>>1424311
Lawfag here.
Standard is pretty high to get Rule 11.
Check subsections (b)(1) - (4). Almost any lawyer can find a way to meet each element listed.
https: //www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
Still here. I'm not familiar with the case, nor have I reviewed the Complaint. This may help, though:
Art II Sec.1 Clause 7 is the emoluments provision for the President.
Case law defines emoluments as "These terms ["fees" and "commissions"] denote a compensation for a particular kind of service to be performed by the officer, and are distinguishable from each other . . . they are also distinguishable from the term emoluments, that [term] being more comprehensive, and embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office."
Hoyt v. United States, 51 U.S. 109, 150 (1850).
Sorry for late response. Also a newfag. First time posting.
Lawfag again. I think "profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office" is the key language you are looking for to defend POTUS.
Washington had business ties with the Federal Government, so the emoluments clause can't mean that POTUS is not allowed to maintain business ties while he is in office. Would be an absurd conclusion imo.