What utter bullshit … this POS has an army of trolls suing every thing …

Vexatious litigation

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Rather, a pattern of frivolous legal actions is typically required to rise to the level of vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in this abuse of the legal process, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants, therefore, represent themselves in court. Those on the vexatious litigant list are usually either forbidden to take any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.

These legal actions occur[dubious – discuss] in some countries of the former British Empire, where the common law system still remains: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, and US, which are specified below. Civil (codified/continental) law systems typically do not have a prohibition against vexatious litigation.

… snip …

The first such law outside the British Isles, the Supreme Court Act, 1927 was passed in Australia nearly thirty years later. This too was prompted by the behaviour of an individual, Rupert Millane.[4] The first vexatious litigant law in the United States was enacted in California in 1963. By 2007 four more US states had passed similar legislation: Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas.[2]

“How does one tarnish a rusted blade?”

Worf, son of Mogh.

....firstly this seems highly Unconstitutional

What about double jeopardy? Is that a thing?

Is discovery a thing?

only applies to criminal cases, not civil. As the case was not dismissed "with prejudice", he is free to refile.

trump and his attorneys need to be sanctioned

allowed for a refiling of the case and they have done that.

Their obligation in refiling the case is that they assert and can back up the claim that the WSJ acted with "actual malice."

Having read the refiling, Trump's team is claiming that their assertion that the document is false and Maxwell's assertion that she did not recall Trump submitting a letter as they are the only remaining witnesses still alive at the time of the publication is sufficient to show that the WSJ acted with "actual malice."

That may meet the requirement that the court established to refile the case.

I do not think that their assertions/claims will be sufficient to overcome the fact that birthday book did include said letter and that letter has a signature that appears to be consistent with Trump's signature.

The president’s first lawsuit against the newspaper was an embarrassing flop. The sequel is likely to meet the same fate.

www.ms.now/rachel-maddo... "Trump sues The Wall Street Journal (again) over reporting on Epstein ties"
I mean, sooner or later, WSJ should take a page from Trump and sue Trump's companies for billions. They will have no choice but to either settle (which they won't) or faceplant by decision.

— Martin Napier (@mnapier76.bsky.social) 2026-05-28T14:28:43.453Z