alleged >> that in April 2016, Mr. Dolan participated in discussions about the >> creation of a “dossier” to smear Mr. Trump and disseminate false >> accusations to the media (Compl. ¶ 79), and at the direction of >> Ms. Clinton assisted in preparation of the dossier (Compl. ¶ 81). >> According to the Complaint, an allegation contained within the dossier that >> Mr. Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity in a >> Moscow hotel was derived from Mr. Dolan. (Compl. ¶ 91). Mr. Dolan was >> sued for RICO >> conspiracy (Count II), conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood (Count >> IV), and conspiracy to >> commit malicious prosecution (Count VI). >> >> The Warning Letter. On May 31, 2022, counsel for Mr. Dolan wrote the >> attorneys for Mr. Trump. They warned: >> >> 1. That Mr. Dolan had no role in any conspiracy related to the Steele >> dossier. >> >> 2. That Mr. Dolan was not a source for the allegations of sexual activity. >> >> 3. That Mr. Dolan had not been in contact with any defendant other than >> Igor Danchenko, >> and that Mr. Dolan’s contacts with Mr. Danchenko involved business >> interests and help for a conference in Moscow. >> >> 4. That Mr. Dolan had never been chairman of the DNC. >> >> 5. That Ms. Clinton was on record through a spokesperson as stating she >> had no recollection of Mr. Dolan. >> (DE 268-1). >> >> The letter requested that Mr. Dolan not be named as a defendant in any >> forthcoming >> Amended Complaint. The letter further warned that if he were to be named, >> or if he was not dropped from the original Complaint, Rule 11 sanctions >> would be sought. >> >> The Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended >> Complaint, as >> had been expected. It ballooned to 193 pages, 819 paragraphs and 31 >> defendants. With respect to Mr. Dolan, the allegations remained essentially >> the same. But in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Dolan was identified somewhat >> more vaguely as the former chairman of a “national Democratic >> political organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Elsewhere, he was described >> as a “senior Clinton Campaign Official.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Moreover, and >> somewhat inexplicably, Mr. Dolan was identified in the Amended Complaint as >> a citizen and resident of New York, despite a declaration that Mr. Dolan >> had provided to Plaintiff’s lawyers explaining that Mr. Dolan was a >> resident of >> Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20; DE 268-2). >> The Sanctions Motion and Memorandum. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Dolan served >> on Mr. >> Trump’s lawyers a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. The >> motion pointed out that the change in Mr. Dolan’s purported title from >> “former chairman of the DNC” in the original Complaint to “former chairman >> of a national Democratic political organization,” in the Amended Complaint >> did not solve the problems identified in the warning letter because Mr. >> Dolan had never >> been the chairman of any such organization. The motion further explained >> that Mr. Dolan’s role in the Clinton Campaign was limited to knocking on >> doors as a volunteer. The motion also stated >> that Mr. Dolan had never been a resident of New York, that Mr. Dolan had >> told Plaintiff’s lawyers so, and that the allegations of the Amended >> Complaint to that effect demonstrated a lack of diligence over something >> easily checked. >> >> Mr. Dolan’s motion for sanctions went on to place the Trump lawyers on >> notice of a critical failure in their claims, warning them that the >> Danchenko Indictment referenced throughout the Amended Complaint not only >> failed to support their allegations against Mr. Dolan but contradicted >> them. That warning continues to be unheeded. >> >> ____________________ >> >> BACKGROUND >> >> January 19, 2023 >> >> 53 Highlights: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=drivesdk >> >> Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the >> Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious >> conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about >> Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life, >> his >> political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of >> Hillary Clinton.” (DE 1 ¶ 9). >> >> The next day, Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel told Fox News’ Sean >> Hannity: >> You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . >> . . and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are >> going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is >> going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of >> all that.1 She then explained on Newsmax: What the real goal [of the suit] >> is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing >> to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. >> That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed >> justice. They >> continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not >> make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.2 >> On April 20, 2022, less than a month after the Complaint was filed, >> Hillary Clinton moved for dismissal with prejudice. Her motion identified >> substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws. Each of the other >> Defendants followed suit, pointing to specific problems with the claims >> against them. The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start. >> They were identified by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump >> persisted anyway. >> >> Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,” >> Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177). >> The Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the defects. See DE 267, Order >> of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added >> eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to >> salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. (DE 267 at 64). The Amended >> Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs, and >> contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 John Does described as >> fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 ABC Corporations identified as >> fictitious and unknown entities. >> >> On July 14, 2022, the United States moved pursuant to the Westfall Act, >> 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(i), to substitute itself as Defendant for James Comey, >> Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. (DE 224). On >> July 21, 2022, I granted the motion to substitute. (DE 234). >> >> On September 8, 2022, I dismissed the case with prejudice as to all >> Defendants except for the United States. >> >> 3 I issued a detailed and lengthy Order, which I incorporate by reference >> here. >> (DE 267). I found that fatal substantive defects which had been clearly >> laid out in the first round of briefing, precluded the Plaintiff from >> proceeding under any of the theories presented. I found that the Amended >> Complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading, that its claims were >> foreclosed by existing precedent, and its factual allegations were >> undermined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it >> purported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate issues >> pertaining to sanctions. >> >> Undeterred by my Order and two rounds of briefing by multiple defendants, >> Ms. Habba >> continued to advance Plaintiff’s claims. In a September 10, 2022, >> interview with Sean Hannity, the host asked her “Why isn’t [Hillary >> Clinton] being held accountable for what she did?” Ms. Habba’s response >> reiterated misrepresentations on which this lawsuit was based: >> >> Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks >> who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he >> was going to be impartial, and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing >> order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by >> indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera, >> et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we >> get dismissed. >> Not only do we get dismissed, he says that this is not the proper place >> for recourse for Donald Trump. He has no legal ramifications. >> >> Where what [sic] is the proper place for him? Because the FBI won’t help >> when you can do anything, obstruct justice, blatantly lie to the FBI, >> Sussmann’s out, he gets acquitted, where do you go? >> >> That’s the concern for me, where do you get that -- that recourse?4 She >> also indicated that, while Mr. Trump doubted the suit would succeed, she >> nevertheless “fought” to pursue it: You know, I have to share with you a >> story, Sean, that I have not >> shared with anybody. The recourse that I have at this point is obviously >> to appeal this to the 11th Circuit as Gregg said. But when >> I brought this case and we were assigned you know, this judge and we went >> through the recusal process, we lost five magistrates, including Reinhart >> [sic] who’s dealing with the boxes as we know. >> The former president looked at me and he told me, you know what Alina. >> You’re not going to win. You can’t win, just get rid of it, >> don’t do the case. And I said, no, we have to fight. It’s not right what >> happened. And you know, he was right, and it’s a sad day for >> me personally because I fought him on [it] and I should have listened, >> but I don’t want to lose hope in our system. I don’t. So, >> you know I’m deciding whether we’re going to appeal it.5 Defendants now >> move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 >> U.S.C. § 1927, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and/or this Court’s inherent >> power. (DE 280 at 1). >> In Part II, I find that a sanction under this Court’s inherent power is >> appropriate. I do so by examining Plaintiff’s (and his lawyers’) conduct >> throughout this litigation. In Part III, I look to Plaintiff’s conduct in >> other cases. And in Part IV, I determine the reasonableness of Defendants’ >> attorneys’ fees and costs. >> >> >>
