Among a flurry of legal filings on Thursday and Friday, there were two notable details in that of Donald Trump sprawling RICO civil lawsuit against hillary clinton and a variety of other defendants, including Lisa Page and Pierre Strzok.

The first detail is this: Trump’s layers said they had trouble serving copies of the lawsuit, which attempts to assert that a vast conspiracy existed against Trump’s 2016 presidential victory, on Page and Strzok.

As for Page:

Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve Defendant Lisa Page six (6) times, the most recent attempt being on June 30, 2022. In the meantime, a copy of the Complaint and Summons was sent by certified mail to the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski), with both acknowledgments dated May 2, 2022. Also today, plaintiff’s counsel spoke to counsel Stephen R. Terrel, who is an attorney with the United States Department of Justice, representing current and former United States federal employees. Mr. Terrel is unable to accept service on behalf of Lisa Page, but has helped provide the attorney, law firm, which previously represented Lisa Page. As such, plaintiff’s attorney emailed the attorney asking if she would accept service of process on behalf of her client. If service is accepted, the plaintiff will provide an updated status report to the court.

As for Strzok, a similar thread:

Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve six (6) times on Defendant, Peter Strzok. In the meantime, a copy of the Complaint and Subpoena has been sent by certified mail to the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski), with acknowledgments dated May 2, 2022. Additionally, today, plaintiff’s counsel spoke with attorney Stephen R. Terrel, who is a United States Department of Justice attorney representing current federal employees and alumni of the United States. Mr. Terrel is unable to accept service on behalf of Peter Strzok, but has helped provide information regarding the attorney who represented Peter Strzok in a previous case. As such, counsel for the plaintiff emailed this attorney, asking if he would accept service of process on behalf of his client. If service is accepted, the plaintiff will provide an updated status report to the court. Additionally, today at 2:00 p.m., plaintiff’s counsel is scheduled to speak with attorney Stephen R. Terrel, who is an attorney with the United States Department of Justice and represents current and former state federal employees. -United. The plaintiff anticipates that counsel may accept service on behalf of the defendant, Peter Strzok. If this occurs, the plaintiff will provide an updated status report to the Court.

The second detail — or detailsshould we say – involves delays for material responses to Trump’s recently expanded amended complaint.

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrook refused on Friday to allow the lawyers to proceed on the next schedule in the case, which was joint stipulated by Trump lawyers and Clinton lawyers:

Defendants’ Responses to Amended Complaint: July 27, 2022

Applicant’s response(s): September 8, 2022

Respondents’ responses: September 29, 2022

It is not uncommon for opposing parties to agree to allow each other leeway to ponder, postulate, and pontificate their arguments in litigation, particularly complex litigation, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not resist. Here, Trump inflated the size of the original 108-page March 24 lawsuit via the filing of a 193-page amended complaint on June 21, necessitating the aforementioned additional responses from the many defendants.

Be that as it may, the proposed timetable, despite its collective acceptance by the many opposing parties, was disagrees with Judge Middlebrooks. While the judge noted that “[t]The twenty-three non-federal defendants try, as much as possible, to consolidate their answers”, which did not necessarily justify a delay:

Requests for extension of time must establish good cause supported by specific facts. While I appreciate the defendants’ efforts to streamline the briefing in this case, those efforts are not a good reason to extend response times. This case has been pending for several months already and it is in the interests of both the Parties and the Court to resolve it as soon as possible. Further, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint did not materially alter the claims of most Defendants, and the arguments in support of dismissal of the Amended Complaint should therefore be substantially similar to the arguments in support of dismissal. of the plaintiffs’ initial complaint. As such, I am strongly reluctant to extend the deadlines further.

In short, Middlebrooks said most of the defense arguments in support of litigation sabotage have been on file for some time and may only need minor refinements to address the amended complaint.

Clinton’s attorneys then moved the court to I accept a formal response to the amended complaint on July 20. In part, his attorneys cited the July 4 holiday as having “complicated communications between attorneys.” Clinton’s attorneys also cited the fact that the amended complaint “added 85 pages and three defendants” to the original. Moreover, consistent with past suggestions that defendants rationalize their motions to dismiss, Clinton’s attorneys noted that “twenty-three nonfederal defendants” were attempting to accomplish this herculean task.

“The many experienced attorneys involved are working hard to get the court to submit a streamlined motion, which should save the court and attorneys time,” Clinton’s attorneys wrote. “A short extension of two weeks will allow sufficient time for all lawyers to give appropriate attention and input.”

This time Middlebrooks acquiesced:

Defendant Clinton seeks a two-week extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (OF 177), citing that the July 4 holiday that followed complicated communications between the various defense attorneys in the case. The plaintiff does not object to the remedy sought. On the basis of the vacancies, and in the interest of allowing defendants to file a streamlined motion, I find good reason to grant Defendant Clinton’s motion in part. Accordingly, the Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint is extended to July 14, 2022.

A collection of other defendants and the United States government (which is not a party to the case) requested additional time to respond to Trump’s amended complaint on other grounds: namely, that the case should be heard under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 ( “Westfall Act”).

“To the extent that defendants and former federal employees were acting within the scope of their office or employment at the time of the acts or omissions upon which plaintiff’s claims are based, the FTCA is plaintiff’s exclusive remedy and any other action in damages against current and former employees is excluded”, that document States.

A single memorandum would make it possible to articulate the interests of the defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Pierre Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Bruce Ohr, Rod Rosensteinand Adam Schiffaccording to that document.

The judge did not rule on that particular request, which was for a September 6 deadline.

The folder currently indicates that all responses from the defendants are due July 14.

It’s also not the first time Middlebrooks has tried to rush into litigation, as Law&Crime has reported in the past. Trump’s attorneys have also asked for the benevolence of the court in their attempts to remedy issues with the original complaint through the filing of the amended complaint.

Trump’s initial filing was described by Law&Crime as a “grievance suit against a myriad of actors associated with the Democratic Party, the FBI and Russiagate.” The claims have been skewed by critics, and defendants have fairly uniformly asserted that all or most of Trump’s claims are statute-barred. Those not prescribed should fail in law, several of the defendants claimed.

The initial trial started like this:

As the 2016 presidential election nears, Hillary Clinton and her cronies have orchestrated an unthinkable plot – a plot that shocks conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with hostile foreign sovereignty. The actions taken in their scheme – tampering with evidence, deceiving law enforcement and exploiting access to highly sensitive data sources – are so outrageous, subversive and inflammatory that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison. .

Under the guise of “opposition research,” “data analysis,” and other political ploys, the defendants infamously sought to influence public trust. They worked together for one selfish purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching plot was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for president by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger a baseless federal investigation and trigger a media frenzy.

Trump says he has lost millions due to the alleged conduct of the many named defendants – and others he lists only as alleged unnamed bad actors. Among the causes of action listed are alleged violations of the RICO Act, RICO conspiracy, harmful lying, malicious prosecution, theft of trade secrets, and violations of the Stored Communications Act. RICO is the legal acronym for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

Some of the recent documents are below:

[Photos as follows:  Trump via Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images; Paige via Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images; Strzok via Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Clinton via Spencer Platt/Getty Images.]

Do you have a tip we should know? [email protected]