In federal court, a case requires 'adversity' between parties—meaning they must have opposing interests—for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction. When one party controls the other, as when a president controls the IRS and DOJ while suing them, the case lacks the necessary adversity and should be dismissed. This principle distinguishes such cases from United States v. Nixon, where the special prosecutor was independent of presidential control.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Trump Has Total Control Over The Defendants - He Is Literally Suing HimselfAdded:
So, it's about 11:30 a.m. on Friday.
Very frequently, I get very excited when, you know, new court pleadings or orders or decisions or opinions, uh, legal pleadings come out that I think are going to really, you know, that are really going to clear something up for me. Um, I got one of those pleadings today in the case of Donald Trump versus the IRS, which Donald Trump is feverishly trying to settle to give him a 1.7 billion slush fund that he can use to bribe and refund groups like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers in time for the 2026 midterms.
Um, the judge in the case brought on additional counsel herself. uh she appointed I think it was four attorneys um and gave them an assignment to provide her with additional expertise um and they're they're they're called the the Amichi the Amikas Amichi Cure. Hey big balls. How you doing buddy? My my squirrel is hanging out with me. He's eyeballing me. um she brought in these additional counsel who are like experts in certain specific areas of jurisdiction at the federal level uh to make a determination of whether or not she has jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place. And so their their assignment was as follows.
In its order dated April 24th, 2026, the court indicated that it has concerns about whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case uh and appointed the underlying or the undersigned council to assist the court in identifying the applicable law governing the analysis of this issue.
And so they submitted this brief to the court.
Um, I very very rarely practiced in federal court and this uh brief is really dense on things that are very specific to practicing in federal court. Um, because in federal court you have things like adversity and diversity uh and and all of these things affect the jurisdiction of a case and whether or not a judge can hear a case.
I read this brief. It's dense. I didn't understand a lot of it, but you know, overall, the the four attorneys that the judge brought in to do this take a very very dim view over the following kind of facts. Um, Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20th of 2025.
And on Jan, so a year into his second term, on January 29th of this year, 2026, is when Donald Trump filed his lawsuit against the IRS.
The IRS is part of the executive branch.
Donald Trump has all of the power of the executive of the president vested in himself. He has control over the Internal Revenue Service. He can replace the director of the IRS.
That director serves at the pleasure of the president. That is who he is suing.
Uh the DOJ is pursuing this case against the IRS on behalf of President Trump.
Donald Trump has control over the attorney general uh and and multiple positions within the Department of Justice and has exercised that power this year.
And so it's like you've got to have adversity among the parties meaning the parties have to be adverse uh to one another within the case.
In this case, president, DOJ, IRS, both of these are under control of the president and Donald Trump even spoke publicly after he filed this lawsuit and it became public. Uh he said to, you know, somebody in the press asked him about it and he was like, "Yeah, it's a weird thing for me, you know, to be sitting behind my desk and um you know, have control over this lawsuit."
Basically admitting that he has control over both sides. He has control over the DOJ. he has control over the IRS even though he says that he is suing the IRS in his personal capacity as Donald Trump and not as the President Donald Trump.
And so there's never been a case like this before. Uh there was previously a case that involved a president, United States versus Nixon. Uh you know, like he was suing the I think the special prosecutor that had been appointed to investigate the Watergate stuff was suing Nixon to get access to documents and recordings. And those were those those interests are adverse to one another. They were adversaries. But unlike here with the IRS commissioner and the DOJ and the attorney general, President Nixon didn't have any control over the special prosecutor. He couldn't fire him. he had control over the attorney general who appointed the special prosecutor. Um but by that point I think it was clear that the attorney general did not have the power to fire the special prosecutor. So President Nixon couldn't exercise that kind of control over the other side of the case.
Donald Trump has that power here.
And so, you know, they're basically saying you don't have an adversity of interests in this case from one side versus the other side because this side controls that side.
And so they say, you know, I mean, they don't say it outright, but basically it lays out like judge, if you want to dismiss this case on this basis, you you would be perfectly fine to do that. Um and but then you know at the end these attorneys are like you know you actually you're going to need some additional information if you choose to let this case continue. And they lay out a whole bunch of questions and stuff for the court to ask. Um, but they really do emphasize that this case is unprecedented and unique in in the the fact that the plaintiff in the case, whether he's sued in his capacity as president or not, he is the president and he has total control over the defendants in this case.
And you know, I mean, presumably if he wanted to, he could simply issue an executive order ordering the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to settle this case for $10 billion and pay him $10 billion.
Obviously, even Trump understands that that would be a bad look, especially with what's going on right now with the war against Iran, uh, and gas prices.
Food prices are skyrocketing. Uh, you know, the economy, the United States economy is an absolutely terrible economy right now for 90% of the people who live here. It's a terrible economy for everyone who is not heavily invested to the tune of millions or billions of dollars in AI companies right now. AI companies and their circular movement of money is the only thing that's propping up the stock market right now.
And so, but it is truly a an unprecedented and unique situation that the plainif in this case, even though he sued in his personal capacity, is the president and has total control over the defendants in this case, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury. Uh, it'll be interesting to see, you know, the judge has set this for a hearing. uh in a couple weeks, 10, 12 days to address these questions and to determine whether or not she's going to allow this lawsuit to proceed or whether she's just going to throw it out and dismiss it entirely. That is why Donald Trump is working so hard right now to try to get this case settled. He believes, and I don't know if this is accurate or not, he believes that if he settles the case, gets a settlement agreement signed and in place, and then dismisses his complaint against the IRS, then the judge won't be able to look at anything else in the case. The judge won't be able to look at or approve of or disapprove of this scam [ __ ] settlement proposal that's being out there. Um, I don't know that that's accurate, but you know, the litigation on this is not done. And again, it's another massive [ __ ] grift because Donald Trump would presumably get this fund of $1.7 billion of our tax money. and that the dispersement of that money to J6ers and others uh would be governed by a five-person commission and Donald Trump would have the power to appoint the five members of that commission and remove them without cause and replace them with new members of that commission.
And I mean, how is that reasonable in any freaking universe, you know? It's just not. It's just dumb, stupid, and silly.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











