In general, there needs to be a genuine controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant for the court to exercise jurisdiction and, absent settlement, resolve it, and where - as here - the plaintiff has the authority to control the defendant, there really isn’t a controversy. One might argue - and I suppose T34XCF’s attorney is prepared to argue - that T34XCF cannot control what IRS and Treasury do because he’s seeking redress for an injury he sustained in his personal capacity. Well, do we really believe that? If not, why should a judge? This would be a nice issue for the court to hold a hearing on, take testimony etc. But I doubt that will happen.
I should add that there might be another, or more, reasons, why this doesn’t belong in court - usually, parties plaintiff aren’t as transparently greedy, so I’m not aware of close precedent for this situation (also, the requirement of a case or controversy has exceptions that state courts may recognize). So much new ground, with Donnie at the helm!
I dunno. I think Collins would balk at Cannon or Rao, as would Murkowski. Maybe even Fetterman. We’d still need two more Republican defections, though.
It is in court. Trumpstein filed a lawsuit against the IRS under his previous administration. Has the case been dismissed? No. So my question is can the current Trumpstein DOJ settle this filed lawsuit before it goes to trial with “private citizen” plaintiff Donald Jessica Trumpstein? It is a simple question
Google AI says that the case is on hold while the DOJ and trump’s lawyers discuss a settlement but that the judge has to review and approve the settlement and that he could either dismiss the case, reject the settlement and send the case to trial or appoint a special counsel to represent the people due to the inherent conflicts of interest between the two parties…..what of this is true?
Good morning. Yes, the case could settle, and should settle if there really was any injury. And yes, I know that the case is pending, and has not been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; but note that the Judge could do that at any time if, as I suggest, she concludes that it is collusive. Possibly, she won’t do that but instead treat the allegations in the complaint as true and indulge the fiction that Trump was genuinely injured in some manner by the release of private tax information and she doesn’t want to countenance a “wrong without a remedy.” hmm.
“Google AI says that the case is on hold while the DOJ and trump’s lawyers discuss a settlement but that the judge has to review and approve the settlement and that he could either dismiss the case, reject the settlement and send the case to trial or appoint a special counsel to represent the people due to the inherent conflicts of interest between the two parties…..what of this is true?”
I don’t know whether the court must approve any settlement under 26 USC sec 7431 (tax was not my area), but in general federal courts can review proposed settlements against federal government agencies for their fairness, and reject them if appropriate. So that could happen here. IF you look at the statute I cited, you’ll see it identifies the types of damages recoverable by persons whose tax information has been wrongfully disclosed. I suspect that the Judge might have a concern with a settlement of, say, 10 million (or whatever it is he’s seeking), and set the matter for trial, but leave the option to the parties of going back to the table, perhaps with the assistance of a court-appointed monitor, and negotiating an amount that more accurately reflects what damages the 34-count-Convicted Felon may have actually sustained,
You seem concerned that T34XCF is going to soak the Treasury for a bogus claim in an astronomic amount. Yes, me too, but I don’t think the court has to countenance it. I should note though, that Carter Page, whom you may remember, was able to settle a claim against the United States arising out of alleged surveillance in connection with the investigation of potential Russian collusion, for a sum that was not formally disclosed at the time while an appeal to SCOTUS was pending (lower courts having dismissed his case - an anonymous source said it was 1.25M but to my knowledge the amount is not a matter of public record)
Though that is the case, what is at stake here is his job. And he’s graded by the manipulator-in-chief on his performance in front of the camera, which is why he’s made such a desperate effort. Everyone knows that he’ll withdraw the suit as soon as he’s summoned for a deposition. But that can take a while, and the move keeps him in his job, at least until something else goes horribly wrong and the boss starts looking around for a head to cut off.
Last month, I reported that FBI personnel were alarmed by what they said was erratic behavior and excessive drinking by Patel. (The FBI director has denied the allegations and filed a defamation suit against The Atlantic and me.) After my story appeared, I heard from people in Patel’s orbit and people he has met at public functions, who told me that it is not unusual for him to travel with a supply of personalized branded bourbon.
The bottles bear the imprint of the Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, and are engraved with the words “Kash Patel FBI Director,” as well as a rendering of an FBI shield. Surrounding the shield is a band of text featuring Patel’s director title and his favored spelling of his first name: Ka$h. An eagle holds the shield in its talons, along with the number 9, presumably a reference to Patel’s place in the history of FBI directors.
In some cases, the 750-milliliter bottles bear Patel’s signature, with “#9” there as well. One such bottle popped up on an online auction site shortly after my story appeared, and The Atlantic later purchased it. (The person who sold it to us did not want to be named, but said that the bottle was a gift from Patel at an event in Las Vegas.)
