Die 10-Milliarden-Dollar-Klage von Donald Trump gegen die BBC wird nächstes Jahr vor Gericht gehen, entscheidet der Richter
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/donald-trump-10bn-lawsuit-against-the-bbc-next-year-5HjdSH5_2/
Von tylerthe-theatre
Die 10-Milliarden-Dollar-Klage von Donald Trump gegen die BBC wird nächstes Jahr vor Gericht gehen, entscheidet der Richter
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/donald-trump-10bn-lawsuit-against-the-bbc-next-year-5HjdSH5_2/
Von tylerthe-theatre
41 Kommentare
Not sued all those ladies accusing him of being a nonce though
Pathetic
The way he grifts after money whilst being loaded
Looks like we’ll have to cut back on heating to afford the tv licence soon.
He sued everything and everyone for everything except those who called him a paedophile. Discovery phase of legal proceedings is a bitch, n’est-ce pas?
Why does the BBC have to engage with this? What are the consequences if they don’t?
And under what authority can they be forced to pay?
Dear BBC,
We formally notify you that we do not want a single penny of our licence fees to go to this thundercunt.
Yours sincerely,
Everyone in the UK who isn’t Nigel Farage
This will never see the inside of a courtroom, he does this regularly and it’s extremely rare any get this far.
> The BBC previously filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the Florida court lacks „personal jurisdiction“ over the corporation, the court venue is „improper“ and that Mr Trump has „failed to state a claim“, according to court documents.
>
> The corporation argued that it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida and that Mr Trump’s claim that the documentary was available in the US on streaming service BritBox is not true.
That all sounds plausible, so what was the judge’s argument for why they do have jurisdiction over the case?
I’ll be amazed if this doesn’t get thrown out by the BBC’s motion to dismiss, as Florida has no jurisdiction to try this.
This being Trump’s lawfare judiciary though, everything’s possible.
Judge Roy Altman is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society so you couldn’t get a judge more likely to bend to Trump’s authoritarian whim.
If he’s suing for $10bn because of how they made him look, how much will he sue himself for due to how he makes himself look every time he opens his mouth?
He has to prove it has caused him hardship in order to be successful, the documentary was never shown in the US, he was elected soon afterwards so what kind of hardship did he suffer ?
He is trying to claim that he didn’t use those words and that the BBC faked his speech, all the BBC did was edit a long and rambling load of hogwash into a few seconds of ‚highlights‘ to show his mood !
He is literally trying to intimidate every news outlet to prevent them showing him in a bad light so what he actually wants is for news outlets to fake reports about him to show he is good and doing a good job !
He is the most fake person ever !
After they win the BBC should counter sue him for £20bn. He’d be funding Doctor Who for decades.
Absolute waste of time the BBC won’t be paying anything & if it does go to court they can whip out the unredacted Epstein files they have on the Peter File
Does that mean we can sue them for all of the blatant lies that the US media has spread about the UK? FOX news would go bankrupt
Don’t worry, he’ll be impeached and have bigger issues by then.
A year away. One wonders if he’ll still be alive then, given his age and reports of his health in decline?
What happens if he dies between then and now? He is quite old and clearly unwell, so there is a non zero chance.
Tv licence has already gone up people but expect more rises we will have to pay for the bbc cock up, not just paying damages but all the court cost and fees,
Oh and the BBC said the fees are going up because
would give the corporation a “stable financial footing to deliver for audiences and support the wider creative industries”
So why is nearly everything a repeat and new stuff is mostly woke
Why stop at $10bn? Why not $100 or a trillion?
These American lawsuits are stupid. It’s just think of a number and double it 10 times.
BBC should countersue for 15 million for slander for all the insults he throws at the BBC.
in fact every single person he has attacked should sue him for 10 billion when he leaves office
so, I work in (UK) law. I said that the only way this case gets to trial is if Trump gets a friendly judge (he was hoping for Aileen). He got second best, Altman, who owes his current position to the plaintiff
How is this allowed? This is corrupt.
I expect that the BBC’s legal team will be filing multiple motions on this factor alone.
Hasn’t got a leg to stand on, the BBC can and should make a mockery of him, hope the exploration is as nasty as possible.
What a colossal waste of tax payers money on both sides.
We all know trump did it.
US courts have no jurisdiction here, so BBC should just ignore them.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Thank god I never needed a TV licence as I’d hate to think my money was part of it (I know this makes no sense and the reality is all tax payers will be footing the bill in some way)
This could get very petty, with journalists banned from The White House and so on.
Hopefully the BBC hold their nerve and don’t go for a quick out of court settlement.
Lol kangaroo court in Florida not a chance BBC can win that case.
The BBC should just keep delaying and appealing for long enough until he is out of office then tell him to fuck off. Nobody will care at that point as all his sycophants will have abandoned him for the next leader of their cult.
Interesting: Part the the BBCs defence to reduce damages can be to show that the plaintiff already had a bad reputation and can proceed to list sexual assault findings, racism, Jan 6 conduct, impreachment, felonies, the plethora of on camera lies, impressions of a disabled man etc etc. This could massively backfire when it’s all debated in court and watched by the global media.
Bring popcorn.
Just keep finding reasons for delaying, like he does.
Tbf he’s only suing the Beeb because it’s the one media organisation that operates over there that isn’t scared to call out this muppet for what he truly is
Excellent news I hope it contributes to the extinction of the BBC and the license fee.
The BBCs editing of the footage was utterly incompetent. It’s allowed a grifting paedophile room to sue it. Trumps a liar and abuser and when reporting on him only the facts are needed he’s so bad.
To edit footage in order to change the narrative was criminally negligent. I think the BBC will have a problem defending this and we’ll pay the cost.
I’d be surprised if DT even makes it to 2027. Presumably they can’t pursue a legal claim if the person filing it has.. expired?
He’s playing with fire. He’s guilty but thinks the UK will roll over before trial.
This lawsuit is straight out of the late Roy Cohn playbook who happened to be Trump’s former lawyer. Another frivolous lawsuit without merit designed solely to tie up the BBC in litigation for years.
You’d think a judge appointed by the plaintiff would recuse themselves from proceedings…
How can someone say in going to sue you..even though that person is clearly in the wrong ..but that said person gets to benefit from it. At what point does common sense prevail?
Doubtful the fat old pedophile will make it to next year.
Law suits with or without any legitimacy are his lifetime MO. Win or lose, the BBC licence fee will be £1,000 soon. He’s got hundreds of millions of dollars of free lawyers services:
Law Firms Agreeing to Provide Free (Pro Bono) Work in Relation to Trump
1. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
• Agreed to provide roughly $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes backed by the Trump administration under a deal to have an executive order against the firm rescinded. 
2. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
• Entered a deal with the Trump administration involving roughly $100 million in pro bono legal work for administration-supported causes. 
3. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
• Agreed to provide approximately $100 million in free legal services under a similar arrangement. 
4. Milbank LLP
• Also reported to have cut a deal to provide pro bono work to the administration, similar to the Skadden deal. 
5. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
• Pledged about $125 million in pro bono work as part of the larger series of agreements. 
6. A&O Shearman (Shearman & Sterling)
• Also agreed to roughly $125 million in pro bono services. 
7. Latham & Watkins LLP
• Another firm that committed $125 million of free legal work. 
8. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
• Committed $125 million in pro bono legal services under these deals. 
9. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
• Agreed to roughly $100 million in free legal services in conjunction with the other firms.