ADVERTISEMENT

Injured cops sue Trump, Trump campaign and rightwingers

Stuffshot

Stuffshot

Hall of Famer
Feb 20, 2008
13,563
6,907
113
I have a couple questions, but here's the story ...
www.cnn.com

Seven US Capitol Police officers sue former President Trump, Stop the Steal organizers over January 6 riot | CNN Politics

Seven US Capitol Police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, Stop the Steal rally organizers and members of far-right extremist groups, accusing them of spreading lies, using White supremacist sentiments to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and ultimately bearing...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

... and here's the link to the actual lawsuit:


1. What will it cost Trump to defend this? Is $50,000 to $100,000 out of the question? More than that?

2. The complaint said they sued Trump "solely in his personal capacity." Since Trump was in office on Jan. 6 (giving speeches and statements from the White House grounds) can the Plaintiffs' language operate to keep Trump from claiming some kind of immunity for an official act? Are the plaintiffs able to carve out Trump's personal actions from his official acts?

Thanks in advance.
 
jet812 said:
Who should the cops injured in BLM riots sue?
Click to expand...
blm cops were city cops that can file state worker's comp claims. they'll get paid out for their injuries. no problemo.
Stuffshot said:
I have a couple questions, but here's the story ...
www.cnn.com

Seven US Capitol Police officers sue former President Trump, Stop the Steal organizers over January 6 riot | CNN Politics

Seven US Capitol Police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, Stop the Steal rally organizers and members of far-right extremist groups, accusing them of spreading lies, using White supremacist sentiments to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and ultimately bearing...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

... and here's the link to the actual lawsuit:


1. What will it cost Trump to defend this? Is $50,000 to $100,000 out of the question? More than that?

2. The complaint said they sued Trump "solely in his personal capacity." Since Trump was in office on Jan. 6 (giving speeches and statements from the White House grounds) can the Plaintiffs' language operate to keep Trump from claiming some kind of immunity for an official act? Are the plaintiffs able to carve out Trump's personal actions from his official acts?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
sounds like social justice warrior lawyers or whatever team calls them. this is a bullshit lawsuit. these cops are federal employees and federal worker's comp is impossible. literally. no one will take a federal worker's comp case no matter how injured you are so they are trying desperately to file something to get some money. if they had a state claim for comp they'd get comp but the negligence claim would likely be barred by the fireman's rule. bs lawsuit. trump's cost in defending same based on a variety of defenses should be next to nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312, JamieDimonsBalls and larsIU
IU_Hickory said:
The person that injured them.
Click to expand...
hahahahahaha you think this guy has deep pockets? thank god there's worker's comp for the more than 2,000 cops injured during the summer of love. job is shitty enough without taking away benefits for injuries in a high risk job.

www.cnn.com

St. Louis man arrested in fatal shooting of retired police officer David Dorn | CNN

A St. Louis man has been charged with murder in the death of retired St. Louis police officer David Dorn, who was shot during a pawn shop burglary in last week's protests in the city.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: ulrey and stollcpa
mcmurtry66 said:
blm cops were city cops that can file state worker's comp claims. they'll get paid out for their injuries. no problemo.

sounds like social justice warrior lawyers or whatever team calls them. this is a bullshit lawsuit. these cops are federal employees and federal worker's comp is impossible. literally. no one will take a federal worker's comp case no matter how injured you are so they are trying desperately to file something to get some money. if they had a state claim for comp they'd get comp but the negligence claim would likely be barred by the fireman's rule. bs lawsuit. trump's cost in defending same based on a variety of defenses should be next to nothing.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know federal workers comp was such a problem. How do they get away with that these days? Biden and the Democrats want to eliminate the gig economy partly so state workers comp would be available for those workers.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
I didn’t know federal workers comp was such a problem. How do they get away with that these days? Biden and the Democrats want to eliminate the gig economy partly so state workers comp would be available for those workers.
Click to expand...
The Fed Act is a totally different animal. State comp you get a contingency. Usually 25 percent of recovery. If it's a permanent total you and the client can get a weekly check for life.

Fed is a horrible procedural nightmare and no contingency. You submit an hourly bill at the end and hope they deem it reasonable and feel like paying it. I've had several severely injured postal workers that no one would take on a referral. Procedures, coordinating treatment, med liens. Forget it. State comp ER directs treatment Fed you are on your own then have a lien quagmire to deal with for what amounts to a shit fee
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
mcmurtry66 said:
The Fed Act is a totally different animal. State comp you get a contingency. Usually 25 percent of recovery. If it's a permanent total you and the client can get a weekly check for life.

Fed is a horrible procedural nightmare and no contingency. You submit an hourly bill at the end and hope they deem it reasonable and feel like paying it. I've had several severely injured postal workers that no one would take on a referral. Procedures, coordinating treatment, med liens. Forget it. State comp ER directs treatment Fed you are on your own
Click to expand...
Does the state contingency fee not come out of what the client would otherwise be entitled to?

Years ago I was in LA for depos and was amazed by all of the bus stop benches with ads for attorneys for workers comp "stress" claims. I seem to recall that California was one of the only states back then (early 90s) that allowed such claims.

One of the crazier things out of Cali recently* is a law that states a work made for hire clause in an independent contractor agreement will make that person an employee under state law, including the requirement for workers comp, etc. A "work made for hire" clause falls under federal copyright law, vesting ownership in the "employer." However, except for true employees (where a "work made for hire" clause is not even required), in 90% of the agreements I have seen that include this clause it's completely useless. (A non-employee work made for hire clause only works for certain specific types of works.) Yet, under Cali law if you include it you suddenly have a new employee. I believe that folks in the entertainment industry pushed for the law.

Just one more reason to reflexively object to any provision applying Cali law in most agreements.

*I thought the law in question was relatively new (last 5-6 years), but I'm no longer sure if that's the case. It could be an old law that only recently got legs due to court rulings. Either way, I automatically axe the clause since a straight up assignment clause does the trick in almost all instances (with some caveats, of course).
 
Noodle said:
Does the state contingency fee not come out of what the client would otherwise be entitled to?

Years ago I was in LA for depos and was amazed by all of the bus stop benches with ads for attorneys for workers comp "stress" claims. I seem to recall that California was one of the only states back then (early 90s) that allowed such claims.

One of the crazier things out of Cali recently* is a law that states a work made for hire clause in an independent contractor agreement will make that person an employee under state law, including the requirement for workers comp, etc. A "work made for hire" clause falls under federal copyright law, vesting ownership in the "employer." However, except for true employees (where a "work made for hire" clause is not even required), in 90% of the agreements I have seen that include this clause it's completely useless. (A non-employee work made for hire clause only works for certain specific types of works.) Yet, under Cali law if you include it you suddenly have a new employee. I believe that folks in the entertainment industry pushed for the law.

Just one more reason to reflexively object to any provision applying Cali law in most agreements.

*I thought the law in question was relatively new (last 5-6 years), but I'm no longer sure if that's the case. It could be an old law that only recently got legs due to court rulings. Either way, I automatically axe the clause since a straight up assignment clause does the trick in almost all instances (with some caveats, of course).
Click to expand...
It does indeed. I had a "stress" case once but it was called mental. cop rolled up on the scene of a guy who had an ax stuck in his head. still alive. he blew real hard like a bulldog to get the blood out of his face and shot blood into her eyes. because of health privacy laws we couldn't find out whether he had HIV, Hep, etc. so she was stressed for years wondering. she got paid but not a lot.

man noodle that is wild. i've never heard of such a thing. work made for hire. that is wild.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
The Fed Act is a totally different animal. State comp you get a contingency. Usually 25 percent of recovery. If it's a permanent total you and the client can get a weekly check for life.

Fed is a horrible procedural nightmare and no contingency. You submit an hourly bill at the end and hope they deem it reasonable and feel like paying it. I've had several severely injured postal workers that no one would take on a referral. Procedures, coordinating treatment, med liens. Forget it. State comp ER directs treatment Fed you are on your own then have a lien quagmire to deal with for what amounts to a shit fee
Click to expand...
AH . . . I get it.

FWIW, I always thought that workers comp practice was too much of a gravy train. No serious liability issues and damages determined by statutory schedules. Not much room for lawyer skills. Most lawyers used WC as a lead in for tort claims. The worker may not know that he has a third party claim until he sees a lawyer for a comp claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
mcmurtry66 said:
hahahahahaha you think this guy has deep pockets? thank god there's worker's comp for the more than 2,000 cops injured during the summer of love. job is shitty enough without taking away benefits for injuries in a high risk job.

www.cnn.com

St. Louis man arrested in fatal shooting of retired police officer David Dorn | CNN

A St. Louis man has been charged with murder in the death of retired St. Louis police officer David Dorn, who was shot during a pawn shop burglary in last week's protests in the city.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're laughing. Crimes committed during a protest are just that, crimes.

I don't claim to know how deep his pockets are but there is nothing incorrect about my response.

Whoever committed crimes during the BLM protests, whether a BLMer or Proud Boy/white supremacist counter protestor, they are responsible for what they do.

Just like someone instigating violence would be responsible for their part but yet I don't recall any dem politician doing anything but condemning riots/violence.

www.reuters.com

Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned violent protests in the last three months

Tens of thousands of social media users are posting memes that claim that Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has been silent for over three months on the issues of rioting and violence and has only just denounced them because of a dip in the polls. This claim is false: Joe Biden has...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
CO. Hoosier said:
AH . . . I get it.

FWIW, I always thought that workers comp practice was too much of a gravy train. No serious liability issues and damages determined by statutory schedules. Not much room for lawyer skills. Most lawyers used WC as a lead in for tort claims. The worker may not know that he has a third party claim until he sees a lawyer for a comp claim.
Click to expand...
For sure. There's a meat chart telling you how much each body part is worth. Most my clients were cops and unless they were hit by a car on the way to an incident their third party claims were barred by the fireman's rule
 
mcmurtry66 said:
It does indeed. I had a "stress" case once but it was called mental. cop rolled up on the scene of a guy who had an ax stuck in his head. still alive. he blew real hard like a bulldog to get the blood out of his face and shot blood into her eyes. because of health privacy laws we couldn't find out whether he had HIV, Hep, etc. so she was stressed for years wondering. she got paid but not a lot.

man noodle that is wild. i've never heard of such a thing. work made for hire. that is wild.
Click to expand...
I would say that officer should be entitled to workers comp in a situation like that. I do see that some states provide stress/mental health workers comp to first responders (https://www.gerberholderlaw.com/workers-comp-ptsd-by-state/).

As for the work made for hire problem, the big issue is that if you contract with someone, say, to write a piece of software for you, they will own the copyright in that software unless you have a written agreement assigning copyright ownership to you (or a proper word made for hire clause). Without ownership of the copyright, you can likely still use that software in the manner intended, but you will not have the right to modify the software (i.e., create a "derivative work"), or do other things with it. Can cause real problems years later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sope Creek and mcmurtry66
mcmurtry66 said:
It does indeed. I had a "stress" case once but it was called mental. cop rolled up on the scene of a guy who had an ax stuck in his head. still alive. he blew real hard like a bulldog to get the blood out of his face and shot blood into her eyes. because of health privacy laws we couldn't find out whether he had HIV, Hep, etc. so she was stressed for years wondering. she got paid but not a lot.

man noodle that is wild. i've never heard of such a thing. work made for hire. that is wild.
Click to expand...
I only did a couple WC cases early in my career. Too boring for me. I’ve represented A few employers on worker on worker sexual harassment/assault/stalking tort claims. All were dismissed because I argued the workers comp bar. The third one was more aggravated, made the local news, and the employee/perp was the business owner’s son. The legislature then changed the statute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
IU_Hickory said:
Not sure why you're laughing. Crimes committed during a protest are just that, crimes.

I don't claim to know how deep his pockets are but there is nothing incorrect about my response.

Whoever committed crimes during the BLM protests, whether a BLMer or Proud Boy/white supremacist counter protestor, they are responsible for what they do.

Just like someone instigating violence would be responsible for their part but yet I don't recall any dem politician doing anything but condemning riots/violence.

www.reuters.com

Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned violent protests in the last three months

Tens of thousands of social media users are posting memes that claim that Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has been silent for over three months on the issues of rioting and violence and has only just denounced them because of a dip in the polls. This claim is false: Joe Biden has...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
Mhmm. Lawyers will be lining up for those cases to secure their one third of zero
 
mcmurtry66 said:
For sure. There's a meat chart telling you how much each body part is worth. Most my clients were cops and unless they were hit by a car on the way to an incident their third party claims were barred by the fireman's rule
Click to expand...
LMAO Meat chart?! Never heard that term.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
So evil. My favorite is truck patch. That's when a guy works for a firm but is secretly running his own cases too. Boss caught him running a truck patch and canned him lol
Click to expand...
This is the only meat chart I deal with:
Beef%20Retail%20Cuts%20Chart%202018.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66 and HooDatGuy
Noodle said:
Does the state contingency fee not come out of what the client would otherwise be entitled to?

Years ago I was in LA for depos and was amazed by all of the bus stop benches with ads for attorneys for workers comp "stress" claims. I seem to recall that California was one of the only states back then (early 90s) that allowed such claims.

One of the crazier things out of Cali recently* is a law that states a work made for hire clause in an independent contractor agreement will make that person an employee under state law, including the requirement for workers comp, etc. A "work made for hire" clause falls under federal copyright law, vesting ownership in the "employer." However, except for true employees (where a "work made for hire" clause is not even required), in 90% of the agreements I have seen that include this clause it's completely useless. (A non-employee work made for hire clause only works for certain specific types of works.) Yet, under Cali law if you include it you suddenly have a new employee. I believe that folks in the entertainment industry pushed for the law.

Just one more reason to reflexively object to any provision applying Cali law in most agreements.

*I thought the law in question was relatively new (last 5-6 years), but I'm no longer sure if that's the case. It could be an old law that only recently got legs due to court rulings. Either way, I automatically axe the clause since a straight up assignment clause does the trick in almost all instances (with some caveats, of course).
Click to expand...
Do you also strike arbitration clauses, mandatory pre-suit mediation clauses, clauses requiring the individual claimant to split fees with corporate employers and clauses requiring trial/arbitration/mediation to be conducted in faraway, expensive big cities hundreds of miles away from the employee's place of work?

All of those types of clauses are horribly unfair to a little guy employee with a little claim. They all seem intended to protect the big bad employer from having to go to court in the location where the employer chose to locate its facilities.
 
Stuffshot said:
I have a couple questions, but here's the story ...
www.cnn.com

Seven US Capitol Police officers sue former President Trump, Stop the Steal organizers over January 6 riot | CNN Politics

Seven US Capitol Police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, Stop the Steal rally organizers and members of far-right extremist groups, accusing them of spreading lies, using White supremacist sentiments to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and ultimately bearing...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

... and here's the link to the actual lawsuit:


1. What will it cost Trump to defend this? Is $50,000 to $100,000 out of the question? More than that?

2. The complaint said they sued Trump "solely in his personal capacity." Since Trump was in office on Jan. 6 (giving speeches and statements from the White House grounds) can the Plaintiffs' language operate to keep Trump from claiming some kind of immunity for an official act? Are the plaintiffs able to carve out Trump's personal actions from his official acts?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
It'd cost a minimum of $50k [on edit: for each defendant] to get through sufficient discovery and file a motion to dismiss here in the ATL . . . in DC? I'd guess a minimum of $100k [on edit: for each defendant] for discovery and a MtD, even upon facts favorable to the defendants.

Interestingly, paragraph 203 alleges a basis for negligence per se under a DC statute. And paragraph D of the plea for damages includes a request for punitive damages.

The defendants will have to win at the MtD stage, or on appeal. In other words, they'll have to win on the law . . . . A jury in DC isn't a trifling matter if there's even minimally sufficient evidentiary support for these claims.
 
Last edited:
Stuffshot said:
Do you also strike arbitration clauses, mandatory pre-suit mediation clauses, clauses requiring the individual claimant to split fees with corporate employers and clauses requiring trial/arbitration/mediation to be conducted in faraway, expensive big cities hundreds of miles away from the employee's place of work?

All of those types of clauses are horribly unfair to a little guy employee with a little claim. They all seem intended to protect the big bad employer from having to go to court in the location where the employer chose to locate its facilities.
Click to expand...
I very, very rarely deal with employment contracts. Cannot remember the last time I did (other than to interpret one that someone else wrote).
 
Sope Creek said:
It'd cost a minimum of $50k [on edit: for each defendant] to get through sufficient discovery and file a motion to dismiss here in the ATL . . . in DC? I'd guess a minimum of $100k [on edit: for each defendant] for discovery and a MtD, even upon facts favorable to the defendants.

Interestingly, paragraph 203 alleges a basis for negligence per se under a DC statute. And paragraph D of the plea for damages includes a request for punitive damages.

The defendants will have to win at the MtD stage, or on appeal. In other words, they'll have to win on the law . . . . A jury in DC isn't a trifling matter if there's even minimally sufficient evidentiary support for these claims.
Click to expand...
These guys were injured during the course and scope of their employment sope. That's comp. Unless somehow the cap cops aren't fed ees FECA is the exclusive remedy - no civil actions
 
Last edited:
mcmurtry66 said:
These guys were injured during the course and scope of their employment sope. That's comp. Unless somehow the cap cops aren't fed ees FECA is the exclusive remedy - no civil actions
Click to expand...
Might be they're not doing it for damages . . . might be they want the discovery prior to the MtD.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
These guys were injured during the course and scope of their employment sope. That's comp. Unless somehow the cap cops aren't fed ees FECA is the exclusive remedy - no civil actions
Click to expand...
It looks like the DC statute doesn't preclude claims against non-employers. Code of District Columbia Section 32-1504 says:

The compensation to which an employee is entitled under this chapter shall constitute the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer, or any collective-bargaining agent of the employer’s employees and any employee, officer, director, or agent of such employer, insurer, or collective-bargaining agent (while acting within the scope of his employment) for any illness, injury, or death arising out of and in the course of his employment; provided, that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action at law for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, nor that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, nor that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee.

I'd guess that Trump might fall into the "officer" exclusion, but the case against the Oath Keepers, Roger Stone, etc. looks like it's a go. I say "might" because Trump's actions that day may be deemed outside the scope of his employment . . . in fact, the lawsuit explicitly lists Trump as a defendant "solely in his personal capacity".

BTW, I love that the "Stop the Steal" was organized by a guy born Ali Abdul-Razaq Akbar. You can't make this stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
Sope Creek said:
It looks like the DC statute doesn't preclude claims against non-employers. Code of District Columbia Section 32-1504 says:

The compensation to which an employee is entitled under this chapter shall constitute the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer, or any collective-bargaining agent of the employer’s employees and any employee, officer, director, or agent of such employer, insurer, or collective-bargaining agent (while acting within the scope of his employment) for any illness, injury, or death arising out of and in the course of his employment; provided, that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action at law for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, nor that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, nor that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee.

I'd guess that Trump might fall into the "officer" exclusion, but the case against the Oath Keepers, Roger Stone, etc. looks like it's a go. I say "might" because Trump's actions that day may be deemed outside the scope of his employment . . . in fact, the lawsuit explicitly lists Trump as a defendant "solely in his personal capacity".

BTW, I love that the "Stop the Steal" was organized by a guy born Ali Abdul-Razaq Akbar. You can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
Lol for sure. I'm sure the personal capacity is an attempt to circumvent the immunity. I didn't read the lawsuit. Are they DC cops? I thought they were fed Capitol cops which would fall under FECA. Comp under FECA is the sole remedy - you can't circumvent a comp claim to pursue a civil action - as I understand it.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
Lol for sure. I'm sure the personal capacity is an attempt to circumvent the immunity. I didn't read the lawsuit. Are they DC cops? I thought they were fed Capitol cops which would fall under FECA. Comp under FECA is the sole remedy - you can't circumvent a comp claim to pursue a civil action - as I understand it.
Click to expand...
That seems unconstitutional to me. If I run over a federal employee while the employee is on the job, the employee can’t sue me? That seems to be an unconstitutional deprivation of a property right.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
That seems unconstitutional to me. If I run over a federal employee while the employee is on the job, the employee can’t sue me? That seems to be an unconstitutional deprivation of a property right.
Click to expand...
CO. Hoosier said:
That seems unconstitutional to me. If I run over a federal employee while the employee is on the job, the employee can’t sue me? That seems to be an unconstitutional deprivation of a property right.
Click to expand...
Not sure On fed. In state he files comp claim and third party against you. Comp gets credit set off from third party. If hurt doing what your actual job is then no third party. Fireman's rule.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
That seems unconstitutional to me. If I run over a federal employee while the employee is on the job, the employee can’t sue me? That seems to be an unconstitutional deprivation of a property right.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether you're a fellow employee of officer, director or representative of the injured party's employer. If so, workers comp . . . if not, then negligence/intentional torts would apply.

I once had a case that was the inverse of this. A claimant sued a church for damages incurred when the pastor of the church sexually molested at least one child at the child care center that used by the church's name . . . and was run by the pastor's wife. I represented the church, and filed a MtD based on the actionable activity - the molestation - was outside of the pastor's scope of employment. (I cited a Florida case in which a state trooper pulled over a woman, then raped her . . . on appeal the court said that rape was not within the trooper's scope of employment.) Of course, those cases were in the old days . . . early 80s - I haven't kept up with how the scope of employment rules have developed since then.

Seems to me that the complaint is drafted in a way to avoid the application of Workers Compensation rules . . . and might be successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

Clarence Thomas

Replies
21
Views
468
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
C

Latest Trump/Biden poll from NH

Replies
140
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
DANC
D
Circlejoe

Racial animosity among Trump voters

Replies
77
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
bailey777
bailey777
A

NY AG sues Trump and family for $250 million fraud

Replies
23
Views
497
The Water Cooler
sglowrider
sglowrider
C

Georgia- The Freeman case...

Replies
0
Views
684
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back