otherwise an automated platform. randy also knew he had to make a bold and very public statement to scare off the copycats. he targeted one of the companies doing the most material damage to the trx brand and filed suit against them in court. how hard was that to win? it was a painful trail. he spent three years and $2.5 million. and despite a $7 million damage award, trx never saw a dime. the infringers just go out of business, so you better have a strategy for how you re going to leverage that verdict before you file a suit. now we have a cease and desist letter. the other thing i notice you did was put out a big press release. it very was was intended to be a don t let this be you message to all the other knock off folks. randy s strategy has worked. today the business is thriving. with headquarters based in san francisco, he currently employs
who says he paid the $130,000 out of his own pocket as part of this lawsuit. so there defamation lawsuit is new for avenatti. this is another attempt on get michael cohen and perhaps donald trump under oath in a deposition. that is really what the larger goal is here for michael avenatti. to get them under oath and get them to tell the truth or perhaps lie about whether michael cohen used his own money to pay this damage award. which no lawyer that i m aware of has ever done. and whether donald trump knew about it. those are, i think, the key political issues here. and filing this lawsuit gives avenatti another opportunity, perhaps, to get cohen and perhaps trump under oath. by the way, cnn has matched this reporting, not just the
how do you think the court is going to rule? it clearly, this is a form of free speech i would assume. if i had to bet today based on hearing are the oral argument, i bet the phelps win 9-0. unfortunately, one of the famous definitions of the first amendment is freedom for the thought that we hate. and it s hard to think of anything more hateful than the way that phelps used the first amendment. but the facts of the case, the marine, snyder, who died, the police there told them you have to be 1,000 feet away, you have to stay behind this barrier, and that s exactly what the phelps did. they stayed 1,000 feet away from the funeral. they followed the police instructions, they held the signs, they and yet a jury still awarded the snyder family $5 million in damages. so the supreme court rules, and therefore that ruling would be overturned and they would not get those damages. ? that if the phelps win, the damage award would be wiped
marine, snyder, who died, the police there told them you have to be 1,000 feet away, you have to stay behind this barrier, and that s exactly what the phelps did. they followed the police instructions, they held the signs, they and yet a jury still awarded the snyder family $5 million in damages. so the supreme court resumes, therefore, that ruling would be overturned and they would not get those damages. that if the phelps win, the damage award would be wiped out. there was an argument made about privacy, the privacy of this family is violated, the phelps, folks from this church had put some information about them online about their family online. that doesn t really that is a somewhat better argument, but, you know, when you are talking about a group that is engaged in a political protest, even if it s a lunatic protest, that s at the heart of what the first amendment is meant to protect, political
instructions, they held the signs, they and yet a jury still awarded the snyder family $5 million in damages. so the supreme court rules, and therefore that ruling would be overturned and they would not get those damages. ? that if the phelps win, the damage award would be wiped out. there was an argument made about privacy, the privacy of this family is violated, the phelps, folks from this church had put some information about them online about their family online. that doesn t really that is a somewhat better argument, but, you know, when you are talking about a group that is engaged in a political protest, even if it s a lunatic protest, that s at the heart of what the first amendment is meant to protect, political protest. and the fact that these facts were arguably private, although it was the fact that one of the people in the family had been divorced, which is not really a private fact, it s hard for me to see how the court would let