Has anyone seen if Trump even attempted to serve James with anything from yesterday's Florida Suit?

@Ryderbike Sure, I get that in general, but filing a complaint for a TRO alleging imminent irreparable harm before a Preliminary Injunction could be set for hearing without even attaching a proposed TRO seems like prima facie malpractice.

This one looks like more of a publicity stunt than even his other frivolous law suits, and it almost seems like a shame because past the facts, there's juicy legal issues to be had in terms of full faith and credit, transferring assets and states' rights to recruit criminals.

Its pretty noxious to me, but if you really wanted to destroy the "American State" or provoke at least a legal civil war, this might have been fertile grounds for those folks.

Trump's not exactly the only guy who's made his money in a productive blue state and ran with it to a red state. Remember Meyer Lansky?

@LvChris That line got me as well, but in Kisey's defense, he's got an indefensible client, using conventional facts and legal theories.


Alternate facts, and the subjective bias of those claiming or trying to be objective is really what makes Trumpism work, and when you think about that, "objectively according to whom" isn't such a bad answer.

I've been pondering the "reasonable juror" standard a bit recently, not related to politics, but when you cross over into alternate facts, everyone lies, and it's all about us vs them as opposed to a greater us with a shared set of moral or even just functional social values, challenging the very nature of objectivity doesn't seem like a terrible idea, if you've got no better options.