Of Frivolous Lawsuits, Summer Colds & Power Failures
I had hoped to post on Thursday, especially because Bruce is on vacation. And there is much to talk about. Terrorist organizations violating international boundaries and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. (I hope to say something about this tomorrow.)
Valerie Plame is attempting to extend her short time on center stage by filing a lawsuit against the Vice President, his former chief of staff and Karl Rove, “accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.” It’s too bad we don’t have the British system of civil law where the loser pays because it’s clear this lawsuit is just for publicity. (Blogger Jim Rose basically agrees with me, via Instapundit.) This lawsuit is going nowhere. A federal judge will dismiss the suit and it will be relegated to the back pages of newspapers and not merit a mention on internet welcome pages.
Although this will be dismissed, in filing motions to dismiss, the Vice President et al. will incur further legal costs, costs which, in an ideal world, should be borne by those filing such a frivolous lawsuit.
After a scrupulous federal prosecutor investigated the case, he did not find sufficient evidence to indict a single person under the intelligence Identities Protection Act. Those who have followed the story closely know that no Administration officials attempted to destroy Ms. Plame’s career. They, albeit in a clumsy way, were merely attempting to discredit a dishonest critic.
I hope to be back up to writing speed tomorrow. I seem to be in the last stages of the most unusual summer cold. What has made this one unusual is that while I endure the familiar cold symptoms, congestion, scratchy throat, occasional aches, I have also enjoyed tremendous physical energy, not slacking in my Theater Manager duties at Outfest, working out as well (if not better) than ever and eagerly bounding up and down stairs at my building and elsewhere. I only seem to feel particularly bad when I’m not in motion.
And then combine that summer cold with a power failure in my building for the better part of the day. It’s only when you go without power for several hours do you realize how dependent we are on electricity. I couldn’t turn on the TV, could only use my computer as long as the battery lasted, couldn’t even use my landline as all my phones are cordless, couldn’t cool my apartment with a fan or air conditioning and, worst of all, couldn’t make coffee at home.
Given this absence of electricity (until the mid-afternoon) and my feeling pretty bad when I sat still, I didn’t get to post today and given Bruce’s travels, this blog lacked new content for a while. All that said, I did delight in today’s lessons and ambiguities. More importantly, as I could get by despite today’s misfortunes, I realized yet again, how, in the grand scheme of things, at the present moment in my life, I really am quite fortunate.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Seems like John at Powerline agrees with me about Plame’s suit as well, calling the lawsuit “comic relief:”
The Wilsons evidently can’t stand the thought of their fifteen minutes of fame coming to an end. Valerie Plame is like an amateur singer with a bad voice and delusions of stardom who won’t get off the stage. Eventually, the impresario will get out the hook, but by that time there will be no one left in the audience.
UP-UPDATE: Roger calls Ms. Plame, “one of the most tedious and narcissistic individuals to grace the cover of Vanity Fair in some time (and that’s saying something).“
UP-UP-UPDATE: In response to Raj’s comment #3, I note that I lack the time to read the complaint, but Curt at Flopping Aces has and has done a remarkable job of tearing it apart. So just read his piece and you’ll see why it’ll be dismissed. AJ Strata has also read it and found it “lame.”
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Once again, AOL’s news editors show their bias by leading their news with this story, giving a picture to Valerie Plame while not featuring as prominently the escalating crisis in the Middle East.
36 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] Gay Patriot [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Plame Lawsuit - Plenty Of Laughs To Go Around — July 14, 2006 @ 4:00 am - July 14, 2006
“Comic relief” indeed. But what should one expect from a “pair” of Democrat Party loyalists who hold Bill and Hillary Clinton up as examples of the perfect Washington power couple.
Hey Dan, isn’t there something about sitting Presidents being immune from civil lawsuits –frivilous or otherwise– while President?
Legal reform now: make the bastards like Plame/Wilson pay for the defendants’ litigation expense. The only ones hurting would be the trial lawyers… and that’s a great group of sleazebags to dissemble whenever we can.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 8:13 am - July 14, 2006
#2 Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 8:13 am – July 14, 2006
Hey Dan, isn’t there something about sitting Presidents being immune from civil lawsuits –frivilous or otherwise– while President?
Aside from the fact that the Wilson’s lawsuit is not necessarily against Shrub, it’s quite clear that you aren’t a law student, or a lawyer, or even a very good wingnut. If you were the last, you would be aware of the US Supreme Ct’s 1997 decision in CLINTON v. JONES. That may jog your memory.
On the subject matter of the post, if GPW is, as he seems to suggest, a graduate of some law school, he might want to consider the Wilson’s actual complaint, not what so-called news media have reported, and certainly not what some anti-Wilson blogs have said about it. The complaint is available here. I’m sure that he will scrutinize the complaint thoroughly and let us know whether, in his view, it would survive a FRCivP 12(b)(6) motion. And, of course, if not, why not.
Comment by raj — July 14, 2006 @ 8:43 am - July 14, 2006
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a judge the power to sanction the lawyer and the party who file a truly frivolous paper (complaint, motion, etc.) with the court. Although rarely used, and even more rarely imposed by courts, when a judge does issue “Rule 11 sanctions” they can be quite expensive — including all costs and attorneys’ fees for a particular piece (or all) of the litigation.
Unfortunately, a Clinton appointee will likely be assigned to the case, the complaint will withstand a motion to dismiss and the parties will end up being embroiled in a Paul Jones-length fight.
Comment by PatriotPal — July 14, 2006 @ 10:07 am - July 14, 2006
#4 PatriotPal — July 14, 2006 @ 10:07 am – July 14, 2006
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a judge the power to sanction the lawyer and the party who file a truly frivolous paper (complaint, motion, etc.) with the court.
This is true, but, at this stage in the proceedings, this is irrelevant. If the complaint does not survive a FRCivP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (that is, failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted), then FRCiv P 11 might come into issue. Until a 12(b)(6) motion is filed and decided, the portion of FRCivP 11 that you referenced is irrelevant.
Now, address the complaint, like a good conservative.
Comment by raj — July 14, 2006 @ 10:15 am - July 14, 2006
“Valerie Plame is like an amateur singer with a bad voice and delusions of stardom who won’t get off the stage”.
Is Valerie Plame the next Will Hung????
Comment by sonicfrog — July 14, 2006 @ 10:38 am - July 14, 2006
Just one statement I couldn’t help noticing GPW. You said there was no power in your building. Building? You mean to tell me you’re stupid enough to throw your money away on rent? Why don’t you do the smart thing & own a house?
Comment by Jimbo — July 14, 2006 @ 10:51 am - July 14, 2006
“A federal judge will dismiss the suit”
Whistling by the graveyard, I see.
“After a scrupulous federal prosecutor investigated the case, he did not find sufficient evidence to indict a single person under the intelligence Identities Protection Act.”
So far at least. In any event you appear to miss an important point. Now I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but even I know there is a different standard of proof in a civil compared to a criminal legal case. That Fitz didn’t find enough evidence to indict under the IIPA is means little in the civil case.
#7: “Why don’t you do the smart thing & own a house?”
I suspect that’s easier said than done in Southern CA. But wait, it appears that house prices may be dropping a bit. Then again, interest rates are going up so actual out of pocket monthly costs may not change much. Oh well, hopefully GPW’s tax cut will enable him to buy something in Malibu.
Comment by Ian — July 14, 2006 @ 11:38 am - July 14, 2006
Summer colds are the absolute worst thing to get rid of.
Like a drunken dinner guest, they stay too long, weaken your stamina and wreck havoc in the bathroom!
Vera’s long trusted cure involves good gin, a dash of fresh limejuice, fresh tonic water and a teaspoon of powered sugar served in a tall glass. Vera drinks these several times a day to ward off colds, scurvy, rheumatism, and dull thoughts.
As for Miss. Plame (or is it Mrs. Wilson? Is she hyphenated?) and her pending lawsuit: Never start litigation with people wealthier, smarter, or more connected than you are; you’ll only make the lawyers richer and lose your stunning looks in the process.
Vera’s advice? Dump the current husband (he’s a braggart and a bore) and trade up to Mr. Fitzgerald.
Comment by Vera Charles — July 14, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - July 14, 2006
Ahh, raj baby and Ian in one thread… what in God’s good name did anyone here do to deserve those two?
raj baby, try for once to stay on the topic when you pontificate. Enough commentors here have demonstrated sufficiently and repeatedly your penchant for misdirection, lying, and ankle-biting. Really, you’re getting to be as bad as Gramps off the meds or Ian S on his meds.
And try to remember, presidents in THIS country are about serving the People and doing the People’s business –they shouldn’t have to shoo flies (lawyers) representing dung piles (the Wilson-Plame team)… that’s not why a MAJORITY of Americans elected Bush and Cheney to lead the country for ANOTHER 4 years.
Any 1-L, 2-L or even in someone like you would know that. Shoo, fly.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - July 14, 2006
#10 Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 12:13 pm – July 14, 2006
Sorry, dear. I cited a case–a Supreme Court case–that answered your question. The decision was rendered less than 10 years ago. It’s not my fault that you were apparently unaware of the case.
Given the fact that the case went against your nemesis BClinton, I’m amazed that you were unfamiliar with it. But, ignorance is as ignorance does.
Comment by raj — July 14, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - July 14, 2006
raj baby, I wasn’t aware I had asked anything of you –since I don’t value your opinion, it seems queer you should continue to offer “advice” without regard to its utility.
Please hold that for your hopsital consults when the “victim” is considering litigation –I don’t need an ambulance chaser type to provide advice of any sort. Thanks, dear. Now shoo, fly, shoo.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - July 14, 2006
Ah yes…
Another day, another example of the Quixotic idiotarianism so beautifully mastered by our kool-aid drinking, Graydon Carter-worshipping friends in the tin foil hats.
At the risk of ruining raj & Ian’s priapism over this pseudo-intellectual snipe hunt, I’m sorry to say this case has as much traction as a vegetable oil handjob, and will mercilessly disappear before my summer tan kicks in.
Eric in Hollywood
beginning to wonder how his supply of Wet Platinum is holding up
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — July 14, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - July 14, 2006
ha! comic relief? in your dreams. plame has most likely been working on this case the entirety of the investigation. Rove, Cheney, and Libby are loaded. I hope valerie gets all of it. the summer homes, the beach houses, everything. the final nail in the coffin of neo conservatism
Comment by lester — July 14, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - July 14, 2006
Well, not a lawyer here but my instinct is that Plame & Wilson just want attention. They know they aren’t going to win a thing, just something to bog the system down.
I did work Risk Managment years ago in a hospital, raj, might be a chance for you to excel in slip & fall cases dude… think about it, I can hook you up with a contact.
Raj, I heard you left a mark for me in the last post I commented, that makes me a commentor, not a proprietor. So please be more thorough when reading what I quoted from you.
I will pray for you too.
Comment by Ed of Tampa — July 14, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - July 14, 2006
Lester in #14, and Wilson was convinced Karl Rove would be frog-marched from the White House to the jailhouse.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 14, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - July 14, 2006
gpwest- taking the little shit for everything he’s got is the next best thing
Comment by lester — July 14, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - July 14, 2006
Well, don’t get your hopes up, Lester, ’cause it’s not gonna happen.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 14, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - July 14, 2006
Dan, you’re 100% correct and lester is just hoping in a pipe dream of smoke. No perp walks. No massive settlements against and lost fortunes for the Cheneys, Bushs, Roves or others. In fact, I’m guessing that Wilson/Plame won’t even get the benefit of a 2d book deal nor a guest host spot on CNN, CBS or alJazeera –wait those are the same networks.
Like Sir David Frost’s “arrival” on alJazeera, it’s all blaring trumpet and little music for Wilson/Plame these days… Ms Plame is destined for the slag heap of aging Democrat whores and Mr Wilson is on a trajectory toward kidney failure.
I’m glad they’ve chosen Erwin Chermerinsky –who last proclaimed that his 2005 “Campaign to Defend the Constitution” (what an oxymoron given his Leftist credentials) would be hailed by historians in the 21st C as the point when America rose up and restored her civil rights. http://www.defconamerica.org/ Bigot #1 up to bat.
And, lest we forget, his co-counsel –Chris Wolf– has been public about planning the civil suit for over a year.
Lawyers, yikes. Will no one rid the world of the plague of lawyers?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 14, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - July 14, 2006
I’ll gladly trade you the cold, and you can take my weekly interferon injections. It’s like having the worst flu of your life every week.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 15, 2006 @ 7:46 am - July 15, 2006
From the post
In response to Raj’s comment #3, I note that I lack the time to read the complaint, but Curt at Flopping Aces has and has done a remarkable job of tearing it apart. So just read his piece and you’ll see why it’ll be dismissed. AJ Strata has also read it and found it “lame.”
You didn’t really go to law school, did you? If you had, you would know that the Wilsons’ lawsuit is a well-pleaded action under the Bevins doctrine. It is likely that the suit would survive a FRCivP 12(b)(6) motion, and go to discovery. It’s likely that discovery will be required before a court will entertain any motions for summary judgement (do you know what that is, and how that differs from a 12(b)(6) motion?). It will be in discovery that things will get interesting, since depositions will likely be available to the public.
The websites that you linked to border on the silly. The only one that actually discussed the case in any detail was Flopping Aces, and the poster there seems to be so ignorant of trial practice in federal courts that he was actually arguing the merits of the case (do you know what that means?) before any discovery has been taken. Dumb.
Comment by raj — July 15, 2006 @ 7:50 am - July 15, 2006
There is only one reason for the lawsuit and that is to help the democrats in the up comming election. I am sure that they know they would probably lose the lawsuit but by the timne it comes to court the election will be over and the suit will be used to try and inflame the people against the republicans as one more example of republican corruption. Pure Bull shit as always from the left.
Comment by Michael Thornton — July 15, 2006 @ 10:40 am - July 15, 2006
Raj, you make all these claims about how wonderful the lawsuit, merely claiming it is well-pleaded action. At least Flopping Aces took the time to read it.
And yes, in discovery (if it ever takes place) things will get interesting because the defense will surely depose Mr. Wilson.
And then there’s that little matter of no evidence surfacing that the Administration sought to harm Ms. Plame as she claims. Officials merely sought to discredit her dishonest husband. And that, I believe, will be the heart of their defense. And where the Senate Report comes in handy. As it confirms that all they were trying to do was get the truth out.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - July 15, 2006
Just from reading Really Angry Jerk, Inserted Anal Nozzle and (mo)lester’s responses, it is clear that it is the moonbat libtard left that will die a slow painful death, not neo-conservatism.
The shriller this unholy trio gets, the more truth there is in the arguments against their beliefs. These three have gone past Mariah Carey’s octave range and are heading straight into Patti LaBelle’s.
Down, girls! Down!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 15, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - July 15, 2006
Peter H, but your commands to “those girls” aren’t meant in a good way, right?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 15, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - July 15, 2006
#25 – Of course not, MIMatt…that’s why Chandler in H’wood has the lubricant ready. (No offense, Chandler.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 16, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - July 16, 2006
#23 Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm – July 15, 2006
Raj, you make all these claims about how wonderful the lawsuit, merely claiming it is well-pleaded action.
Don’t put words into my mouth. I said that it was a “well-pleaded action.” That means that the complaint (i) states jurisdiction (probably correctly), whether in personam or in rem (I’m sure that you know what those mean), (ii) states venue (also probably correctly) meaning the the district in which the action was filed is “convenient” for the case to be heard, (iii) states one or more “causes of action,” that is, legal doctrines (statute, constitution in the case of a Bevins action) on which the claim can be supported, and a bit of alleged facts that support the legal doctrines on which the case is based.
At least Flopping Aces took the time to read it.
That’s sweet. One might seriously wonder whether Flopping Aces understood what he was reading. I’ve read the complaint, and I’ve read Flopping Aces commentary. It was clear that Flopping Aces was arguing the merits of the case–that is, his conclusions regarding the alleged facts underlying the complaint. That is totally irrelevant in connection with a motion to dismiss. Unlike you, Mr. Flopping Aces apparently does not purport to be a lawyer, and, if he is not, it is highly questionable whether he is in a position to understand what he was reading.
The only thing that I found interesting about the complaint is that, unlike the “notice pleading” typical in complaints filed in federal courts, there is a rather extensive description of the alleged factual basis for the claims in the complaint. But, what is interesting about that is that more than a few of the alleged facts are derived from special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s filing in the Scooter Libby case. Hence the timing of this law suit.
And then there’s that little matter of no evidence surfacing that the Administration sought to harm Ms. Plame as she claims.
Um, this is a joke, right? Aside from the issue of whether “sought to (do) harm” is the correct standard, as opposed to “did do harm,” to the extent that “sought to (do) harm” is the relevant standard, evidence therefor will obviously be sought during discovery. Apparently, you are unaware that a pleading is not required to set forth all of the alleged facts on which the cause of action may be based. Did you really take civil procedure?
Facts that are solely in the purview of the other party–such as facts regarding the intention of the defendants in this case–may be sought during discovery. I’ve had that issue arise a number of times when I was engaged in trial work.
You–like your friends at Floppy Aces–want to argue the merits of the case before any discovery has been taken. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
Comment by raj — July 17, 2006 @ 9:24 am - July 17, 2006
#24 Peter Hughes — July 15, 2006 @ 3:44 pm – July 15, 2006
I get more and more amused at the ravings that have been coming from this poster. Unable to respond to the substance of much of anything, it resorts to flailing.
Comment by raj — July 17, 2006 @ 9:26 am - July 17, 2006
raj baby, as if to answer Peter H’s point… you go screamingly fast to PattiLaBelle’s screetch land. God bless you raj baby, you are predictable.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 17, 2006 @ 11:58 am - July 17, 2006
“Ravings,” Really Arrogant Jerk? That’s rich, coming from you. You are the queen of ravings – good, bad or indifferent. Take it down an octave, Fraulein.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 17, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - July 17, 2006
#29 Michigan-Matt — July 17, 2006 @ 11:58 am – July 17, 2006
raj baby, as if to answer Peter H’s point….
This is a joke, right? Peter had a point in #24? Peter was doing nothing more than flailing. Perhaps you can understand the language of the flailers. If so, you might want to translate.
Note to Peter: I know what you probably think that you’re trying to do, and I’m not going to be drawn into your silly game.
Comment by raj — July 18, 2006 @ 9:47 am - July 18, 2006
raj baby, get thee to a music store and pick up any copy of any CD with PattiLaBelle on it… listen for 45 seconds… you’ll understand why people here confuse your rants with Patti’s scretching “singing”.
Point made, objection overruled, move on counselor.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 18, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - July 18, 2006
Really Arrogant Jerk, I do not play games. I merely view the opposition and report.
And as far as me “drawing you in” to some game, let me just say that your tinfoil chapeau is fitting WAY too tight on your pointy little head.
PS – Danke for the Deutsch lessons. Not like I’m ever going to use it. I prefer to speak in my native language.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 18, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - July 18, 2006
#33 Peter Hughes — July 18, 2006 @ 4:05 pm – July 18, 2006
PS – Danke for the Deutsch lessons. Not like I’m ever going to use it. I prefer to speak in my native language.
De nada.
That’s your native language, correct?
Comment by raj — July 19, 2006 @ 9:34 am - July 19, 2006
Nyet.
Das vidanya,
Peter H.
PS – Actually, Spanish is one of the FOUR other languages I speak…not that I expect you to be impressed, Really Arrogant Jerk. You’ll probably pop up back here like a sock puppet and announce that you know five or six. Which means you can be annoying in more than two cultures.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 20, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - July 20, 2006
#35 Peter Hughes — July 20, 2006 @ 4:57 pm – July 20, 2006
You’ll probably pop up back here like a sock puppet and announce that you know five or six.
Actually, no I won’t, but I do wish that I did know five or six languages. Or six or ten. I can do high-school Spanish and more than a bit of German. My father in law, a virtual illiterate from the Ukraine, could make do with five languages: Ukraine, Russian, Polish, German and English. Not fluent in the last two, but passable. Five languages! And, I might note, not only different languages, but also different alphabets.
When we were on a Rhein cruise 17 years ago, we talked a lot with the fellow behind the bar. He was a Turk, who could converse with the customers in more languages that I would ever hope to know: English, French, German, Spanish, Portugeuese Arabic, this, that and the other. We asked him about that, and he made it clear: that is what they needed to do in order to survive.
In order to survive. That has stuck with me for a number of years. In order to survive. Much like my father in law. They needed to do that in order to survive. Let’s understand something. On that Rhein cruise, we went into a charcuterie in Strassbourg (France). We conversed with the lady in perfect German. She conversed with the next customer in perfect (as far as I could tell) French. In order to survive. Her German was impecable. I don’t do French.
Regarding Das vidanya did they change the spelling? I know that it is a transliteration, but is that a transliteration of something like dos pedanya?
Comment by raj — July 21, 2006 @ 10:59 am - July 21, 2006