by
Joe
Raedle/Getty
Images)
Does
Chief
Justice
Roberts’s
jurisdiction
extend
to
the
UK?
Asking
for
the
sitting
president,
who
appears
to
think
SCOTUS’s
presidential
crimes
permission
slip
is
good
worldwide.
A
year
ago,
Judge
Karen
Steyn
flushed
President
Trump’s
libel
suit
against
former
MI6
agent
Chris
Steele
and
his
company
Orbis
Business
Intelligence
over
the
“Pee
Dossier.”
“In
reality,
the
Claimant
is
seeking
court
findings
to
vindicate
his
reputation
in
circumstances
where
has
not
been
able
to
formulate
any
viable
remedy
which
he
would
have
a
real
prospect
of
obtaining,
or
which
would
itself
be
of
any
utility;
and
having
chosen
to
allow
many
years
to
elapse
–
without
any
attempt
to
vindicate
his
reputation
in
this
jurisdiction
–
since
he
was
first
made
aware
of
the
Dossier
(including
the
Memoranda)
on
6
January
2017,
and
since
he
first
knew
the
identity
of
the
author
on
11
January
2017,”
she
wrote.
And
because
the
UK
litigation
is
“loser
pay,”
she
“concluded
that
the
Defendant
should
have
summary
judgment
in
respect
of
his
claim
for
compensation/damages
and
a
compliance
order,
and
consequently
on
the
claim
as
a
whole.”
Which
meant
that
Trump
was
on
the
hook
for
£290,000
in
legal
fees
to
Steele
and
Orbis.
Unsurprisingly,
Trump
has
refused
to
pay.
But
he
did
come
up
with
a
somewhat
surprising
justification.
According
to
The
Guardian,
Orbis’s
counsel
Mark
Friston
told
the
court
that
Trump
was
asserting
“sovereign
immunity”
and
claiming
that
any
collection
action
would
be
“completely
hopeless.”
This
would
be
a
bizarre
statement
in
an
American
court
—
even
with
this
Supreme
Court,
a
sitting
president
is
liable
to
a
new
civil
claim,
as
well
as
to
a
suit
to
enforce
a
judgment
entered
before
he
returned
to
office.
(Just
ask
E.
Jean
Carroll.)
But
perhaps
Trump’s
assertion
of
lèse-majesté
is
less
a
statement
of
law
than
a
challenge.
He
thinks
he’s
a
sovereign,
and
what
is
some
English
judge
gonna
do
about
it,
really?
This
has,
however,
left
his
lawyers
in
a
bit
of
a
sticky
wicket.
“It’s
difficult
to
get
instructions
when
your
client
is
president
of
the
free
world
and
trying
to
turn
everything
upside
down,”
his
attorney
Jacqueline
Perry
told
Judge
Jason
Rowley.
“This
isn’t
high
in
his
area
of
importance.”
She
protested
that
her
client
was
“an
innocent
party
in
this,”
sadly
led
astray
by
his
former
counsel,
who
bollixed
the
case
and
made
a
dog’s
breakfast
of
it.
And
so,
she
hoped
that
the
court
would
withhold
execution
of
the
judgment
until
after
the
malpractice
claim
is
sorted,
at
which
point
Trump
would
be
prepared
to
enter
into
negotiations
over
Orbis’s
fee.
Sadly,
no.
Judge
Rowley
informed
Perry
that,
should
her
client
fail
to
remit
the
£290,000
forthwith,
he’d
forfeit
the
right
to
contest
the
fees
at
all.
No
doubt
Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
his
fellow
conservative
are
inking
up
their
quills
to
tell
those
wig-headed
limeys
where
to
stick
it.
Trump
has
refused
to
pay
£290,000
in
legal
fees
after
case
dismissed
in
UK,
court
told
[The
Guardian]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.