What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Being in an anarchistic internet site is not really what I think of when I think of the First Amendment but hey fine by me. Just so long as I don't have to be there.

[Syt]

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wants-supporters-to-carry-trump-cards-2021-8

Donald Trump wants his supporters to carry 'Trump Cards'

Donald Trump wants his supporters to carry "Trump Cards."

Trump's PAC sent two emails on Wednesday asking supporters to get on board with carrying the red-and-gold cards, which look like credit cards and bear the former president's signature.

"The card you select will be carried by Patriots all around the Country," the first email said. "They will be a sign of your dedicated support to our movement to SAVE AMERICA, and I'm putting my full trust in you."

The Trump team said in a follow-up email, "We're about to launch our Official Trump Cards, which will be reserved for President Trump's STRONGEST supporters."

"We recently met with the President in his Florida office and showed him four designs," the email continued. "Originally we were planning on releasing just one design, but when President Trump saw the cards on his desk, he said, 'These are BEAUTIFUL. We should let the American People decide - they ALWAYS know best!'"

The emails did not outline exactly what entitled one to carry a "Trump Card." Clicking on the link to vote for a design led to a fundraising page.

The Trump team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

The "Trump Card" is the group's latest fundraising merchandise. In an email on July 26, it announced it was selling signed photos of Trump for $45.

Trump has hinted that he might run for president in 2024.

The journalist Michael Wolff, the author of three books on Trump, recently told Insider that he thought Trump still didn't know he lost the election last year.

"Now, whether he has managed to successfully convince himself or whether from the get-go he was so focused on hearing what he wanted to hear, he is absolutely certain," Wolff said. "Absolutely certain that he won the election and that if he did not win it, it could only be that it was stolen from him."

[alfred russel]

It may seem like a grift but being able to produce such a card could save your life when the purges begin.

[HVC]

it's trump steaks all over again

[The Brain]

+300% impact sounds like a pretty good deal.

[Malthus]

This is interesting: it is very usual for costs to be ordered against lawyers personally.

Presumably, there will now be a rash of such orders, as other courts will follow suit to dissuade the innumerable absurd Trumpite lawsuits?

https://apnews.com/article/business-elections-lawsuits-election-2020-4e910fce574a57c403a84fa4158b226b

[mongers]

Is this still a thing?

[crazy canuck]

Is this still a thing?

It is now pay to play.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is interesting: it is very usual for costs to be ordered against lawyers personally.

Presumably, there will now be a rash of such orders, as other courts will follow suit to dissuade the innumerable absurd Trumpite lawsuits?

https://apnews.com/article/business-elections-lawsuits-election-2020-4e910fce574a57c403a84fa4158b226b

Our Federal court system makes lawyers individually responsible for filings made on the client's behalf, on penalty of sanction.

It is under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

[Sheilbh]

God help Trump's lawyers

[DGuller]

God help Trump's lawyers

Why is it up to God, wouldn't Trump help them?  Oh, I see.

[grumbler]

+300% impact sounds like a pretty good deal.

It would be if the impact was my fist on Trump's jaw.

[Josquius]

I want the card with the Eagle. Has a certain evil cool about it.

[Malthus]

This is interesting: it is very usual for costs to be ordered against lawyers personally.

Presumably, there will now be a rash of such orders, as other courts will follow suit to dissuade the innumerable absurd Trumpite lawsuits?

https://apnews.com/article/business-elections-lawsuits-election-2020-4e910fce574a57c403a84fa4158b226b

Our Federal court system makes lawyers individually responsible for filings made on the client's behalf, on penalty of sanction.

It is under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Is this materially different from the situation I am more familiar with, in which a court has the authority to make a cost award against a lawyer personally, but will only do so if the lawyer acts frivolously/vexatiously or abuses the court's processes?

At first glance, it appears similar, though this federal rule is more articulated.

In Ontario, the equivalent rule of civil procedure is rule 57.07(1), where the trigger is a lawyer causing costs to be incurred through undue delay, negligence or other default (which the courts have interpreted as requiring more than merely failing to meet the standard of care). 

[The Minsky Moment]

It's hard to say as I don't know how the rule is interpreted and applied on Ontario.

As you point out Rule 11 is fairly articulated.  It was not part of the original rules package assembled in the 30s; it was added in the 80s specifically to address the perceived problem of an explosion of attorney-driven frivolous lawsuits.

One significant element is (3) and (4) which requires that factual contentions or denials have proper evidentiary support or be identified specifically as being made "on information and belief" - in which case there has to a good faith basis in the belief that evidentiary support will be discovered.  Practically it means there is some minimal diligence requirement beyond just accepting what the client says.  Note that under R11 contentions without proper evidentiary support can be sanctionable even if not specifically intended to harass or delay.