What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Stormy Daniels scandal thread (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
Wasn’t the McDougal contract essentially the same template as the Stormy contract? Or do I have that wrong?
Click to expand...
The Stormy NDA was a trainwreck.  It used aliases and was unclear whether Trump/Dennison was a party.  The McDougal one was between McDougal and AMI and also addressed business terms like fitness covers/stories that AMI would run featuring McDougal.  They both had similar provisions about arbitration and nondisclosure, but don't seem to have derived from the same template.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
On that Cohen recording, Trump was actually discussing buying all of AMI’s dirt on him.
Click to expand...
This is all interesting to me in the context of pretending that they are a news organization and so entitled to case law protections interpreting the 1st Amendment as to protections of the press.  As I understand matters the press, if they are absent malice, and have reasonable belief in the veracity of a story after inquiry normal to the profession can publish matters about public figures with impunity.  Now we see that they do not make a choice on newsworthiness based upon newsworthiness, but rather based upon payoffs.

Several celebrities have sued the Enquirer for articles published about them and the Enquirer always sought refuge in the 1st amendment.  What now, will future suits raise the issue that the only reason publication took place is because the celebrity did not have the money to buy the story off.  Are they publishing for newsworthiness, or to punish for the celebrity not succumbing to extortion?  Can they ever again make arguments about journalistic integrity?  Some aspiring media whore lawyer could have a field day in the next trial against them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
This is all interesting to me in the context of pretending that they are a news organization and so entitled to case law protections interpreting the 1st Amendment as to protections of the press.  As I understand matters the press, if they are absent malice, and have reasonable belief in the veracity of a story after inquiry normal to the profession can publish matters about public figures with impunity.  Now we see that they do not make a choice on newsworthiness based upon newsworthiness, but rather based upon payoffs.

Several celebrities have sued the Enquirer for articles published about them and the Enquirer always sought refuge in the 1st amendment.  What now, will future suits raise the issue that the only reason publication took place is because the celebrity did not have the money to but the story off.  Are they publishing for newsworthiness, or to punish for the celebrity not succumbing to extortion?  Can they ever again make arguments about journalistic integrity?  Some aspiring media whore lawyer could have a field day in the next trial against them.
Click to expand...
Avenatti: Did someone say media whore lawyer?

 
Henry Ford said:
Avenatti: Did someone say media whore lawyer?
Click to expand...
Do you think Gloria Allred and Mark Geragos are seething in jealousy right about now?  The torch has been passed to the next generation.  We just need Avenatti to have that one Chewbaca defense moment to put him over the top.  To cement him in the pantheon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just want to say that over the years, standing in line at the supermarket would not be the same without the enquirer's  headlines to comfort me.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
I just want to say that over the years, standing in line at the supermarket would not be the same without the enquirer's  headlines to comfort me.
Click to expand...
I prefer the Weekly World News.  You get to keep up on the exploits of Bat Boy and which alien is slipping Hillary Clinton the tongue or tentacle, as the case may be.  Frankly I do not care whether Jen and Brad are getting back together or whether Jen has finally found love.  I like the harder hitting stuff.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
This is all interesting to me in the context of pretending that they are a news organization and so entitled to case law protections interpreting the 1st Amendment as to protections of the press.  As I understand matters the press, if they are absent malice, and have reasonable belief in the veracity of a story after inquiry normal to the profession can publish matters about public figures with impunity.  Now we see that they do not make a choice on newsworthiness based upon newsworthiness, but rather based upon payoffs.

Several celebrities have sued the Enquirer for articles published about them and the Enquirer always sought refuge in the 1st amendment.  What now, will future suits raise the issue that the only reason publication took place is because the celebrity did not have the money to buy the story off.  Are they publishing for newsworthiness, or to punish for the celebrity not succumbing to extortion?  Can they ever again make arguments about journalistic integrity?  Some aspiring media whore lawyer could have a field day in the next trial against them.
Click to expand...
Something we still don't know is what did Pecker get out of this cache in terms of compensation? What is the value of holding and not publishing?

 
Just as an aside but I wonder how the Enquirer covered the Access Hollywood tape. The impact of that was never going to be mainstream news media reporting on it, it was going to be in the entertainment and tabloid coverage, and the Enquirer as pointed out above is a major way where many people who don't give a damn about news or politics would be reached.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just as an aside but I wonder how the Enquirer covered the Access Hollywood tape. The impact of that was never going to be mainstream news media reporting on it, it was going to be in the entertainment and tabloid coverage, and the Enquirer as pointed out above is a major way where many people who don't give a damn about news or politics would be reached.
Click to expand...
Three days post-release the October 10 issue came out, which was allegedly this one.

https://rse.magzter.com/314x408/1369067063/1474965665/images/thumb/390_thumb_1.jpg

Whoops, fixed. Had the October 9, 2017 issue at first. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not directly Stormy related, but...

Michael Avenatti‏Verified account @MichaelAvenatti

I am very pleased that the court agreed with our position (and that of the media) this morning and ordered the complaint in the Broidy matter unsealed. @PeterStris and Broidy should have never attempted to hide it from the public in the first place. #Basta

 
Yashar Ali  ?‏Verified account @yashar

3. Elliott Broidy's attorneys have just filed a petition for an emergency stay to keep the redacted portions of the complaint under seal. They acknowledge in the filing what I have alluded to above that the redacted portions contain info about sexual and medical privacy.

 
MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

NEW: Michael Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, agrees to tear up the original 2016 agreement with Stormy Daniels, in which Cohen arranged to pay her $130,000 to stay silent about her alleged affair with Donald Trump. It’s also requesting Stormy pay back the $130,000

MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

Cohen lawyer Brent Blakely: “Today, Essential Consultants LLC and Michael Cohen have effectively put an end to the lawsuits filed against them by Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels.“ Adds Stormy is required to pay back the $130,000 per California law.

MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

Stormy lawyer Michael Avenatti on CNN: “What they're trying to do is they don't want me to get a chance to depose Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. This is a hail mary to try and avoid that, that's my first guess."

 
The Indestructible said:
MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

NEW: Michael Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, agrees to tear up the original 2016 agreement with Stormy Daniels, in which Cohen arranged to pay her $130,000 to stay silent about her alleged affair with Donald Trump. It’s also requesting Stormy pay back the $130,000

MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

Cohen lawyer Brent Blakely: “Today, Essential Consultants LLC and Michael Cohen have effectively put an end to the lawsuits filed against them by Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels.“ Adds Stormy is required to pay back the $130,000 per California law.

MJ Lee‏Verified account @mj_lee

Stormy lawyer Michael Avenatti on CNN: “What they're trying to do is they don't want me to get a chance to depose Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. This is a hail mary to try and avoid that, that's my first guess."
Click to expand...
:clap:

- This was the point of the suit, this was the result his client sought.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
:clap:

- This was the point of the suit, this was the result his client sought.
Click to expand...
Or not

Michael Avenatti‏Verified account @MichaelAvenatti

Let me be clear - my client and I will never settle the cases absent full disclosure and accountability. We are committed to the truth. And we are committed to delivering it to the American people. #Basta

 
The Indestructible said:
Or not

Michael Avenatti‏Verified account @MichaelAvenatti

Let me be clear - my client and I will never settle the cases absent full disclosure and accountability. We are committed to the truth. And we are committed to delivering it to the American people. #Basta
Click to expand...
What does this mean? The contract is rescinded. - What else is there? Damages for defamation & fraud?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
What does this mean? The contract is rescinded. - What else is there? Damages for defamation & fraud?
Click to expand...
Here is Avenatti's response: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2q36932vabsx40/Supp Report.pdf?dl=0

A few thoughts: 

- The basic argument is that Cohen/EC/Trump are offering to settle the case, but Stormy isn't accepting the offer.  

- Stormy shouldn't have to pay back the $130K.  Cohen/EC/Trump are saying that the contract is rescinded.  Stormy isn't saying that.  She is saying it was never enforceable to begin with, a fact that means that she doesn't have to repay the $130K. 

- Avenatti wants a specific declaratory judgment that the contract was void from the get-go for all sorts of reasons, including illegality.  So, he doesn't want the court to say "the contract is void," but rather "the contract is void because it was illegal as a violation of campaign finance laws" (among other reasons).

- Avenatti's opening few paragraphs are more for the public than anything else.  

- Without having read a response from Cohen/EC/Trump, there is a disconnect in my mind between Avenatti's arguments and what he wants.  He wants to depose Cohen and Trump.  But those depositions aren't really necessary for the resolution of the legal issues that he raises.  

 
If Avenatti really wants attention he should offer to take Melania on as a client and to help her fight her NDA and pre-nup.

If I were Trump and I saw how badly my attorneys had screwed up other matters I would be worried about the strength of my pre-nup as it too may have all of the legal elegance of week old haggis left in the sun. 

 
The Indestructible said:
Avenatti wants a specific declaratory judgment that the contract was void from the get-go for all sorts of reasons, including illegality.  So, he doesn't want the court to say "the contract is void," but rather "the contract is void because it was illegal as a violation of campaign finance laws" (among other reasons).
Click to expand...
This piece - what is Stormy’s standing or right to raise this? 

The Indestructible said:
- Stormy shouldn't have to pay back the $130K.  Cohen/EC/Trump are saying that the contract is rescinded.  Stormy isn't saying that.  She is saying it was never enforceable to begin with, a fact that means that she doesn't have to repay the $130K. 
Click to expand...
Do they need a settlement agreement to get past this? Because it seems to me that once EC LLC rescinds the contract, whether from the beginning or from failure, then... they don’t get the money back. And even if they thought they should get the money back... EC LLC isn’t suing Stormy for it. The man’s in jail.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This piece - what is Stormy’s standing or right to raise this? 





 
Click to expand...
In her amended complaint, she asked for this type of relief.  Under the Declaratory Judgements Act, a court may, in its discretion, "declare" the rights of any party.  Assuming the court would enter judgment for Avenatti, it'd be mostly up to the court what language it would put in the judgment.  

Do they need a settlement agreement to get past this? Because it seems to me that once EC LLC rescinds the contract, whether from the beginning or from failure, then... they don’t get the money back. And even if they thought they should get the money back... EC LLC isn’t suing Stormy for it. The man’s in jail.
Click to expand...
I haven't researched this, so I'm going only by what is in Avenatti's filing (which makes sense based on general legal principles).  Rescission undoes the contract and pretends as though it never happened.  Let's just put the parties into the situation they would have been in had the contract not been entered into.  So, Stormy isn't bound to silence, and EC isn't (was never) obligated to pay her $130K.  Avenatti cites case law that says this doesn't work where one party (ie, EC) has already gotten some benefit from the contract, namely, Stormy's silence for a certain period of time.  That can't be undone, so it isn't fair to require her to repay the $130K.  So rescission is a non-starter for Stormy.  Conversely, according to Avenatti's filing, there is case law that says that Stormy can keep the $130K is the contract is declared void for illegality or other reasons. 

For these reasons, Stormy's requested relief did not include rescission of the contract, so Stormy isn't going to sign a settlement agreement that rescinds the contract.   

Also, you can't really unilaterally rescind a contract.  That would almost certainly require the consent of all parties.  I say "almost certainly" because I would not be surprised if the Stormy NDA actually permitted unilateral amendment or termination. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Indestructible said:
In her amended complaint, she asked for this type of relief.  Under the Declaratory Judgements Act, a court may, in its discretion, "declare" the rights of any party.  Assuming the court would enter judgment for Avenatti, it'd be mostly up to the court what language it would put in the judgment.  

I haven't researched this, so I'm going only by what is in Avenatti's filing (which makes sense based on general legal principles).  Rescission undoes the contract and pretends as though it never happened.  Let's just put the parties into the situation they would have been in had the contract not been entered into.  So, Stormy isn't bound to silence, and EC isn't (was never) obligated to pay her $130K.  Avenatti cites case law that says this doesn't work where one party (ie, EC) has already gotten some benefit from the contract, namely, Stormy's silence for a certain period of time.  That can't be undone, so it isn't fair to require her to repay the $130K.  So rescission is a non-starter for Stormy.  Conversely, according to Avenatti's filing, there is case law that says that Stormy can keep the $130K is the contract is declared void for illegality or other reasons. 

For these reasons, Stormy's requested relief did not include rescission of the contract, so Stormy isn't going to sign a settlement agreement that rescinds the contract.   

Also, you can't really unilaterally rescind a contract.  That would almost certainly require the consent of all parties.  I say "almost certainly" because I would not be surprised if the Stormy NDA actually permitted unilateral amendment or termination. 
Click to expand...
If not, the next one will

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Indestructible said:
Avenatti wants a specific declaratory judgment that the contract was void from the get-go for all sorts of reasons, including illegality.  So, he doesn't want the court to say "the contract is void," but rather "the contract is void because it was illegal as a violation of campaign finance laws" (among other reasons).
Click to expand...
This piece - what is Stormy’s standing or right to raise this? 
Click to expand...
if that is the reason that her contract is invalid why would she not be able to raise that and get that as a ruling bromigo take that to the bank 

 
SWC said:
if that is the reason that her contract is invalid why would she not be able to raise that and get that as a ruling bromigo take that to the bank 
Click to expand...
She has raised that.  In her amended complaint, she asked the court to enter a judgment that the contract is invalid because it is illegal as a violation of campaign finance laws (as one example).  The court can find in her favor, but it is the court's discretion how the judgment is worded.  So, the court could say "the contract is unenforceable" or "the contract is unenforceable because it is illegal" or "the contract is unenforceable because it is an illegal violation of campaign finance laws" or something else entirely.  

Courts sometimes have to explain their findings/reasoning in certain ways in case the matter gets appealed, so that may affect what the court writes.        

 
Michael Avenatti‏Verified account @MichaelAvenatti

We just received this dismissal filed by Michael Cohen in the arbitration. This is the same arbitration that I said from day one was bogus. It is also the same arbitration that Sarah Sanders falsely claimed in March Trump had won. She lied and they lied. Repeatedly.

Also, Avenatti appearing on Tucker Carlson tonight.  :popcorn:

 
The Indestructible said:
Michael Avenatti‏Verified account @MichaelAvenatti

We just received this dismissal filed by Michael Cohen in the arbitration. This is the same arbitration that I said from day one was bogus. It is also the same arbitration that Sarah Sanders falsely claimed in March Trump had won. She lied and they lied. Repeatedly.

Also, Avenatti appearing on Tucker Carlson tonight.  :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Amazing that Cohen’s lawyer was on national tv exclaiming Stormy owed Cohen $20 million just a few months ago.

Credit to TC for having him on but he has just a few tricks, Avenatti will likely clean up on him, should be good tv.

 
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/stormy-daniels-offers-grotesquely-graphic-description-trumps-genitals-salacious-new-book/

Stormy Daniels offers grotesquely graphic description of Trump’s genitals in salacious new book

Adult film star Stormy Daniels’ new book, called Full Disclosure, is set to release on October 2 — and leaked tidbits reveal that it contains graphic descriptions of President Donald Trump’s genitals.

The Guardian has obtained a copy of Daniels’ book and it includes cringe-inducing descriptions of her night of sex with Trump.

Among other things, Daniels writes that Trump’s penis is “smaller than average” but “not freakishly small.” She also claims that it is “unusual” in shape and “it has a huge mushroom head” that’s “like a toadstool.”

She also says she found herself not at all enjoying her tryst with Trump, as she said she “lay there, annoyed that I was getting f*cked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a d*ck like the mushroom character in Mario Kart.”

In sum, Daniels describes the encounter as “the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.”

 
Rex Huppke‏Verified account @RexHuppke 3h3 hours ago

Americans need to prepare themselves physically and emotionally for the very real possibility that Sarah Sanders will stand behind a podium and deny that the president of the United States has a penis that looks like Toad from Mario Kart. There will likely be charts.
Click to expand...

 
rude classless thugs said:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/stormy-daniels-offers-grotesquely-graphic-description-trumps-genitals-salacious-new-book/

Stormy Daniels offers grotesquely graphic description of Trump’s genitals in salacious new book

Adult film star Stormy Daniels’ new book, called Full Disclosure, is set to release on October 2 — and leaked tidbits reveal that it contains graphic descriptions of President Donald Trump’s genitals.

The Guardian has obtained a copy of Daniels’ book and it includes cringe-inducing descriptions of her night of sex with Trump.

Among other things, Daniels writes that Trump’s penis is “smaller than average” but “not freakishly small.” She also claims that it is “unusual” in shape and “it has a huge mushroom head” that’s “like a toadstool.”

She also says she found herself not at all enjoying her tryst with Trump, as she said she “lay there, annoyed that I was getting f*cked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a d*ck like the mushroom character in Mario Kart.”

In sum, Daniels describes the encounter as “the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.”
Click to expand...
Trump will love hearing the word huge in reference to any part of his manhood.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NajehHejan
Massive Ticketmaster Class Action
Replies
0
Views
695
NajehHejan
NajehHejan
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
WIRED: 9 reasons to wear a tinfoilhat
Replies
20
Views
2K
Sinn Fein
S
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
FWIW The NSA IS READING/SAVING ur emails/calls/texts etc
2
Replies
62
Views
5K
kevzilla
kevzilla

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top