Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vexatious litigation
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Plusnet
Feb 9, 2023, 5:21:44 PM2/9/23
to
I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
are self-evidently rubbish.
He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
that he didn't like.
Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
"vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
--
Sam Plusnet
are self-evidently rubbish.
He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
that he didn't like.
Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
"vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
--
Sam Plusnet
TonyCooper
Feb 9, 2023, 6:14:38 PM2/9/23
to
https://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/2012-212ca.pdf
Where it says:
"Vexatious litigation occurs when a person repeatedly abuses the
judicial process, using it for frivolous or malicious purposes. The
courts have an inherent ability to manage vexatious litigants to
preserve the proper functioning of the court system.
Additionally, many states, including Florida, have statutory
protections in place to prevent abusive or frivolous litigation.
Penalties include payment of court costs, registration of the
individual as a vexatious litigant, the requirement that a vexatious
litigant furnish security and/or the requirement that a that a
vexatious litigant obtain court approval before proceeding on a claim.
These protections have generally not been found to violate the
constitutional right of access to the court."
They are also called "frivolous lawsuits".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 10, 2023, 10:59:09 AM2/10/23
to
dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
filing one.
Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
your word is used in that state.
A suit against the Pulitzer Prize committee would presumably be
brought in New York, since the award is administered by Columbia
University.
About a week ago the channel 7 news teased a story that he was
suing Bob Woodward for publishing their phone conversations
(Woodward said that when the phone rang, it was either his wife
or [option #2] or T****, who apparently needs someone to talk at,
24/7.) but it seems not to have been mentioned elsewhere.
TonyCooper
Feb 10, 2023, 11:35:42 AM2/10/23
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>> are self-evidently rubbish.
>>
>> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>> that he didn't like.
>>
>> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>
>They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
>dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>filing one.
>
>Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>your word is used in that state.
Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>> are self-evidently rubbish.
>>
>> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>> that he didn't like.
>>
>> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>
>They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
>dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>filing one.
>
>Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>your word is used in that state.
fuck-all about what you are talking about.
Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
https://njlawconnect.com/frivolous-lawsuit-injunction/
I know you don't actually look at links, so here's one sentence from
that site: "New Jersey Courts recognize that in appropriate
circumstances it may be necessary and appropriate to enjoin a
vexatious litigant from engaging in repetitive frivolous filings."
You may have heard about Cornell:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation
Those "Anglomaniacs" know that the word(s) pertain to the filers of
any US lawsuit, not just one brought in Florida.
The *litigant* is vexatatious. The *lawsuit* is frivolous.
You will undoubtably weasel about your use of "they", but your "they"
refers to the people not the filing, and "they" are not called
"frivolous lawsuits".
Knowing that trimming your posts twists your panties, I'll leave this
even though it should further embarass you. Trump's suit against the
Pulitzer Prize board was filed in Okeechobee County, Florida.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3775079-trump-sues-pulitzer-board-for-defamation-in-defending-winning-russia-collusion-stories/
>A suit against the Pulitzer Prize committee would presumably be
>brought in New York, since the award is administered by Columbia
>University.
>
>About a week ago the channel 7 news teased a story that he was
>suing Bob Woodward for publishing their phone conversations
>(Woodward said that when the phone rang, it was either his wife
>or [option #2] or T****, who apparently needs someone to talk at,
>24/7.) but it seems not to have been mentioned elsewhere.
23rd. Trump is suing for $50 million.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 10, 2023, 11:48:25 AM2/10/23
to
On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-5, TonyCooper wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
> >> are self-evidently rubbish.
> >>
> >> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
> >> that he didn't like.
> >>
> >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
> >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
> >
> >They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
> >dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
> >filing one.
> >
> >Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
> >your word is used in that state.
>
> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>
> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
>
> https://njlawconnect.com/frivolous-lawsuit-injunction/
Hey moron, look at the title.
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
> >> are self-evidently rubbish.
> >>
> >> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
> >> that he didn't like.
> >>
> >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
> >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
> >
> >They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
> >dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
> >filing one.
> >
> >Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
> >your word is used in that state.
>
> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>
> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
>
> https://njlawconnect.com/frivolous-lawsuit-injunction/
> I know you don't actually look at links, so here's one sentence from
> that site: "New Jersey Courts recognize that in appropriate
> circumstances it may be necessary and appropriate to enjoin a
> vexatious litigant from engaging in repetitive frivolous filings."
> You may have heard about Cornell:
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation
> Those "Anglomaniacs" know that the word(s) pertain to the filers of
> any US lawsuit, not just one brought in Florida.
throughout the country.
> The *litigant* is vexatatious.
(That's ENORMOUSLY unlikely.)
You introduced the local terminology with the phrase
"vexations litigation."
> The *lawsuit* is frivolous.
>
> You will undoubtably weasel about your use of "they", but your "they"
> refers to the people not the filing, and "they" are not called
> "frivolous lawsuits".
Unfortunately you've resumed your habit of trying to start a fight over
_anything_ I've written.
> Knowing that trimming your posts twists your panties, I'll leave this
> even though it should further embarass you.
Is the word "presumably" too difficult for you?
> Trump's suit against the
> Pulitzer Prize board was filed in Okeechobee County, Florida.
> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3775079-trump-sues-pulitzer-board-for-defamation-in-defending-winning-russia-collusion-stories/
> >A suit against the Pulitzer Prize committee would presumably be
> >brought in New York, since the award is administered by Columbia
> >University.
> >About a week ago the channel 7 news teased a story that he was
> >suing Bob Woodward for publishing their phone conversations
> >(Woodward said that when the phone rang, it was either his wife
> >or [option #2] or T****, who apparently needs someone to talk at,
>
> That suit was filed in the "northern district of Florida" on January
> 23rd. Trump is suing for $50 million.
Even more idiotic.
> That suit was filed in the "northern district of Florida" on January
> 23rd. Trump is suing for $50 million.
Why the quotes but no capitalization? The larger states have several
Districts in the Federal judicial system.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 10, 2023, 11:52:30 AM2/10/23
to
> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-5, TonyCooper wrote:
> > >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
> > >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
> > Athel's word(s)-
> > >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
> > >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
You must have been taught to read (if you ever were) by the "whole word
method," which encourages children to guess at the meaning of words
from their context.
You see a Brit message, and just one name comes to mind, regardless
of who actually wrote the message.
TonyCooper
Feb 10, 2023, 12:21:40 PM2/10/23
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 08:48:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
>You introduced the local terminology with the phrase
>"vexations litigation."
>
>> The *lawsuit* is frivolous.
>>
>> You will undoubtably weasel about your use of "they", but your "they"
>> refers to the people not the filing, and "they" are not called
>> "frivolous lawsuits".
>
>That has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>Unfortunately you've resumed your habit of trying to start a fight over
>_anything_ I've written.
Prompted by your need to include me in a response where no mention of
"TC" or "Anglomaniac" was called for.
>
>> Knowing that trimming your posts twists your panties, I'll leave this
>> even though it should further embarass you.
>
>Try turning on your spellchecker. It might save you some embarrassment.
>
>Is the word "presumably" too difficult for you?
>
>> Trump's suit against the
>> Pulitzer Prize board was filed in Okeechobee County, Florida.
>
>Even more idiotic, then.
Again, you don't understand fuck-all about the subject. A civil suit
can be filed in any jurisdiction where the defendant meets the
"minimum contacts" requirement.
>
>> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3775079-trump-sues-pulitzer-board-for-defamation-in-defending-winning-russia-collusion-stories/
>
>> >A suit against the Pulitzer Prize committee would presumably be
>> >brought in New York, since the award is administered by Columbia
>> >University.
>> >About a week ago the channel 7 news teased a story that he was
>> >suing Bob Woodward for publishing their phone conversations
>> >(Woodward said that when the phone rang, it was either his wife
>> >or [option #2] or T****, who apparently needs someone to talk at,
>> >24/7) but it seems not to have been mentioned elsewhere.
>>
>> That suit was filed in the "northern district of Florida" on January
>> 23rd. Trump is suing for $50 million.
>
>Even more idiotic.
"Minimum contacts" requirement.
word(s) are quoted without change. That's exactly was was in the
source I used. The Northern District of Florida is a federal court in
the Eleventh Circuit. There are three Districts in Florida: Northern,
Southern, and Middle.
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-5, TonyCooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> >
>> >> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>> >> are self-evidently rubbish.
>> >>
>> >> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>> >> that he didn't like.
>> >>
>> >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>> >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>> >
>> >They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
>> >dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>> >filing one.
>> >
>> >Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>> >your word is used in that state.
>>
>> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
>> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>>
>> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
>> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
>> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
>>
>> https://njlawconnect.com/frivolous-lawsuit-injunction/
>
>Hey moron, look at the title.
I look at the actual post and the actual question. The question was
>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-5, TonyCooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> >
>> >> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>> >> are self-evidently rubbish.
>> >>
>> >> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>> >> that he didn't like.
>> >>
>> >> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>> >> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>> >
>> >They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits," and they are quickly
>> >dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>> >filing one.
>> >
>> >Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>> >your word is used in that state.
>>
>> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
>> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>>
>> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
>> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
>> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
>>
>> https://njlawconnect.com/frivolous-lawsuit-injunction/
>
>Hey moron, look at the title.
"Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
'vexatious litigant' who can be banned from launching these stupid
stunts?"
>
'vexatious litigant' who can be banned from launching these stupid
stunts?"
>
>> I know you don't actually look at links, so here's one sentence from
>> that site: "New Jersey Courts recognize that in appropriate
>> circumstances it may be necessary and appropriate to enjoin a
>> vexatious litigant from engaging in repetitive frivolous filings."
>
>An ordinary adjective.
>
>> You may have heard about Cornell:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation
>> Those "Anglomaniacs" know that the word(s) pertain to the filers of
>> any US lawsuit, not just one brought in Florida.
>
>Of course, moron. The same law dictionary (Black's) is used
>throughout the country.
>
>> The *litigant* is vexatatious.
>
>(That's ENORMOUSLY unlikely.)
Over your head that the word applies to the person not the action?
>> that site: "New Jersey Courts recognize that in appropriate
>> circumstances it may be necessary and appropriate to enjoin a
>> vexatious litigant from engaging in repetitive frivolous filings."
>
>An ordinary adjective.
>
>> You may have heard about Cornell:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation
>> Those "Anglomaniacs" know that the word(s) pertain to the filers of
>> any US lawsuit, not just one brought in Florida.
>
>Of course, moron. The same law dictionary (Black's) is used
>throughout the country.
>
>> The *litigant* is vexatatious.
>
>(That's ENORMOUSLY unlikely.)
>
>You introduced the local terminology with the phrase
>"vexations litigation."
>
>> The *lawsuit* is frivolous.
>>
>> You will undoubtably weasel about your use of "they", but your "they"
>> refers to the people not the filing, and "they" are not called
>> "frivolous lawsuits".
>
>That has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>Unfortunately you've resumed your habit of trying to start a fight over
>_anything_ I've written.
"TC" or "Anglomaniac" was called for.
>
>> Knowing that trimming your posts twists your panties, I'll leave this
>> even though it should further embarass you.
>
>Try turning on your spellchecker. It might save you some embarrassment.
>
>Is the word "presumably" too difficult for you?
>
>> Trump's suit against the
>> Pulitzer Prize board was filed in Okeechobee County, Florida.
>
>Even more idiotic, then.
can be filed in any jurisdiction where the defendant meets the
"minimum contacts" requirement.
>
>> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3775079-trump-sues-pulitzer-board-for-defamation-in-defending-winning-russia-collusion-stories/
>
>> >A suit against the Pulitzer Prize committee would presumably be
>> >brought in New York, since the award is administered by Columbia
>> >University.
>> >About a week ago the channel 7 news teased a story that he was
>> >suing Bob Woodward for publishing their phone conversations
>> >(Woodward said that when the phone rang, it was either his wife
>> >or [option #2] or T****, who apparently needs someone to talk at,
>> >24/7) but it seems not to have been mentioned elsewhere.
>>
>> That suit was filed in the "northern district of Florida" on January
>> 23rd. Trump is suing for $50 million.
>
>Even more idiotic.
>
>Why the quotes but no capitalization? The larger states have several
>Districts in the Federal judicial system.
That's what quotation marks are used for. The use indicates that the
>Why the quotes but no capitalization? The larger states have several
>Districts in the Federal judicial system.
word(s) are quoted without change. That's exactly was was in the
source I used. The Northern District of Florida is a federal court in
the Eleventh Circuit. There are three Districts in Florida: Northern,
Southern, and Middle.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 10, 2023, 12:44:05 PM2/10/23
to
On 2023-02-10 16:35:37 +0000, TonyCooper said:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>>> are self-evidently rubbish.
>>>
>>> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>>> that he didn't like.
>>>
>>> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>>> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>>
>> They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits,"
>> and they are quickly
>> dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>> filing one.
>>
>> Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>> your word is used in that state.
>
> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>
> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
Not mine, Sam's, but no matter, I agree and it gives the little man
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:21:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that Mr Trump is, yet again, launching legal suits which
>>> are self-evidently rubbish.
>>>
>>> He is suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for giving an award to an article
>>> that he didn't like.
>>>
>>> Does US law, at state or Federal level, include the concept of a
>>> "vexatious litigant" who can be banned from launching these stupid stunts?
>>
>> They're generally called "frivolous lawsuits,"
>> and they are quickly
>> dismissed. There's no way someone could be prevented from
>> filing one.
>>
>> Looks like TC isn't the only Anglomaniac in Florida; he found that
>> your word is used in that state.
>
> Ahhhhh, Petey, you continue to jump into threads without first knowing
> fuck-all about what you are talking about.
>
> Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
> linked to a Florida site as one example of the usage. I could have
> linked to New Jersey site as an equally valid example:
something to whine at me over.
in England until 1987.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 10, 2023, 1:34:51 PM2/10/23
to
On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:44:05 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-10 16:35:37 +0000, TonyCooper said:
> > Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
>
> On 2023-02-10 16:35:37 +0000, TonyCooper said:
> > Athel's word(s)- "vexatious litigant" are used in the entire US. I
>
> Not mine, Sam's, but no matter, I agree and it gives the little man
> something to whine at me over.
So you're as big an idiot as the moron who took your name in vain?
> something to whine at me over.
Look at my response.
Rich Ulrich
Feb 10, 2023, 2:47:21 PM2/10/23
to
assessed fines of almost a million dollars. Punishment for
pursuing his nonsense. I think that was in Florida.
The next day, Trump withdrew a suit against the AG of New York.
Trump sued the Pulitzer board long enough ago that one of those
has been dismissed. If he is suing again, I had not noticed it.
But I'm not surprised.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter Moylan
Feb 10, 2023, 10:38:11 PM2/10/23
to
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
TonyCooper
Feb 11, 2023, 12:21:09 AM2/11/23
to
laws.
In Texas, barratry is when a lawyer initates contact with a potential
client without prior dealings with that person. "Ambulance chasing"
is barratry in Texas. Approaching an accident victim in a hospital
and offering to represent them in a lawsuit is an example of barratry.
In Pennsylvania, barratry is when a lawyer vexes others with unjust
and vexatious suits.
In Virgina, barratry is the offense of "stirring up litigation" by
instigating or attempting to instigate a lawsuit.
In Florida, a lawyer was charged with barratry when he set up a mobile
claim center in a hurricane damaged area and represented that the
claim center processed FEMA claims. The charge, though, was brought
by the Florida Bar Association and the result was the suspension of
the lawyer's license.
A related offense is "champerty". Champerty is an agreement in which
a person with no previous interest in a lawsuit finances it with a
view to sharing the disputed property if the suit succeeds.
From a quick search, both barratry and champerty seem to be charges
that can be brought against lawyers, not the individuals who the
lawyers represent, so Trump could not be charged with barratry.
Sam Plusnet
Feb 11, 2023, 2:46:53 PM2/11/23
to
God knows when
But he's doing it again
--
Sam Plusnet
bruce bowser
Feb 12, 2023, 8:34:10 AM2/12/23
to
0 new messages