Put another one in Trump's 'L' column

[Bicycle Bill]

Man countersues Trump, says he urged removal of Kentucky protesters

Three people who claim they were assaulted at a Louisville KY Trump rally on March 1 2016 filed a lawsuit last year against Trump, his campaign, and several Trump supporters who were members of the audience.  They say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command.  Video widely broadcast during the campaign showed Trump pointing at protesters and repeating the words "get them out."

Now, at least one of those supporters who were accused of assaulting protesters has countersued the president, saying he was following Trump's urging to remove them.

Matthew Heimbach, a leader with the white supremacist Traditionalist Youth Network, is being sued over his alleged actions at the March 1, 2016 rally.  In a counter claim filed Monday in federal court, Heimbach says he was relying "on Trump's authority to order disruptive persons removed," according to WDRB-TV.  In his court filing, Heimbach said he "relied on Trump's authority to have disruptive persons removed and that Trump was legally within his rights to have other attendees assist in defending their constitutional rights against 'protesters.' "

Another defendant at the rally, Alvin Bamberger, has also filed a counter claim on Friday (4/14/17), saying that he acted on Trump's "urging and inspiration."  ("Ve vere chust follovink der orders" ... where have we heard that before?)

Trump's attorneys responded in a court filing Friday that Trump is immune as president from such suits. (but he wasn't president when he did this, was he?)  They also say the protesters waived their right to sue by buying tickets to the event, and they deny that Trump was urging the crowd to take action by repeatedly saying, "get them out of here" but was directing his statement to police and venue security.

A federal judge declined Trump's preliminary request to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling on April 1 that there's ample evidence that could be seen as supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions.  The judge also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 19004.html

It's getting bad in Trump's "Great America" when his own supporters start throwing him under the bus.
To borrow from Pink Floyd, "...it's just another crack in the wall".

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

I'm confused by the use of the word "countersuit" in this context...

Isn't a "countersuit" when you sue the party that has filed a suit against you?

If I'm reading this correctly, the white supremacist isn't suing the people who are suing him; he's suing Trump...

[RayThom]

... To borrow from Pink Floyd, "...it's just another crack in the wall"

This doesn't sound right to me. I think I recall it being a brick. If you post the lyrics maybe I'll understand that to which you allude.

[Big RR]

Jim--I do very little civil work so I'll defer to Guin and Sue, but I agree this is not a countersuit, this is an impleader, where the defendant seeks to bring in a non-party to the suit who may be liable for some or all of the damages due to his relationship with the Defendant.

[Sue U]

Yeah, it wouldn't be a countersuit (or "counterclaim"), and it's not an impleader (or "third-party claim") since all involved are already parties to the existing action. It's entirely unclear from the linked story, but my best guess is that it's actually a cross-claim, which is a claim by one defendant against another seeking contribution or indemnification with respect to the plaintiff's damages, since both Heimbach and Trump are on the same side of the "v." Alternatively, although probably less likely, it could be a pleading setting out an affirmative defense. In any event it's not a "loss" yet for Trump; that will come (if it does) when a jury decides who bears responsibility for the assaults.

[Big RR]

So Trump is already a party to the suit? I didn't realize that--I read the article to say that only the offenders were sued (though I wouldn't be surprised if Trump were also sued), but I agree it would be a cross claim if he were already a Defendant.

ETA: Oops, you're right--I guess I should read the posts more closely.

By the way, what sort of affirmative defense would involve Trump? I could see the guys claiming they were agents of Trump (however, there is a lack of consideration for the agency, which complicates it), but this would only go to payment of damages, correct? What affirmative defenses are available that would need Trump?

[Sue U]

Again, without seeing the pleading I wouldn't really know, but given the phrasing in the article I can speculate that there's some creative lawyering going on. I don't think that in this context agency would actually require consideration; I think soliciting enlistment in the principal's purpose would be sufficient. But agency is ordinarily the plaintiff's claim used to get vicarious liability on a more remotely connected defendant. As an affirmative defense, I would posit some theory of delegation of authority: that Trump, as the lessee and occupier of the premises, had the right to control access and remove those who were there without his leave, and that this jackwad was exercising Trump's express delegation of authority ("Get 'em out of here") to physically remove the "trespassing" protester(s).

[Big RR]

Interesting, thanks.