declined that invitation<\/a>, saying he had no connection to Hillary Clinton. Middlebrooks also accused Trump\u2019s lawyers of filing the suit in a remote clerk\u2019s office in an unsuccessful bid to have it assigned to a Trump appointee, Judge Aileen Cannon.<\/p>\nCannon was later assigned to another dispute of intense interest to Trump: his suit seeking to get a special master appointed to oversee the handling of records seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate during an FBI raid in August aimed at recovering records that appeared to be classified.<\/p>\n
In the Thursday order, Middlebrooks contended that Trump\u2019s attorneys knowingly misrepresented facts in the far-ranging lawsuit, which accused a diverse range of defendants of intentionally sabotaging Trump\u2019s presidential bid by raising false claims of Russian influence over his 2016 presidential campaign. He also accused them of using the lawsuit as a ploy to raise political contributions, calling it \u201cperformative litigation for purposes of fundraising and political statements.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge said Trump\u2019s lawyers pressed on with claims that were farcical or false, even after being put on notice that they were erroneous. In particular, he zeroed in on the suit\u2019s assertion that Dolan, a Virginia public relations executive, was part of a conspiracy to tie Trump to Russian influence operations.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe pleadings in this case contained factual allegations that were either knowingly false or made in reckless disregard for the truth,\u201d wrote Middlebrooks.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr. Trump\u2019s lawyers were warned about the lack of foundation for their factual contentions [and] turned a blind eye towards information in their possession,\u201d the judge added. \u201cThe lawyers failed to conduct a pre-filing inquiry into the allegations against Mr. Dolan and have continued to advance Plaintiff\u2019s false claims based upon nothing but conjecture, speculation, and guesswork.\u201d<\/p>\n
Middlebrooks threw out the initial version of Trump\u2019s suit and declared a revised version to be \u201cin its entirety, frivolous.\u201d He said the case was inherently implausible.<\/p>\n
\u201cNot just initiated by a shotgun pleading, this was a shotgun lawsuit,\u201d the judge opined. \u201cThirty-one individuals and organizations were summoned to court, forced to hire lawyers to defend against frivolous claims. The only common thread against them was Mr. Trump\u2019s animus.\u201d<\/p>\n
Middlebrooks also suggested the suit was part of a pattern of abuse of the court system for political purposes. He seemed to urge disciplinary action against the lawyers involved, arguing that a federal court rule that allows punishment for frivolous filings probably would not be sufficient to stem such activity.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo who is responsible for this case and others like it? The rule of law is undermined by the toxic combination of political fundraising with legal fees paid by political action committees, reckless and factually untrue statements by lawyers at rallies and in the media, and efforts to advance a political narrative through lawsuits without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cLawyers are enabling this behavior and I am pessimistic that Rule 11 alone can effectively stem this abuse. Aspects may be beyond the purview of the judiciary, requiring attention of the Bar and disciplinary authorities.”<\/p>\n
Trump is appealing the judge\u2019s decision to toss the suit out. His opening brief at the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is due later this month.<\/p>\n