SLAPP suits that are thrown out like this one should result in the plaintiff being fined double the amount of the suit.

You guys couldn’t have found a source OTHER than ABC news for this? Don’t give these motherfuckers your clicks.

The Judge’s Order:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71354540/5/trump-v-new-york-times-company/

Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the complaint is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an electoral victory by President Trump “in historic fashion” — by “trouncing” the opponent — and alludes to “persistent election interference from the legacy media, led most notoriously by the New York Times.” The pleader alludes to “the halcyon days” of the newspaper but complains that the newspaper has become a “full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat party,” which allegedly resulted in the “deranged endorsement” of President Trump’s principal opponent in the most recent presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations, such as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady.’” The reader must endure an allegation of “the desperate need to defame with a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass” and an allegation that “the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melting iceberg of falsehoods.”

THIS IS FROM THE JUDGES COURT ORDER. Goddamn, we all knew he had idiots working for him, but this is like that fat orange turd wrote it himself. It’s clearly written by somebody who has never filed or prosecuted a fucking case before. SO FUCKING SAD.

The complete text:

Case 8:25-cv-02487-SDM-NHA Document 5 Filed 09/19/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID 165

                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              TAMPA DIVISION


PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

v.                                                CASE NO. 8:25-cv-2487-SDM-NHA

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a
New York corporation, et al.
_________________________________/

                                      ORDER

       As every member of the bar of every federal court knows (or is presumed to

know), Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that a complaint include

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to re-

lief.” Rule 8(e)(1) helpfully adds that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple,

concise, and direct.” Some pleadings are necessarily longer than others. The differ-

ence likely depends on the number of parties and claims, the complexity of the gov-

erning facts, and the duration and scope of pertinent events. But both a shorter plead-

ing and a longer pleading must comprise “simple, concise, and direct” allegations

that offer a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8 governs every pleading

in a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy, the identity of the parties,

the skill or reputation of the counsel, the urgency or importance (real or imagined) of

the dispute, or any public interest at issue in the dispute.

       In this action, a prominent American citizen (perhaps the most prominent

American citizen) alleges defamation by a prominent American newspaper publisher

(perhaps the most prominent American newspaper publisher) and by several other

Case 8:25-cv-02487-SDM-NHA Document 5 Filed 09/19/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID 166

corporate and natural persons. Alleging only two simple counts of defamation, the

complaint consumes eighty-five pages. Count I appears on page eighty, and Count II

appears on page eighty-three. Pages one through seventy-nine, plus part of page

eighty, present allegations common to both counts and to all defendants. Each count

alleges a claim against each defendant and, apparently, each claim seeks the same

remedy against each defendant.

      Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the com-

plaint is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an elec-

toral victory by President Trump “in historic fashion” — by “trouncing” the oppo-

nent — and alludes to “persistent election interference from the legacy media, led

most notoriously by the New York Times.” The pleader alludes to “the halcyon

days” of the newspaper but complains that the newspaper has become a “full-

throated mouthpiece of the Democrat party,” which allegedly resulted in the “de-

ranged endorsement” of President Trump’s principal opponent in the most recent

presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations,

such as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray

Lady.’” The reader must endure an allegation of “the desperate need to defame with

a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass” and an allegation

that “the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melt-

ing iceberg of falsehoods.” Similarly, in one of many, often repetitive, and laudatory

(toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, “‘The



                                         -2-

Case 8:25-cv-02487-SDM-NHA Document 5 Filed 09/19/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID 167

Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular bril-

liance, which captured the [Z]eitgeist of our time.”

      The complaint continues with allegations in defense of President Trump’s fa-

ther and the acquisition of the Trumps’ wealth; with a protracted list of the many

properties owned, developed, or managed by The Trump Organization and a list of

President Trump’s many books; with a long account of the history of “The Appren-

tice”; with an extensive list of President Trump’s “media appearances”; with a de-

tailed account of other legal actions both by and against President Trump, including

an account of the “Russia Collusion Hoax” and incidents of alleged “lawfare”

against President Trump; and with much more, persistently alleged in abundant,

florid, and enervating detail.

      Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true (of course, that is

for a jury to decide and is not pertinent here; this order suggests nothing about the

truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims but addresses only the manner of

the presentation of the allegations in the complaint); even assuming that at trial the

plaintiff offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and that the evi-

dence is accepted by the jury as fact; and even assuming that after finally “melting”

the defendants’ alleged “iceberg of falsehoods” the plaintiff prevails for each reason

alleged in the complaint — even assuming all of that — a complaint remains an im-

proper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of pro-

spective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted

recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim

                                          -3-

Case 8:25-cv-02487-SDM-NHA Document 5 Filed 09/19/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID 168

for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a pub-

lic forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an

adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a

passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park

Speakers’ Corner.

       A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and econom-

ically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent

with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States

— of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct state-

ment of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and

sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers re-

ceive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the com-

plaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.

       This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements

of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules

of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK

with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not ex-

ceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.

       ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 19, 2025.




                                           -4-

Or more succinctly, this is the judge essentially saying:

You and your lawyers are complete fucking idiots. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

It’s a real shame that Taco doesn’t pay a very steep cost for these obviously frivolous lawsuits meant to chill free speech.

That was quick. I saw it cross my headlines this morning (Lemmy as an aggrigator is slow sometimes, and thats not a bad thing).

Looks to me like the judge took one look at it and tossed it right in the shreder.