With all this money she’s getting, Carroll should just hire someone to follow Trump around with a button that makes a cash register “cha-ching” sound every time he defames her.
Guess who couldn't keep their stupid-ass mouth shut tonight, calling the proven allegations false and saying that a woman he doesn't even know is crazy.
Clip of it, if you care to subject yourself to listening to him defame E Jean Caroll yet again.
Good luck with your appeal buddy. He probably feels like this is settled because someone else paid for the bond and that even if he loses fully, he's off the hook.
Good luck with your appeal buddy. He probably feels like this is settled because someone else paid for the bond and that even if he loses fully, he's off the hook.
Question for the legal minds, could this impact his appeal?
That he's clearly incapable of keeping his mouth shut, and so letting the order stand? Or at the least if it is taken up, that the amount can't be considered egregious (basically his only real defense), because he's so willing to just continue to do so.
Or does the appeal have to be only about the specific instances of the original case, and what has happened since is irrelevant to that?
Good luck with your appeal buddy. He probably feels like this is settled because someone else paid for the bond and that even if he loses fully, he's off the hook.
Question for the legal minds, could this impact his appeal?
That he's clearly incapable of keeping his mouth shut, and so letting the order stand? Or at the least if it is taken up, that the amount can't be considered egregious (basically his only real defense), because he's so willing to just continue to do so.
Or does the appeal have to be only about the specific instances of the original case, and what has happened since is irrelevant to that?
I mean, if he's going to appeal on the grounds of "I didn't do the thing I am again on record doing" it's going to be a problem. If it's on the grounds of "the amount levied is out of line with other cases" then he's just demonstrated that the amount levied was clearly insufficient to begin with.
Good luck with your appeal buddy. He probably feels like this is settled because someone else paid for the bond and that even if he loses fully, he's off the hook.
Question for the legal minds, could this impact his appeal?
That he's clearly incapable of keeping his mouth shut, and so letting the order stand? Or at the least if it is taken up, that the amount can't be considered egregious (basically his only real defense), because he's so willing to just continue to do so.
Or does the appeal have to be only about the specific instances of the original case, and what has happened since is irrelevant to that?
I mean, if he's going to appeal on the grounds of "I didn't do the thing I am again on record doing" it's going to be a problem. If it's on the grounds of "the amount levied is out of line with other cases" then he's just demonstrated that the amount levied was clearly insufficient to begin with.
Right, I'm just unsure if this is some "walled garden" bullshit where only the specifics of the trial itself are relevant, or if like you say, the two avenues of appeal both show themselves to be clearly false by his conduct since the trial.
I mean the whole purpose of the second EJC trial (resolved first, $5M), was at least In part that in the time between lodging the first one, and it resolving, he just couldn't stop.
Similarly, in the first trial (resolved second, $83M, so confusing), he couldn't relitigate the outcome of the second trial ($5M), whereby he was ruled a sexual assaulter (rapist in all but name).
My question is will this impact the appeal, or does this shit specifically require a third suit?
My theory is that Trump knows on some level how fucked he is on all these suits so he’s going all in on getting elected so he can dictator handwave them all out of existence, which is basically his only prayer at this point
My theory is that Trump knows on some level how fucked he is on all these suits so he’s going all in on getting elected so he can dictator handwave them all out of existence, which is basically his only prayer at this point
Exactly, everything for him hinges on becoming president and one of the things that gets his followers excited is joining in on the grievances about these trials and his accusers
Doing the things that help him legally hurt him politically which hurts him legally
The courts are not set up to handle this situation
Captain Inertia on
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Or
Or!
He’s a tremendous idiot and narcissist with no impulse control
My theory is that Trump knows on some level how fucked he is on all these suits so he’s going all in on getting elected so he can dictator handwave them all out of existence, which is basically his only prayer at this point
It's pretty much a classic presidential move all over the world.
He’s a tremendous idiot and narcissist with no impulse control
or both!
There's a third option.
He's hoping that EJC dies. Each month passing is a month closer. Assuming one of his disposable plausibly deniable nutbags doesn't try something.
While she doesn't seem in ill health, she's 80 years old, and has a fair amount of stress in her life, most of that as a result of him.
She has no husband or children. Meaning likely noone with a solid claim to continue the suit.
Because you know this fucking asshole would have his lawyers argue that at least the $18.3M for emotional/reputational should no longer apply, if not the entirety including the punitive.
He's just such a fucking scumbag, I bet it's at least crossed his mind.
He’s a tremendous idiot and narcissist with no impulse control
or both!
There's a third option.
He's hoping that EJC dies. Each month passing is a month closer. Assuming one of his disposable plausibly deniable nutbags doesn't try something.
While she doesn't seem in ill health, she's 80 years old, and has a fair amount of stress in her life, most of that as a result of him.
She has no husband or children. Meaning likely noone with a solid claim to continue the suit.
Because you know this fucking asshole would have his lawyers argue that at least the $18.3M for emotional/reputational should no longer apply, if not the entirety including the punitive.
He's just such a fucking scumbag, I bet it's at least crossed his mind.
I think the current SCOTUS puts the idea of true stare decisis to rest (or maybe taken out back and hit in the head with a shovel); precedent and procedure don't seem to carry the weight that they used to. Legal decisions seem to be very politically charged and unpredictable as a result (just what you want in a justice system). But:
Appeals are almost always held by a panel of judges (instead of one individual), so it tends to be somewhat harder to perform arbitrary or flimsy abrogatory actions. But appeals are also not a new trial; they are intended to assess errors in procedure or judgement. They are geared towards ensuring the trial was executed correctly: procedures were followed, evidence was entered properly, juries were instructed correctly, judges issued "fair" judgements, etc. But judges are also people and don't operate in a vacuum so arguments could lead virtually anywhere. But Trump's notice of appeal of Friday doesn't really set forth any specific argument (but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how the specifics of that work; SCOTUS prefers them in writing beforehand).
Appeals generally do not allow the introduction of new evidence. (I can find a number of instances where this seems to be more common in courts in Canada and elsewhere). There are rare instances where evidence unavailable at trial is presented to the appellate panel, but it's usually difficult to get something new admitted. However, if an appeal results in the case being remanded (returned back to trial in the lower court), evidence could also potentially be admitted at that point as well.
Aside from anger fodder to chumps who will donate to Trump's legal fund and Trump hoping he will be president again to make everything go away, Trump doesn't really get any benefit out of repeatedly bringing up Carroll. If it were anyone else, it would be a no-win proposition (there's no reason he has to talk about her other than the fact he can't control his maw).
If it helps solidify conservative power and/or erode liberal power, the Justices will be in favor of it
If it does neither of those things but hurts anyone who isn’t a rich white man, they’re still in favor of it
They will occasionally rule contrary to these principles if it gives them the veneer of impartiality among the more ignorant, willfully or otherwise
But arguments like “originalism” are where people are getting confused. These judges are not basing their rulings on typical jurisprudential reasonings; they are starting at the conclusions they would like to reach and if originalism helps them get there, great! If not they will finagle another self-serving argument that leads to the destination they want
This is most likely why they are consistently doing broadly damaging things to the country while (mostly, recent events notwithstanding) ruling against Trump’s personal interests
They do not care about Trump the man except inasmuch he is able to help them maintain their power
He’s a tremendous idiot and narcissist with no impulse control
or both!
There's a third option.
He's hoping that EJC dies. Each month passing is a month closer. Assuming one of his disposable plausibly deniable nutbags doesn't try something.
While she doesn't seem in ill health, she's 80 years old, and has a fair amount of stress in her life, most of that as a result of him.
She has no husband or children. Meaning likely noone with a solid claim to continue the suit.
Because you know this fucking asshole would have his lawyers argue that at least the $18.3M for emotional/reputational should no longer apply, if not the entirety including the punitive.
He's just such a fucking scumbag, I bet it's at least crossed his mind.
Lawsuits and judgements don't vanish just because someone dies.
If Carroll dies, Trump will still owe that money to her estate. And $83.3 million dollars is a very strong incentive to continue pursuing the judgement for whoever is the executor / inheritor of her estate.
I wonder who Carrol’s heirs are? Any nieces or nephews?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I’m no country hyperchicken, but aren’t we starting to butt up against brazen contempt of court? The man has been found guilty of the same civil crime twice in the span of a year, and continues to commit it. To say nothing of the damage he continues to do to Ms. Carroll, at this point he’s in gross violation of the court’s punitive intent.
I’m no country hyperchicken, but aren’t we starting to butt up against brazen contempt of court? The man has been found guilty of the same civil crime twice in the span of a year, and continues to commit it. To say nothing of the damage he continues to do to Ms. Carroll, at this point he’s in gross violation of the court’s punitive intent.
Jail, is what I’m saying.
Well, it’s not really contempt of court, it’s just more fodder for EJC to go after him with
It only becomes criminal if/when he can’t/doesn’t pay, but because he has the chance to become emperor there’s people willing to pay his bills for him
If it helps solidify conservative power and/or erode liberal power, the Justices will be in favor of it
If it does neither of those things but hurts anyone who isn’t a rich white man, they’re still in favor of it
They will occasionally rule contrary to these principles if it gives them the veneer of impartiality among the more ignorant, willfully or otherwise
But arguments like “originalism” are where people are getting confused. These judges are not basing their rulings on typical jurisprudential reasonings; they are starting at the conclusions they would like to reach and if originalism helps them get there, great! If not they will finagle another self-serving argument that leads to the destination they want
This is most likely why they are consistently doing broadly damaging things to the country while (mostly, recent events notwithstanding) ruling against Trump’s personal interests
They do not care about Trump the man except inasmuch he is able to help them maintain their power
This reminds me of when I shadowed a judge during my articling. After sitting in on a 1-day trial he told me afterwards 'I know what the ruling is going to be, now I just have to figure out why.'
If it helps solidify conservative power and/or erode liberal power, the Justices will be in favor of it
If it does neither of those things but hurts anyone who isn’t a rich white man, they’re still in favor of it
They will occasionally rule contrary to these principles if it gives them the veneer of impartiality among the more ignorant, willfully or otherwise
But arguments like “originalism” are where people are getting confused. These judges are not basing their rulings on typical jurisprudential reasonings; they are starting at the conclusions they would like to reach and if originalism helps them get there, great! If not they will finagle another self-serving argument that leads to the destination they want
This is most likely why they are consistently doing broadly damaging things to the country while (mostly, recent events notwithstanding) ruling against Trump’s personal interests
They do not care about Trump the man except inasmuch he is able to help them maintain their power
This reminds me of when I shadowed a judge during my articling. After sitting in on a 1-day trial he told me afterwards 'I know what the ruling is going to be, now I just have to figure out why.'
I mean, two points for honesty? It's like a fucking 80s drug PSA. Alito, they learned it by watching you!
If nothing else, Trump's administration and subsequent parade of lawsuits has laid the legal profession's failings pretty fucking bare.
If it helps solidify conservative power and/or erode liberal power, the Justices will be in favor of it
If it does neither of those things but hurts anyone who isn’t a rich white man, they’re still in favor of it
They will occasionally rule contrary to these principles if it gives them the veneer of impartiality among the more ignorant, willfully or otherwise
But arguments like “originalism” are where people are getting confused. These judges are not basing their rulings on typical jurisprudential reasonings; they are starting at the conclusions they would like to reach and if originalism helps them get there, great! If not they will finagle another self-serving argument that leads to the destination they want
This is most likely why they are consistently doing broadly damaging things to the country while (mostly, recent events notwithstanding) ruling against Trump’s personal interests
They do not care about Trump the man except inasmuch he is able to help them maintain their power
This reminds me of when I shadowed a judge during my articling. After sitting in on a 1-day trial he told me afterwards 'I know what the ruling is going to be, now I just have to figure out why.'
I mean, two points for honesty? It's like a fucking 80s drug PSA. Alito, they learned it by watching you!
If nothing else, Trump's administration and subsequent parade of lawsuits has laid the legal profession's failings pretty fucking bare.
And dispelled, I should think, any remaining hopes or illusions of it being the thing that will save us from him. Should he be elected (or "elected") again, I believe he will feel/seek to be even less constrained or inconvenienced by the law than he presently is.
Commander Zoom on
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
On the legal front, it looks like EJC's lawyers have agreed to terms with the bonding agent regarding the appeal.
Seems like the bonding agent agreed to change the one aspect that Robbie Kaplan might have issue with, regarding speed of payment dropping from the proposed 60 days, to the more reasonable 30 days.
https://mastodon.world/@GottaLaff@mastodon.social/112077876439339251
"Via Lisa Rubin: NEW: #EJeanCarroll’s lawyers have notified Judge Kaplan that they don’t oppose Trump’s proposed $91.63 million bond because #Trump & his insurer have modified a provision that suggested Carroll could wait 60 days or more after an appellate victory to get paid."
*image of said order*
- GottaLaff is a news aggregator with a sterling reputation.
We write on behalf of Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll pursuant to the Court’s order dated March 8,2024. See ECF 319.
‘While we did have one limited objection concerning the timing of payment to the bond that Defendant has posted in connection with his motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, the parties have discussed the issue. As a result of those discussions, Federal Insurance Company has authorized and Defendant’s counsel will agree to stipulate that the 30-day periods listed on page 3 of ECF Doc. 318-1 will be shortened to 15 days, both for the Principal and the Surety. This will have the effect of shortening the overall window to 30 days.
Depending on the Court’s preference, Your Honor can so order this letter, or the parties can submit a stipulation or other appropriate documentation to effectuate this change.
Respectfully submitted, Roberta A. Kaplan cc: Counsel of Record
Posts
He really is bart simpson with the muffin.
Since it only stopped him for a few weeks, clearly it needs to be much, much higher.
Question for the legal minds, could this impact his appeal?
That he's clearly incapable of keeping his mouth shut, and so letting the order stand? Or at the least if it is taken up, that the amount can't be considered egregious (basically his only real defense), because he's so willing to just continue to do so.
Or does the appeal have to be only about the specific instances of the original case, and what has happened since is irrelevant to that?
I mean, if he's going to appeal on the grounds of "I didn't do the thing I am again on record doing" it's going to be a problem. If it's on the grounds of "the amount levied is out of line with other cases" then he's just demonstrated that the amount levied was clearly insufficient to begin with.
Right, I'm just unsure if this is some "walled garden" bullshit where only the specifics of the trial itself are relevant, or if like you say, the two avenues of appeal both show themselves to be clearly false by his conduct since the trial.
I mean the whole purpose of the second EJC trial (resolved first, $5M), was at least In part that in the time between lodging the first one, and it resolving, he just couldn't stop.
Similarly, in the first trial (resolved second, $83M, so confusing), he couldn't relitigate the outcome of the second trial ($5M), whereby he was ruled a sexual assaulter (rapist in all but name).
My question is will this impact the appeal, or does this shit specifically require a third suit?
Exactly, everything for him hinges on becoming president and one of the things that gets his followers excited is joining in on the grievances about these trials and his accusers
Doing the things that help him legally hurt him politically which hurts him legally
The courts are not set up to handle this situation
Or!
He’s a tremendous idiot and narcissist with no impulse control
or both!
It's pretty much a classic presidential move all over the world.
There's a third option.
He's hoping that EJC dies. Each month passing is a month closer. Assuming one of his disposable plausibly deniable nutbags doesn't try something.
While she doesn't seem in ill health, she's 80 years old, and has a fair amount of stress in her life, most of that as a result of him.
She has no husband or children. Meaning likely noone with a solid claim to continue the suit.
Because you know this fucking asshole would have his lawyers argue that at least the $18.3M for emotional/reputational should no longer apply, if not the entirety including the punitive.
He's just such a fucking scumbag, I bet it's at least crossed his mind.
Troublesome.
Appeals are almost always held by a panel of judges (instead of one individual), so it tends to be somewhat harder to perform arbitrary or flimsy abrogatory actions. But appeals are also not a new trial; they are intended to assess errors in procedure or judgement. They are geared towards ensuring the trial was executed correctly: procedures were followed, evidence was entered properly, juries were instructed correctly, judges issued "fair" judgements, etc. But judges are also people and don't operate in a vacuum so arguments could lead virtually anywhere. But Trump's notice of appeal of Friday doesn't really set forth any specific argument (but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how the specifics of that work; SCOTUS prefers them in writing beforehand).
Appeals generally do not allow the introduction of new evidence. (I can find a number of instances where this seems to be more common in courts in Canada and elsewhere). There are rare instances where evidence unavailable at trial is presented to the appellate panel, but it's usually difficult to get something new admitted. However, if an appeal results in the case being remanded (returned back to trial in the lower court), evidence could also potentially be admitted at that point as well.
Aside from anger fodder to chumps who will donate to Trump's legal fund and Trump hoping he will be president again to make everything go away, Trump doesn't really get any benefit out of repeatedly bringing up Carroll. If it were anyone else, it would be a no-win proposition (there's no reason he has to talk about her other than the fact he can't control his maw).
If it helps solidify conservative power and/or erode liberal power, the Justices will be in favor of it
If it does neither of those things but hurts anyone who isn’t a rich white man, they’re still in favor of it
They will occasionally rule contrary to these principles if it gives them the veneer of impartiality among the more ignorant, willfully or otherwise
But arguments like “originalism” are where people are getting confused. These judges are not basing their rulings on typical jurisprudential reasonings; they are starting at the conclusions they would like to reach and if originalism helps them get there, great! If not they will finagle another self-serving argument that leads to the destination they want
This is most likely why they are consistently doing broadly damaging things to the country while (mostly, recent events notwithstanding) ruling against Trump’s personal interests
They do not care about Trump the man except inasmuch he is able to help them maintain their power
And Alito to a lesser extent
Question....
Not sure which of the proper nouns in the first sentence to replace with Alito.
Are you saying Alito also loves him some Trump dicksucking? Or Thomas loves him some Alito dicksucking?
Yes.
They need a judge with a clicker at this point.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/11/trump-again-attacks-e-jean-carroll-as-he-appeals-rape-defamation-penalties.html
"Trump again attacks E. Jean Carroll, as he appeals rape defamation penalties"
Literally, just a couple hours ago.
Seriously, this is the simplest explanation for what's happening.
Lawsuits and judgements don't vanish just because someone dies.
If Carroll dies, Trump will still owe that money to her estate. And $83.3 million dollars is a very strong incentive to continue pursuing the judgement for whoever is the executor / inheritor of her estate.
Jail, is what I’m saying.
Well, it’s not really contempt of court, it’s just more fodder for EJC to go after him with
It only becomes criminal if/when he can’t/doesn’t pay, but because he has the chance to become emperor there’s people willing to pay his bills for him
This reminds me of when I shadowed a judge during my articling. After sitting in on a 1-day trial he told me afterwards 'I know what the ruling is going to be, now I just have to figure out why.'
I mean, two points for honesty? It's like a fucking 80s drug PSA. Alito, they learned it by watching you!
If nothing else, Trump's administration and subsequent parade of lawsuits has laid the legal profession's failings pretty fucking bare.
And dispelled, I should think, any remaining hopes or illusions of it being the thing that will save us from him. Should he be elected (or "elected") again, I believe he will feel/seek to be even less constrained or inconvenienced by the law than he presently is.
Also, his odds at reelection are pretty strong so I wouldn't use the word "prayer" in this case.
Seems like the bonding agent agreed to change the one aspect that Robbie Kaplan might have issue with, regarding speed of payment dropping from the proposed 60 days, to the more reasonable 30 days.
https://mastodon.world/@GottaLaff@mastodon.social/112077876439339251
"Via Lisa Rubin: NEW: #EJeanCarroll’s lawyers have notified Judge Kaplan that they don’t oppose Trump’s proposed $91.63 million bond because #Trump & his insurer have modified a provision that suggested Carroll could wait 60 days or more after an appellate victory to get paid."
*image of said order*
- GottaLaff is a news aggregator with a sterling reputation.