A pro se plaintiff beat trump in the case on trump's non-disclosure agreement use by campaign

[Gothmog]

A court just ruled that the NDA used by the trump campaign did not require arbitration of all disputes because it was poorly written. The amusing thing here is that trump's attorneys were beaten by a pro se plaintiff https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-says-trump-campaign-screwed-wording-confidentiality-agreements-025613573.html

“There is simply no way to construe this arbitration clause in this agreement to prevent … pursuing harassment claims in court. The arbitration clause could have been written to require any disputes arising out of … employment to go to arbitration. … But it did not,” wrote Bluth.

Bluth’s ruling became public today when Denson tweeted a copy of the order. It is notable because Denson is representing herself and still defeated the Trump campaign’s lawyers. The judge’s decision represents a rare victory for a pro se litigant, the legal term for a person proceeding in court on their own behalf against a party represented by licensed attorneys. Denson, a young actress, declined to comment on this story.

Trump cheats and does not pay his attorneys and so the good firms refuse to represent him. Here trump used a crappy form that was drafted by a weak law firm.

This result makes me smile

[unblock]

1. Ooh expert trolling by the judge, citing as precedent a previous case Donnie had won.

[grumpyduck]

2. Read the article in Yahoo: karma strikes again

"In an ironic twist, President Trump was personally a party to the New York case that establishes the legal principle controlling Bluth's decision..."

Priceless.

[Gothmog]

3. I read the article and saw that also

trump has bad lawyers because he cheats and does not pay these lawyers. The big law firms refuse to represent him and so he had weak lawyers draft this NDA and bring this lawsuit. I am pleased to see that a pro se plaintiff beat trumps lawyers