Three bits: Buying increased odds of winning in court; DJT’s lawsuit update; A new immunity analysis?

A 2021 research paper, Buying the Verdict, describes how big companies increase the odds of winning lawsuits filed against them by increased advertising and charity donations in local areas where the jury pool resides:

We document evidence that firms systematically increase specialized, locally targeted advertising following the firm being taken to trial in that given location - precisely following initiation of the suit. In particular, we use legal actions brought against publicly traded firms over the 20-year sample period that progress to trial between 1995 and 2014. In terms of magnitude, the increase is sizable: targeted local advertising increases by 23% following the suit. They focus their advertisement spikes specifically toward jury trials, and in fact specifically toward the most likely jury pool. In addition, along with advertising expenditures, firms significantly increase their charitable contributions targeted toward litigated locations following being sued there. Lastly, we document that these advertising spikes are associated with verdicts, increasing the probability of a favorable outcome.

Firms are significantly more likely to initiate advertising in cities (in which it had previously advertised zero), directly following lawsuit – with the probability of advertising initiation increasing by 25%. This results in firms shifting their advertising share significantly to sued locations following suits; both relative to the firm’s total advertising spend, and relative to the total amount spent in that DMA (Designated Market Area) by all other firms.

To concretize this, assume we find that Walmart is sued in Akron, OH in 2001. We see a large spike in Walmart’s advertising in Akron directly following the suit. We see no abnormal movement in Walmart’s advertising policy or spending leading up to the suit. Additionally, Walmart does not increase advertising following the suit in Toledo, OH (a similar sized market with similar growth rates leading up to 2001). Moreover, Target shows no abnormal move in the same sued-location, Akron, OH, at the exact same time that Walmart is ramping up advertising (so it has nothing to do with a general location-time effect).  

We find in this paper general evidence across time, location, and firms, of corporations engaging in this “influencing of the verdict,” behavior. While we focus primarily on advertising, this could certainly take the form of other channels. To explore this further, we collect micro-level data on the charitable contributions of firms’ charitable arms at the zip code level. We find, analogous to advertising expenditures, that firms significantly increase their charitable contributions to a DMA directly following being sued there.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

By now, it’s clear that the federal courts are inherently biased to protect DJT and other white collar criminal elites like him. From what I can tell, it’s mostly a matter of the normal functioning of a corrupted federal legal system. Federal courts strongly favor various forms of elites, almost all being wealthy, famous and/or powerful people and business entities. Our federal courts are simply weak in dealing with white collar crimes. The controlling laws have been mostly written, bought and paid for by elites themselves to protect themselves and their interests.

The Messenger writes about a recent example of courts taking blithering legal nonsense from DJT very, very seriously, dealing with it very, very slowly: 

The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump is not immune from lawsuits brought by Capitol police officers regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The order, released on the docket Friday, stated that the former president failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to “absolute presidential immunity from certain civil damages claims against him.”

The judges rejected his argument that his alleged actions “constituted speech on matters of public concern” and that his speech was “invariably an official function."

“The salient question in Blassingame, we explained, was instead whether President Trump’s alleged actions reasonably could be understood as official functions of the presidency, in which case official-act immunity would attach, or, alternatively, whether they reasonably could be understood only as re-election activity, in which case it would not."

The judges added that, after closer review, the claim simply “bears no inherent connection to the essential distinction between official and unofficial acts.”

This lawsuit was filed on March 30, 2021. Instead of sanctioning DJT and his attorneys for filing frivolous arguments, the federal courts have maintained a serious facade about whether a president has immunity for DJT’s role in his 1/6 coup attempt. The judges carefully consider DJT’s legal nonsense. Then they take their time to respond. Each delay is another win for DJT. Delays are serious blows to democracy, the rule of law and respect for truth and sound reason. 

It seems that American democracy is incapable of efficiently defending itself. DJT’s case should have been decided long ago. There is nothing complex in it. The facts are clear and have been clear since the case was filed. Relevant facts have become clearer since 1/6. Nonetheless, here a we are almost 3 years later and the courts are just getting around to responding to some of DJT’s delay tactics in his opening arguments. 

This is how corrupt and/or authoritarian elites win while democracy and truth lose. DJT’s next step will be to appeal to the USSC, which will probably operate with its usual opacity, slop, sloth and now-normal pro-Trump bias. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

The DC federal appeals court has accepted for review an amicus brief that Republican constitutional scholars filed in Jack Smith’s criminal election subversion lawsuit over DJT’s 1/6 coup attempt. The brief was filed Dec. 12, 2023. The brief asserts an argument against DJT that I am not aware has been formally asserted in any lawsuit against him where he is claiming immunity. 

This argument denies that DJT has immunity for his coup attempt under Article II, Sect. 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. That article contains the Executive Vesting Clause, which is the only place where the Constitution gives power to a duly elected president. The argument is simple. The Constitution does not allow a duly elected president to stay in power after their term has ended if they have not been re-elected. Here’s the heart of the argument:

The legal scholars argue that preserving the presidency designed by Article II inherently requires rejecting immunity from prosecution for any president’s (or candidate’s) use of criminal conduct in efforts to change officially declared presidential election results. That applies both to acts as a candidate and official acts by a sitting president. They point out that DJT says he acted officially when he allegedly conspired to commit criminal conduct by enlisting Department of Justice personnel to make false statements to state officials to support his efforts to overturn declared state election results. They argue: “If that conduct qualified for absolute immunity, this would improperly unleash a future President to disregard current criminal statutes and deploy the military in efforts to alter the results of a presidential election.” Deploying the military is something that DJT has publicly said he would like to do.

One can see that this reasoning could be seen to provide an explicit basis in the Constitution to deny DJT’s claims of immunity from prosecution. Whether this line of argument will carry significant weight remains to be seen. Why the federal courts themselves have not raised this is a separate and deeply troubling question. The fact that the DC appeals court has signaled it will consider this strongly suggests the judges themselves had not seriously considered it before now. That smells like professional malpractice by the judges.