Judge is taking the position that the lawsuit does not include any settlement

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The lawsuit was void due to a lack of a "case or controversy" and is not mentioned in the motion to dismiss. The court is in effect ruling that this settlement is not part of the lawsuit and has no force or effect.

Link to tweet

NEWS A federal judge closes Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, noting there's "no settlement of record" because DOJ never mentioned one on the docket. We'll see if that upends the $1.776B fund to Trump's allies.

Again, the court had no jurisdiction in this case due to a lack of a case or controversy. There will be some litigation on this "settlement"

[rzemanfl]

1. DOJ

Department of Jerks.

[rzemanfl]

2. Who, pray tell, has standing

to litigate this further?

[dweller]

3. Why is this not getting more coverage ?

I see a dozen posts here saying the $1.8b settlement is a done deal .

They both can’t be true

😐



✌🏻

[vapor2]

7. Per MS NOW, congress can block it and/or taxpayers can perhaps block it.

Sick of this demented gezer stealing our money. Call republicans and voice your opinion on this theft

[dweller]

8. Block what ?

According to above , there is no settlement .
No settlement files were submitted nor filed .



Read Ms Toad’s post below .


✌🏻

[Ms. Toad]

4. Interesting.

That actually matches the reporting, which I assumed was incorrect, that terminating the lawsuit paved the way for a settlement.

That's the reverse of the law. There can be no settlement, at least when government party is involved, when there is no pending litigation. So terminating the lawsuit cannot pave the way for a settlement; a dismissal would follow a settlement, which would be memorialized in court records prior to dismissal - which is essentially what this document says. Because the litigation was dismissed - with prejudice (meaning it can't be filed again), without any reference to a settlement, there is no settlement.

It will be interesting to see where things go from here. I can't see any justification for setting up the fund Trump is yammering about when there is no legally cognizable settlement.

[dweller]

5. Thank you

I think this is one of those “accordion hands” proclamations by the Pisswig where he thinks he’s pulling a fast one , and no one knows the truth .

✌🏻

[unblock]

6. Surely they will just fabricate a settlement and refile....

[Ms. Toad]

14. Once the judgment order is issues, the court loses.jurisdiction. n/t

[unblock]

15. They can't file a new lawsuit that's otherwise very similar ?

[Ms. Toad]

16. Not an easy question.

Probably follow the rules for claim preclusion (which prevents litigants from repeatedly litigating the same claims over and over hoping for a better outcome). Essentially - same parties as the original suit, final judgment in the original suit, and the claims arise out of the same operative set of facts. The last will be the sticking point - are they just trying to get a second bite at the original apple.

[dweller]

9. No need for a settlement

I went looking for the court ruling that established the funding - found this instead

The $1.8 billion ($1.776 billion) "Anti-Weaponization Fund" was established via an out-of-court settlement agreement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), rather than by a traditional judicial ruling. The nine-page settlement document was signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche

😑



✌🏻

[malaise]

10. Rec

Important

[Johonny]

11. 2027 congressional fraud investigation

It has become apparent hearings on Trump abuse of power and pure fraud are needed.

This is likely an impeachable offense and the lawyers involved should be disbarred.

[Emile]

12. Wondering what the Roberts court will rule.

[dweller]

13. ... cough ...

😐


✌🏻