Ted Cruz is only one being and not several

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.

Yep, because the Tribunal of Six is the final (legal) court of appeal in the country.

The checks are fraudulent and the balances have been tampered with.

Oh for sure. But Putin et al sure are enjoying pouring gas on the fire.

I mean… I guess that’s a way to encourage trans people and their allies to become nihilistic violent extremists…?

What a time to be alive 🫠

I thought it was weird someone put tape over the cows

Same!

Tangentially, I had a hilarious debate with someone several months ago who was convinced the Colbert Report version of Steven Colbert was just who he actually was, and somehow had a significant amount of difficulty understanding that it was a bit… despite how comically fucking obviously it’s a bit. Low key curious if I accidentally came across the guy who invited Colbert to W’s press correspondents gala all those years ago (and may I just say holy fuck his speech at that event was just… 👨‍🍳 💋 )

Honestly I don’t think they give a shit about helping a female partner to orgasm

Just to make it clear, this is a historical picture of antifa:

To be even more clear, that’s a picture of the US Navy supporting the US Army (alongside the Royal Navy and various British Commonwealth armies) in a massive amphibious landing on Normandy Beach in Nazi-occupied France, which opened the land phase of the Western Font of the Second World War, ultimately concluding in the utter destruction of the fascist Nazi regime in Germany.

So, just to make sure everyone’s listening this time, Netherlands: tell me why “antifa” is bad.

Oh wow good thing he’s not an actual authoritarian leader.

🙄

I’m not sure you’re getting the nuance of what is happening here.

These childhood vaccines are currently all given together, in a very commonly and globally available MMR (measles, mumps, rubella - idk about chicken pox; when I was a kid, that wasn’t a thing yet). It is a simple and effective broad-spectrum vaccine. It has been given to literally billions of children, with a very, very low incidence of complications, and the complications are not autism.

What they’re doing is splitting them all up, due to (iirc) asinine and scientifically disproven fearmongering around causes of autism. That’s not how those vaccines work, and that’s not how autism works. It’s a line of logic based entirely on a disproven, debunked, and retracted study done by a doctor who had his medical license revoked as a result of publishing the “study”.

This will only serve to:

• make it more difficult for conscientious parents to get their kids easily and effectively immunized against childhood diseases
• make the vaccines cost more
• likely make it easier for insurance companies to reconsider covering one or more of those vaccines
• make it possible for idiotic parents to “do their own research” and opt out of one or more of the vaccines for no rational or justifiable reason
• pave the way for removing the mandates and recommendations for those vaccines in a piecemeal fashion

To be clear, this is the playbook they’re using.

Also, I would honestly not be at all shocked to eventually learn that the “suspect” is a scapegoat, and the assassination was a false flag operation. All of the shit that’s followed from that fuckstain’s death is far too clearly coordinated.

This is the playbook they’re using vis a vis Carotid Artery Charlie

The checks are counterfeit and the balances have been tampered with

No. You’re deeply mischaracterizing the situation.

The Democrats could have, at any point since 2008, responded to Republican obstructionism with this very same policy. It has been brutally apparent for well over two decades that the GOP was not negotiating in good faith, and would never again negotiate in good faith. The Democratic Party refused to even consider employing even the most basic precepts of game theory. They continued to negotiate with a bad faith actor in good faith, and were somehow constantly surprised when said bad faith actor acted in bad faith. That’s not politics. That’s rank idiocy.

They’re fucking not. They could have done this exact fucking thing at any point since 2008, bUt tHAt wOuLD HavE beEn tOo DiVisiVE.

Do not pretend for a fucking second that the Democratic Party is in any way, shape or form competent. Do not pretend for a fucking second that the Democratic Party did anything but pave the way for this fascist regime with their ineptitude and greed, thus enabling the shattering of the American republic.

Hochul just showed him how to acquiesce to public sentiment in the same way a windsock acquiesces to the wind. It is entirely impossible to pretend there was any level of shrewdness or political aptitude in Hochul’s tepid and tardy endorsement.

The only difference here is that Hochul could lose her job due to voters thinking she’s an idiot, while Jacobs is not actually accountable in any meaningful way to the voting public.

As an American, I find this utterly revolting.