I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years, but I have never seen the like of the Hunter Biden defamation case. The defendant made defamatory statements and then just refused to appear. That led to an equally bizarre $1.7 million award by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California to Biden, consisting of just $1 in nominal damages and the rest in punitive damages.
Here is the most interesting line of the opinion: “the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation is difficult to calculate.” It may be the single greatest understatement in the history of judicial opinions.
However, the court also noted “Plaintiff does not seek actual damages above a nominal amount.”
That means that Hunter Biden’s counsel, in a default case, elected not to argue for compensatory damages due to loss of reputation. Why would he do that?
It might be that he has little reputation to lose and that opening up that part of the case was fraught with perils. However, it also created a potential major appellate issue. His counsel was making it clear that they were litigating purely for punitives.
For Hunter Biden, this is a much-needed windfall. His art sales notably collapsed with the value of currying favor to the Bidens. He is reportedly being pursued by creditors, including former counsel.
The question is whether the award will stand.
For many critics, Hunter Biden is virtually ‘libel proof” as an individual who has no reputation to lose. However, as we have previously discussed, that status is reserved for the most reviled personalities who cannot be defamed due to the lack of any positive reputation.
Judge Wilson, a Reagan appointee, admits in his opinion that determining reputational harm to someone like Biden is difficult to do and further recognizes the argument that “prior tarnishing of Plaintiff’s reputation may reduce the reprehensibility of Defendant’s conduct.”
The case involves a claim by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne that Biden took part in an $800 million bribery scheme involving Iran and failed to defend his claims in court.
Hunter Biden has long been accused of influence peddling that generated millions for him and his family. I have been one of his longest critics as part of a corrupt family enterprise.
However, this claim was not one of those that his critics, and Congress, focused on during the Biden years. There is no evidence that he took a bribe or payment in a quid pro quo for releasing the money to Iran.
The lawsuit was part of a flurry of such actions brought against Biden’s critics. Most were later dismissed, but played a part in the scorched-earth campaign of Biden. I was even threatened with such an action after criticizing his counsel and financial backer, Kevin Morris.
As Biden dropped the other lawsuits, this one continued to be litigated. It was an easy kill. Byrne simply did not defend himself and defaulted. That left the matter to Judge Wilson, who was clearly irate.
The opinion recounts an extraordinary pile-up as Byrne sought to replace lawyers:
“Defendant initially attempted to replace Mr. Murphy with three new lawyers: Eric Neff, Tom Yu, and Stefanie Lynn Lambert Junttila. ECF Nos. 290, 291, 292. Ms. Lambert was not a member of the California Bar, and her application to appear pro hac vice was denied2 due to her recent history of unethical conduct, which gave the Court reason to doubt she would abide by the Court’s rules and practices. ECF No. 295. When Defendant learned that Ms. Lambert was not qualified to represent him in this case, Defendant also instructed Mr. Neff and Mr. Yu to remove themselves.
Moreover, Defendant himself, now unrepresented, still failed to appear at trial. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause why it should not enter default judgment against Defendant and ordered the parties to return the following day. At that hearing, on July 30, 2025, Defendant again failed to appear. Mr. Yu, who was not authorized to represent Defendant at trial, argued on Defendant’s behalf for a continuance, in lieu of default judgment.”
The defendant would miss a series of filing and appearance dates, including orders that he appear in person.
Wilson, 85, ruled in his opinion that Byrne acted with “intentional misrepresentation” and “conscious disregard” for Hunter’s rights. Making things worse, Byrne was found to have continued making the false claims after the lawsuit, and said Byrne continued to amplify the false allegations even after Hunter filed the lawsuit against him.
Accordingly, the court found that the “defamation went far beyond mere negligence,” and that Byrne actively sought to spread the false claim on social media and to make the story go viral.
The problem is that the actual harm from Byrne’s comments was likely minimal given the widespread influence peddling detailed by Congress and Biden’s federal convictions on other offenses.
In these well-documented dealings, there were gifts such as diamonds, lavish expense accounts, and a sports car, in addition to massive payments that Hunter claimed were “loans.” There are messages like the one to a Chinese businessman, openly threatening Joe Biden’s displeasure if money is not sent to them immediately. In the WhatsApp message, Hunter stated:
“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
So, accusing Hunter Biden of influence peddling would hardly seem a material blow to his reputation.
Wilson awarded just $1 in nominal damages to Biden but then ordered $1.7 million in punitive damages. Byrne was also ordered to pay nearly $35,000 in previously imposed court sanctions within two weeks or face an additional $1,000 penalty for each day payment is delayed after the deadline.
That 1:1,700,000 ratio is a bit startling. The general rule is that a ratio of greater than 1:10 in compensatory to punitive damages can raise serious constitutional concerns. What makes this case different is the contempt and default elements.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore, striking down a punitive damage award. The case involved the practice of the company to repair and repaint cars damaged in transit without telling the customers. The jury in the original trial awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the lost value to the car in not having a factory paint job and other damage; it then imposed $4 million in punitive damages for the company’s dishonesty.
The Court stated three factors in crafting punitive awards: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by plaintiff and the punitive damages award; (3) and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
Even though the Alabama Supreme Court previously reduced the punitive award by half, the U.S. Supreme Court still found that the award violated the Due Process Clause as “grossly excessive.”
The fact that this case involves nominal damages may allow for greater leeway in the ratio. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 773 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2014). That is clearly a critical part of the decision of counsel to ask for only nominal damages while litigating for punitive damages. However, this ratio is astronomical.
Judge Wilson addresses BMW v. Gore but effectively untethers the ratio analysis from this case, precisely what Biden’s counsel had hoped in seeking only nominal damages. It is an approach that would effectively gut BMW v Gore. Any litigants with a bad reputation or insufficient reputational harm could simply ask for nominal damages and then ask for the moon in punitive damages. Moreover, it relieves the obligation to determine how many people actually read or were likely influenced by Byrne, particularly given the focus of the influence peddling scheme on Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, China, and other countries.
However, it gets weirder. I was curious how, without any record on harm, the Court could come up with $1.7 million. It turns out that the Court used the damages awarded by a Canadian court against Byrne in a similar defamation case. That case in a foreign jurisdiction awarded $1.134 million. Wilson blithely declares that, since Byrne continues such conduct, “a $1.134 million award would be inadequate to deter this particular Defendant. The Court therefore calculates a punitive damages award of $1.7 million, approximately 50% greater than the total judgment in the prior case.”
That is it. The court simply used the damage award in a foreign torts case and elected to increase it by 50%. However, that earlier judgment only included $250,000 in punitive damages.
I think that the court is dead wrong on the punitive damages analysis. The only question is whether the extent of Byrne’s contempt and default will work to quiet the concerns of appellate judges.
It is a case worthy of appeal.
It is a fascinating car wreck of a case with a scandal-plagued plaintiff, a defaulting plaintiff, the use of a foreign judgment as the basis for a damages award, and a 1:1,700,000 ratio in damages. We will be watching if an appeal is filed by Byrne.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Great analysis. My question is, why would anyone imagine Hunter is unique, even if more extreme, among those in that milieu? Seems to me the left has always been about personal privilege first and foremost, and the unspoken insinuation that they are the betters in any given situation.
That’s hubris, not compassion, and even well-intentioned hubris is selfishness. Doesn’t take much of push to drive that into the territory of corruption, and further, for corruption to replace original intent.
Hunter Biden represents the most despicable among the despicable. A drug addled, child banging coddled little leftist punk who has ridden his corrupt daddy’s coat tails his entire life, to get what he wants. You cannot ‘defame’ a piece of garbage like that.
Plus he went to Yale Law School. Rhymes with jail.
You are like a defense attorney: you know that your client is guilty as sin, but you still must use certain verbiage to make it seem that he is not guilty.
From May 21
Republicans Refused To Vote Funding For Trump’s Settlement
Congressional Republicans are lashing out over a nearly $1.8 billion fund created by the Department of Justice (DOJ) this week to give payouts to those who claim to have been the target of a “weaponized” government.
Discontent over the fund contributed to senators abruptly deciding to leave town for the Memorial Day weekend rather than passing a party-line budget reconciliation bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol — blowing past the June 1 deadline that President Trump set for the bill. Some Republicans are openly eyeing ways to “kill” the fund.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5890419-republicans-lash-out-anti-weaponization-fund/
…………………………………..
Milhouse and John Say have very short memories. This story is from only 6 weeks ago. Republicans senators left town for Memorial Day without voting on the reconciliation bill because they wanted nothing to do with Trump’s slush fund.
Fox News On Republican Disapproval Of Trump’s Slush Fund
Senate Republicans are pressing pause on their push to fund immigration enforcement after a tense, closed-door meeting.
But it’s not over internal divisions. This time, the fury is directed toward the Trump administration and the surprise “anti-weaponization” fund created by the Department of Justice (DOJ). It comes as Republicans were near the finish line for their $72 billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol.
For now, Republicans are calling it a day and leaving Washington, D.C.
“We will pick up where we left off,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-gop-erupts-over-trump-doj-anti-weaponization-fund-punts-ice-border-patrol-funding
Ted Cruz Describes Republican Fury At Blanche
Screaming, yelling and accusations of self-dealing.
That’s how Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Friday described a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that’s drawn bipartisan opposition.
On his podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” the Texas senator described the meeting as “one of the roughest meetings I’ve seen in my entire time in the Senate.”
“Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said. “My guess is there’re probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed.”
Senate Republicans met with Blanche on Thursday to discuss the fund, which ultimately derailed a vote on a Republican bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, NBC News previously reported.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ted-cruz-senators-screaming-todd-blanche-trump-anti-weaponization-fund-rcna346599
Why is it that you think demonstrating that some republicans – even Trump supporters disagree with me is in anyway meaningful ?
I am not arguing the optics or the politics.
I am arguing the Core moral principle that if you harm someone – you must make them whole and that you mkay also be subject to punitive damages.
I would not be arguing differently if Ro Kohanna’
s tax return was leaked.
So what ?
You still seem to be under the delusion I am a republican or that I give a schiff what Fox or Republicans think on some issue, or that I am going to violate my principles because some group that YOU have identified me as part of is at odds with me
My posts are NOT driven by whose Ox is getting gored – but on what is moral, ethical, constitutional and legal. Not what is republican or democrat nor what is popular.
ATS -= when have I ever claimed to be a republican ?
I am libertarian.
I do not care about the “optics” of this – the IRS violated Trumps rights – people should go to jail, and Trump should be compensated and in this instance the compensation should be significant.
If Republicans wish to bless this settlement or not – that is up to them.
At the same time – that is irrelevant.
Judges have incredibly small say in the settlement civil cases – I do not give a Crap what the Obama appointed judge has said.
I would be happy to support LAWS that preclude the govenrment from rolling over and settling controversial cases – The left has used exactly that strategy to bypass congress and alter the federal govenrment without changing laws.
Trump’s 1.776 B settlement and the anti-weaponzation fund are a far less egregious act than anything Biden and Obama did in “settlements”.
You say it s a “slush fund” – Fine then the IRS canb just pay Trump directly and he can do whatever he wishes with the money.
The relevant questions here are Did the IRS violate the law – then answer is unarguably yes, and the n what should the actual and punative damages be.
And the answer is VERY LARGE – We do not want the IRS to do this ever again – and the IRS has been the epicenter of LOTS of left wing nut misconduct in government.
That needs FIXED.
BTW if this was George Sorros whose Taxes were leaked I would be saying exactly the same thing.
The issue here – and with LOTS of what is discussed on this board is NOT whose ox is getting gored, but what is the correct moral ethical constitutional and legal actions REGARDLESS of whose ox is being gored.
The libertarian solution to the non-violent harm you cause others is to FORCE you to make your victims whole through torts.
Regardless, I am not a republican, I am not republican adjacent. SOMETIMES SOME REPUBLICANS are libertarian adjacent.
Trump is far from libertarian – while at the same time being the closest we have seen to libertarian in the 21st century.
While idiots like you have accused me of being some GOP or Russian bot or Troll of lockstep with MAGA, The FACT is I am libertarian and I think for myself.
My posts are my own, and through more than 6 decades of life I have not cared whether I was standing alone on an issue – only whether I was right.
So why is it you think I care what some or all senate republicans think ?
The issue is a legal one and it is simple.
The IRS leaked tax data of a wealthy celebrity to damage them politically.
That should result in criminal prosecutions and a very large settlement.
PERIOD.
It is only tangentially relevant that wealthy celebrity was Trump in that it is significantly more likely that left wing nuts in the Federal Government would commit a crime like this than those on the right. There are fewer republicans seduced by the idiocy that the ends justifies the means.
Regardless if this was a Republican who leaked Tom Steyer’s tax return – that person should go to jail and Steyer should receive a very large settlement and he can do whatever he wants with it – including contribute it to anti-ice protestors defense funds.
When you receive punative damages for some misconduct of another – that is YOUR MONEY, and you are free to do with it as you please.
While I think the overwhelming majority of J6ers deserve compensation for the abuse of their rights, and the majority of anti-ICE protestors who have been arrested deserve justivce for the actually violent criminal acts they have engaged in – I do not give a schiff if some left wing billionaire wishes to give them money. It is their money to do with as they wish.
I have NEVER challenged the legality of Left Wing Nut billionaires wasting their money on idiotic left wing nut causes – I sometimes challenged their sanity – but it is their money to do with as they please.
“I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years”
But were you any good at it? More importantly, did the students benefit from it or was it a case where a short booklet would have done the same?
I’m quite certain Jonathan is crushed every time you express your outrageous jealousy for his innumerable accomplishments. O wait. That’s right. You were just published in the paper back edition of the Boys Scout’s Manual.
Judge Calls Out Trump’s Bogus Settlement
A federal judge Monday blasted President Trump’s settlement with the IRS, finding that the lawsuit that served as the hook for the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund amounted to collusion as the two parties were never truly averse.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams also sanctions Trump’s attorneys on the case while suggesting Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should also be disciplined.
Trump, who sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, struck an agreement with the IRS in late May to create an “anti-weaponization” fund to provide payments to those who claim to have been wronged by the government.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5966060-trump-irs-settlement-voided-federal-judge/
So what if the judge is an Obama appointee. Even Republicans know this settlement stinks. Republicans are still not sure if they want to confirm Todd Blanche as Attorney General.
Republicans “know” no such thing. The plain fact is that the IRS committed a serious crime against Trump, and he is entitled to compensation. And the people the settlement is intended to benefit are also the victims of serious violations of their rights by the US government, and deserve compensation.
MIhouse, Todd Blanche is Trump’s personal lawyer. That’s what stinks! Legally there has to be a check and balance process here. And you must know that Blanche had NOT been confirmed. Republicans don’t want to defend this settlement to the voters this fall.
Why does the settlement stink ?
Trump is not getting the money. It is HIS rights that were violated, yet instead of a big settlement for Himself – he is essentially giving the money to other victims of govenrment malfeasance.
There is no more conflict here than left wing nut groups suinging Obama and Biden to get those administrations to “settle” by agreeing to do what they really wanted to anyway.
If you want to say Govenrment can not settle claims against it – thats fine – then you must require the appointment of layers to defend the government who will fight everything to the death – even when everyone wishes they would settle.
Sorry I have far more problems with this than Biden and Obama coordinating with left wing nut groups, getting themto sue and then entering into onsent decrees that commit the govenrment to do what the adinistration could not do anyway.
This is just handing over Money Trump is entitled to, to others who got screwed.
John Say, you’re correct with this paragraph.
“If you want to say Govenrment can not settle claims against it – thats fine – then you must require the appointment of layers to defend the government who will fight everything to the death – even when everyone wishes they would settle”.
………………………..
Yes, there has to be someone defending the government here. That’s a legal requirement.
Then why is it never a requirement with all these “consent decrees” that have been made for the last 40-50 years that still shackle us, where the government and the plaintiff were clearly colluding? All the times the environmentalists “sued” the EPA, and “settled” for what they both wanted.
Milhouse, those cases were adjudicated under court supervision. Trump’s settlement was simply between him and his ‘former’ lawyer, Todd Blanche, without any court hearing.
ATS – while the cases were court cases – Settlements are almost entirely outside the domain of judges and the courts.
“Trump’s settlement was simply between him and his ‘former’ lawyer, Todd Blanche, without any court hearing.”
Correct – all settlements are between one party and the other independent of any court hearing.
I am presuming you have never settled anything.
Usually the parties to a settlement are adversarial – but not always. That is an assumption – not a requirement.
Regardless YOU created this scenario – Trump did not.
YOU used the IRS to violate the rights of someone who the people later made president – with authority over the iRS.
The left could have avoided this entirely by not violating Trump’s rights.
ATS
“Yes, there has to be someone defending the government here.”
Correct,
“That’s a legal requirement.”
Incorrect.
That SHOULD be true – but the courts are bound to what IS not what SHOULD BE you are litterally running afoul of Hume’s Guillotine. Fallacy.
You can not reason from what ought to what is.
There are myriads oif examples of Government settling lawsuits against them – often to Acheive fiscal and political purposes to get arround the law.
Biden has done that Obama has done that and they are not the first.
If you wish to change the law – in principle I can support you.
I would be curious how you know what “Republicans know”, and similarly how you know what “they want” ?
Judges have very little latitude with respect to settlements – this is just more left wing nut judicial idiocy.
You do not like the DOJ settling with Trump – do not violate the law and leak his taxes.
Do you think that the left wing nuts government employees have carte Blanche to violate the law just because Trump is president ?
Regardless, the violations occured in the past – Trump is entitled to compensation.
Again do not leak someones tax return
First it violates the law, and next – it is a Tort and that person is entitled to damages.
You do not like the Anti-Weaponization fund ? Fine – just give the money to Trump and he can do with it what he pleases.
Regardless, if you do not want to pay the price do not commit the crime.
Frankly the anti-weaponization fund should make you happy. Again Trump could just take the money for himself.
I will always remember Lindsey Graham for singing Judy Moonlight.
You have a lot of substantial facts incorrect in your article. The Defendant did not remove his lawyers from the case, Judge Wilson decided not to recognize them. Judge Wilson also had granted Byrne permission to appear remotely due to a medical condition that he was hospitalized for several hundred miles away, and then revoked the permission at the last minute, not giving him ample time to adjust.
I believe Byrne is already in an appeals process based upon these gross irregularities.
This is all in the court records, so don’t take my word for it.
Bulldust. Prof T quoted the court record: “When Defendant learned that Ms. Lambert was not qualified to represent him in this case, Defendant also instructed Mr. Neff and Mr. Yu to remove themselves.” You can claim the judge is a brazen liar and blatantly lied on the record; I wouldn’t believe you, but at least it’s a claim. But you can’t claim that’s not what the record says, because it clearly does say it. Unless you’re accusing Prof T of making up that quote.
What you believe judges do not lie on or otherwise doctor the record ?
I beleive what you are quoting above is the JUDGES remarks on the records.
Court records are of what people SAY, and what is admitted into evidence.
Judges say things that are incorrect or partly correct all the time. Sometimes they even correct themselves. Sometimes they are corrected on apeal.
Upstate Farmer and John Say turn blind eyes to all evidence you present them.
They are no better than flat-earthers.
What evidence ?
You are constantly spraying the forum with claims that are nonsense – or are perfectly legal conduct.
As an example you Rant about All fo Trump’s marketing.
So DO NOT BUY FROM HIM. No one held a gun to the head of people buying Trump bibles or steaks or going to Trump U, or Trump Cyrpto.
or …
You litterally want to take peoples freedom to make their own choices from them because you do not like Trump,
and then you call that corruption.
You wonder why no one likes you ? Why it is YOU that people think are tyrants ?
You claim Trump is the authoritarian – but it is YOU who are litterally arguing to deprive others of the right to make their own choices because you do not like them.
You have been asked for evidence – all you have done is produce evidence of your own tyranical nature and of your own abuse of the law.
I do not like everything Trump does. I do not like everything any president does. I do not like everything any other person does.
The fact that I do not find others perfect does not give me the right to control their lives.
You come here and post total nonsense – that is your RIGHT – no one here is trying to take that from you.
But we are doing as Justice Brandeis dictate and responding to bad speech with more speech.
You are an idiot and being called out for it.
It is your right to be an idiot and speak idiocy.
It is everyone elses right to call you out.
If I were to construct my perfect president he would be nothing like Trump. But he would not be like Obama or Biden or Bush or Clinton or …
Unlike you I grasp that I am not going to get perfection.
Trump is far from perfect.
He is however the best president in the 21st century – that unfortunately is not saying much.
But your TDS is boring.
You have burned your credibility.
While I have paid far more attention to your “evidence” than you deserve
You are a liar. You have been caught lying over and over and over again. That BTW is not an insult – it is just the truth.
Wise people – most people do not trust ACTUAL liars.
We all prefer people keep their promises – as politicians go Trump is far better than most there.
But there is a difference between a claim about the future that most everyone knows is not to be taken literally,
And misrepresenting the facts, the law, or the constitution.
You lied about the collusion delusion.
You lied about censoring conservatives on the internet.
You lied about the Hunter Biden laptop.
You lied about Biden’s competence,
You lied repeatedly about Covid.
These are just a FEW of your LIES
These were not promises you failed to keep, they were either knowing or knowable false claims about reality.
When someone shows you who they are – belive the the first time.
Maya Angelou
Why are you entitled to have anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you say ?
Have you corrected your lies ? Have you apologized ?
Your still spraying us all with New lies, False claims or misrepresenting legal conduct as criminal.
Because you do not like it.
Elsewhere an anonymous – maybe you claimed Trump was trying to nationalize elections by firing two election board members.
What you think people have no brain ?
The election commission makes recomendations to the states – the only power they have is over certifying equipment and that continues regardless of the firings. Further only an idiot would claim that Trump WEAKENING federal influence over the states is somehow nationalizing elections. REally ? Do you have that few working brain cells ?
Trump wants the SAVE act passed – so do 80% of americans. That would partly nationalize federal elections – it would do so constitutionally.
Regardless you use “nationalize” is if it is inherently a bad thing – EXCEPT when you are doing it – such as eliminating the senate or the electoral college. Those acts are nationalizing.
Nationaliing MAY be constitutional or unconstitutional Depending on EXACTLY what is being done.
But saying something is being nationalized – does not in and of itself assert whether it is good or bad, constitutional or not.
And you do that nonsense all the time.
The evidence of Sexual misconduct by Platner and Swallwell is good enough to get criminal convictions. There are multiple named victimes who not only make very clear and specific claims – but claims that are falsiable – that can be tested, and that have evidence to support them.
You countrer with whataboutism of he said/she said from lunatics about vague allegations from 30+ years ago.
Thee shoudl have been laughed out of court Instead you made your entire ideology morally culpable by persuing legal and criminal claims that never should have made it into court and then proving that left wing nuts are sufficiently deluded to convict absent evidence.
You people should not be trusted as the local dog catcher – much less on a jury – any jury.
You have $hat yourselves – and no you are pi$$ed because no one beleives you about anything.
They shouldnt.
And you did that to yourself.
OT
Surprise! President Barack Obama nominated Kathleen Williams.
_______________________________________________________________________
“U.S. judge finds Trump misused court in IRS case, refers lawyers for discipline”
Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams excoriated Trump’s personal lawyers and attorneys in his administration, concluding their interests were not opposed to each other as is legally required for civil lawsuits. Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.
– Reuters
So what Trump has had liberal and establishment judges ruling against him since day one. The greater number get overturned at the apellate or Supreme level. Otherwise Trump is losing no more cases than any other president. Your glee is stupid and useless but you just want to bother people and harp on Trump. It also makes you useless in the comment section. You are a clown that brings up Trump no matter the subject of Mr. Turley’s post. How can anyone take you seriously? They cannot.
Judge Williams should be refered to the J board – she is interjecting hereself where she does not belong.
There is no legal requirement for opposing interests.
While circumstances like this where the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not adversarial are rare – and an adversarial relationship is desirable it is not and can not be a requirement of the law. Otherwise ANY instance in which there is not an adversarial relationship can not legally be resolved.
This is a perfect but rare example. When this lawsuit started – Biden was president. Judge Williams is essentially claiming that having won the election – Trump can no longer go forwards with the case. That he can no longer be made whole as a consequence of the IRS criminal abuse of his rights.
Again this is NOT a common occurance – but there are many other ways this can happen.
Lets say John Deer sells a defective lawn tractor that injures a wealthy plantiff, and that plaintiff purchases a controlling interest of JD stock – is JD prohibited from settling the case ?
Myriads of people have run for mayor and been elected as a result of incompetence and personal harm caused by their local govenrment – having won election – are they no longer entitled to be made whole ?
There is ZERO doubt that the IRS illegally released Trump’s tax records – that is both a tort and a crime. People should go to jail, and Trump is entitled to be made whole.
That is true whether Trump is president. It is true even if the person harmed is not Trump. The law and the requirements of the law are the same regardless of who the victim of govenrment is.
This judge is way out over her Ski’s. First Judges have very limited power over settlements. Congress could be law change that with respect to Government settlements – and probably should – though I am not sure what the correct resolution should be. Judges can not decide Policy matters – that is completely out of their domain. Yet very similar non-adversarial lawsuits like this occur over policy matters all the time – Left wing nut advocacy groups Often sue friendly governments to get settlements that then bind government into the future – effectively changing the law without the requirement of going through congress.
You could require all government settlements get approval from congress. But that is NOT the law today.
But you CAN NOT leave this to judges – Politics, Policy and even money are the business of the legislative and to a lessor extent executive branch – they are NOT the domain of the courts.
While I do not like the way Trump talks, I do support most of his vision. I didn’t vote for him but now, I feel differently. Why? We had an administration under Biden that was corrupted by those around him not telling the country that he was in dementia. Draw the line and that means others were manipulating him. I know dementia first hand and this is what I saw prior to the Biden election — the signs were there from his basement podium. Once you live it, you know! It was a disgrace that Biden wasn’t taken out of office — unless they knew the alternative (Harris) was worse. Now the Left is still trying to take Trump down — why? Hateful people eat themselves up and nothing will dispel this — even the future destruction of our country. Now, we see the Dems not supporting going after Iran because of their hate for Trump. How little they fear the future when they live by today’s hate. Pick your battles Dems — today, fight against Iran or tomorrow, see our children and grandkids, living under the constant threat of a nuclear bomb heading West. You don’t have to be a global strategist to see that this is the time to fight for tomorrow’s freedom.
“that status is reserved for the most reviled personalities who cannot be defamed due to the lack of any positive reputation.”
Is Turley trying to make a joke here? Does he consider Biden being largely incompetent and ineffectual in the application of his evil intentions to be a redeeming quality? That is the only way I see Hunter Biden failing to qualify for that “elite” status.
Gas was about $2.00 per gallon when Biden left office. Prices started to spike around February of 2026, when Trump was in office.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/gasoline
Try reading that report again. It says nothing about the price of gas under biden. What was high.
According to BTS the price of Gas on Jan 20, 2025 – when Biden left office was $3.08, yesterday when I filled up I paid 3.11
Clearly you don’t live in “Goofy” Gavin’s once-great-now-communist-one-party-state, California, where the lowest price is $5.29, down only recently from all-time highs.
No I was $3.23 per gallon. That was an artificial price because Biden released gas from the national Energy Reserve to help Harris. It was $4.22 before that and that gas was cheap because Trump filled the reserve his first term when he got gas prices down from Obama’s historic highs. The highest price under Biden was $5.11 on June of 22. That would be $6.03 adjusted for inflation. Biden’s gas was high because of bad Democratic policies. Biden was not trying to save the world from nuclear armegeddon.
Go away with your lies.
Biden came in on Trumps economic success, with it he brought the China flu. Gas prices averaged $2.50 2020 and peaked at $3.78 2022 and have been subject to world unrest due to the ME. The decrease in cost under Biden were greatly due to COVID, people were staying home. Biden also falsely influenced cost as he depleted our strategic national reserves, restricted fracking and held up permits.
You’re either all in or out, and out is at the loss of our nation.
The last time the average price of gasoline was around $2.00 a gallon was in late April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Donald Trump was president.
Travel dropped off a bit when 250,000 Americans died over a few months because Trump failed to contain the contagion.
All that is required for Trump to lower gas prices is kill a million or so Americans.
The death rate from Covid casn be predicted near perfectly in ANY country in the world solely by demographics and geography.
There is ZERO evidence that any public health measure by any country was beneficial with respect to covid.
3 times as many people died from Covid under Biden as under Trump and that is despite the fact that the most deadly strain of Covid – Delta hit in Trump’s term.
Yes, the guy is trouble, with a capital T.
It would be irrational to get behind a guy like that, but some do it, anyway.
Trump has been involved in four thousand lawsuits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
So What ?
Republicans put their support behind a crazy orange guy.
There should be pictures of Trump on gas pumps and jugs of milk.
These price increases happened under him.
Yesterday when I was out the price of Gas was 3.11/gal
Yesterday was 4 months ago.
I saw gas at $0.69.a gallon. See how easy it is to make a claim without providing proof?
I do not owe you proof.
You are free to doubt my claim. But most of us do not live int he peoples republics.
Further while gas prices in my regions are relatively low – they are MUCH lower along the gulf and near refineries.
So there are myriads of others here who have seen gas prices slightly higher and slightly lower than $3.11.
I do not need to prove anything – but I especially do not need to prove what most people can either check or already know with their own eyes.
I do not need to prove that the sun rose today.
“… The case involves a claim by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne that Biden took part in an $800 million bribery scheme involving Iran and failed to defend his claims in court. …” – JT
Has anyone bothered to ask the Iranians (is the claim true)? At least Sec. of State Marco Rubio could make an inquiry (since he’s actively engaged in deliberations with Iran these days).
What happens when this case closes in favor of Biden, time passes, and the Iranians do provide evidence of the bribe? There are many in D.C. the use Matryoshka (Nesting Dolls | Shell Accounts) to cover the trail, I wouldn’t be surprised if the $800 M is found to be floating around somewhere.
“Has anyone bothered to ask the Iranians (is the claim true)?… What happens when this case closes in favor of Biden, time passes, and the Iranians do provide evidence of the bribe?”
It was civil litigation That puts the burden of refuting the claims, and the damage judgement solely on the defendant Byrne. No one else has a (legal) dog in that hunt.
In civil litigation the burden is on the plantif.
Truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim, but the onus is on the defendant to prove it. Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant published the statement, and that it was defamatory, he has satisfied his burden; now the defendant has to prove it was true (or, in the case of a public figure, that he reasonably thought it was true). To do that, he or his attorney has to show up in court! Failure to show up automatically forfeits the case.
Milhouse – in the US to be defamatory the statement must be false and the burden to prove it is false is on the plaintiff.
It is an affirmative defense to prove the statement is true – but it is not REQUIRED to prove that the statement is true.
It is NOT sufficient in the US to merely prove the statement is defamatory.
Further Hunter Biden is a public figure – and he must not only prove the statement was defamatory, and false but that it was made with actual malice.
Has anyone bothered to ask the Iranians (is the claim true)?
Iran and most any Country in the world would know if $800 million were leaving the country.
It would be an easy question to ‘ask & answer’. Hate to see Biden get this Judgement and the $800 million, just because the ‘the question’ was never asked to the Iranians.
“It doesn’t hurt to ask”
Why is it a dumb question? Why would Upchuck rather make an unproductive ad hominem attack instead of answering a question? Is he unable to do so?
Does Upchuck understand that the asking of certain questions is intended to make a point?
Are “dumb” because he and others are unable to answer them?
Is this a dumb definition of what a dumb question is?
If God was a just God, would he have not made annony’s father infertile so we would not have to suffer the likes of annony?
Would that not be a just God?
Or, perhaps, God allowed annony to be born to give us all a glimpse into what hell would look like, suffering annony’s existence?
Do I have a right to question God’s rational thinking? To know the mind of God?
Do I really have to add the /sarc for everyone to get it?
God created the one who shall remain
namegonad-less so as to provide us a moving target.Hunter Biden is like the scourge living in the house at the corner who, upon hearing one neighbor say, “He’s made life hell for everyone on the block,” sues for defamation confident that the old recluse at the other end of the block doesn’t even know who he is.
If Hunter can be defamed the question becomes, who can’t?
I have no doubt justices do not like to be ignored. Seems that it set set off this particular judge. That could be the case or Mr. Byrne (defendant) just ran over the judge’s dog.
Bizarre.