Fogbow

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 8:26 pm

June bug wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 5:26 pm

chancery wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:10 pm

Ah, I had missed (or forgotten) that significant detail.

And the 2 other accusers, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynof, both also testified to digital penetration.

I'm pretty sure they didn't. Leeds I think testified that he got his hand up his skirt, but I don't think he got any farther. Stoynof, I'm pretty sure no.

Sorry - badly put. I meant no more than that, as opposed to genital intercourse which is required for rape.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:23 pm Apology accepted. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the poll also didn’t address defamation, which was a separate potential (and as it turns out, actual) basis for damages.

True, but that would (I think) have come in with way more than 10 options:

• liable for rape, award > $1 million
• liable for rape, award < $1 million
• liable for sexual battery, award > $1 million
• liable for sexual battery, award < $1 million
• liable for defamation, award > $1 million
• liable for defamation, award < $1 million
• punitive damages for rape
• punitive damages for sexual battery
• punitive damages for defamation
• hung jury on rape
• hung jury on sexual battery
• hung jury on defamation
• defense verdict

.
Did I get them all? It was a complicated case.


And y'all know me, I would've screwed it up no matter what I did.

.

.
.

Now here's a question. Am I reading the verdict form right? (Yes, I double checked it.)

Sexual Battery
Damages: $2 million
Punitives: $20,000

Defamation
Damages: $1 million
Punitives: $280,000

So, twice as much damage from the sexual battery as from the defamation, but fourteen times as much punitive damages for the defamation as for the sexual battery.

Isn't that a little weird? Why did they think the defamation was only half as bad as the sexual battery, and at the same time so much worse in terms of punitive damages than the sexual battery?

Perhaps in recognition that he was the most powerful man in the world (snicker) when he made the statements and not just some NYC gadabout, not to mention the doubling down?

Yeah, that makes sense to me. And it furthers the idea that the jury was being really thoughtful.


Except they thought he wasn't as deserving of punishment for attacking her as he was for saying she wasn't his type?

I think that's weird, but maybe it's just me.

Or maybe they looked at the evidence and did their effing job.

Could have actually happened! Just saying!

I know they did their job, but I'm trying to understand their thinking.

Why are the punitive damages for defamation 14 times as much as the punitive damages for sexual battery, when the actual damages were twice as much for sexual battery as for defamation?

Don't tell me that's not inherently contradictory, because it is.

I think maybe.

And definitely metaphysically absurd, man.

I'm not complaining, I just point out that it's mathematically unsomethingorother.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:10 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:34 pm tfg responds, in all caps.

I mean, if he's as far gone in the dementia as some have said (and some of the best people have said it, beautifully, if one might use that phrasing), then it's possible he has "absolutely no idea who this woman is" but still assaulted her. So, yeah. It's not a defense, Mister ex-President. It's just an admission that you're also losing your mind.

He's probably assaulted so many women in his life that he can't possibly remember them all.

As he admitted in the Access Hollywood tape, he just walks up to women he has never met and starts trying to kiss (and probably more) them. Who waits for an introduction?

Is it that Damages go to Ms Carroll and Punative doesn't?

Which makes sense to me that reputation damage (defamation) is less than physical/mental damage (sexual battery) to Ms Carroll.

While Punitive damage is talking to the damage to the public, and as such looking at delivering at sending a message about it's impact not on Ms Carroll (that was damages) but on society, unfortunately sexual battery is common, but defamation from the President then Ex-president is very uncommon.

Sexual Battery
Damages: $2 million
Punitives: $20,000

Defamation
Damages: $1 million
Punitives: $280,000

Or I may be completely off track..

I'm happy for the lady. It sucks when you've been fucked by anybody, especially a guy with a tiny penis. It's hard to prove rape with the digitally impaired.

Now the guy with the dick so tiny he can't get busted on a rape charge, that's his own problem, I'm not going there.

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:45 pm Its possible that rape was found not guilty as She wasn't 100% certain he penetrated her with his micro-peen. It was too small to be certain. The assault was digital penetration (ie his fingers) which she was certain of.

From the great comic Maria Bamford:

“I don’t like wearing a condom ‘cause I can’t feel anything.”

“Well… finally we’re even!”

A sexual assault that doesn't result in an actual rape is an attempted rape. Thus, I feel no compunction in calling the former president an attempted rapist.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 9:30 pm Is it that Damages go to Ms Carroll and Punative doesn't?

Which makes sense to me that reputation damage (defamation) is less than physical/mental damage (sexual battery) to Ms Carroll.

While Punitive damage is talking to the damage to the public, and as such looking at delivering at sending a message about it's impact not on Ms Carroll (that was damages) but on society, unfortunately sexual battery is common, but defamation from the President then Ex-president is very uncommon.

Sexual Battery
Damages: $2 million
Punitives: $20,000

Defamation
Damages: $1 million
Punitives: $280,000

Or I may be completely off track..

Off track.

Both the compensatory and punitive damages are awarded to Ms. Carroll.

As for the purpose of punative damages, Punitive damages are damages that are awarded in addition to contemporary damages. They are awarded as punishment for the defendant's serious misconduct and as a means of deterring the defendant and others from such behavior.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 9:30 pm Is it that Damages go to Ms Carroll and Punative doesn't?

Which makes sense to me that reputation damage (defamation) is less than physical/mental damage (sexual battery) to Ms Carroll.

While Punitive damage is talking to the damage to the public, and as such looking at delivering at sending a message about it's impact not on Ms Carroll (that was damages) but on society, unfortunately sexual battery is common, but defamation from the President then Ex-president is very uncommon.

Sexual Battery
Damages: $2 million
Punitives: $20,000

Defamation
Damages: $1 million
Punitives: $280,000

Or I may be completely off track..

Off track.

Both the compensatory and punitive damages are awarded to Ms. Carroll.

As for the purpose of punative damages, Punitive damages are damages that are awarded in addition to compensatory damages. They are awarded as punishment for the defendant's serious misconduct and as a means of deterring the defendant and others from such behavior.

Thanks!

Civil damages isn’t much on my radar.

So I started reading and have an extract from the below as it relates to NSW

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicati ... mages.html

The recognised heads of damage are:

1.
General damages: this is the term applied to non-pecuniary damages or non-economic loss suffered as a result of pain, disability, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, disfigurement or loss of expectation of life.

2.
Pecuniary loss: this term covers out-of-pocket expenses involved in medical and other treatment expenses; aids and appliances, domestic and personal care.

3.
Income loss: covering actual income loss to the date of trial and loss of income-earning capacity thereafter.

4.
Aggravated damages: awarded to a plaintiff who suffers increased distress as a result of the manner in which a defendant behaves when committing the wrong or thereafter.

5.
Exemplary damages: awarded to mark the court’s disapproval of the conduct of the defendant and to deter its repetition by the defendant or others.

6.
Nominal or contemptuous damages: this head of damage is of little relevance to claims in tort involving personal injury where actual damage is a necessary part of the cause of action. It commonly arises in cases of trespass to the person where the options available to the court range between nominal damages and a more substantial award depending on the circumstances.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 9:30 pm Is it that Damages go to Ms Carroll and Punative doesn't?

Which makes sense to me that reputation damage (defamation) is less than physical/mental damage (sexual battery) to Ms Carroll.

While Punitive damage is talking to the damage to the public, and as such looking at delivering at sending a message about it's impact not on Ms Carroll (that was damages) but on society, unfortunately sexual battery is common, but defamation from the President then Ex-president is very uncommon.

Sexual Battery
Damages: $2 million
Punitives: $20,000

Defamation
Damages: $1 million
Punitives: $280,000

Or I may be completely off track..

These numbers are off.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188 ... 7d06460000

Sexual Abuse
Compensatory: $2M
Punitive: $20k

Defamation
Damages, other than reputation repair: $1M
Damages, reputation repair: $1.7M
Punitive: $280k

Total: $5M

Still inherently contradictory. I hope one day a juror will explain.

In my opinion, sexual abuse is worse than defamation, and the jury gave her twice as much in compensatory damages for the sexual abuse as for the defamation, which reflects that.

But they also indicated that they thought defamation is worse than sexual abuse, because they gave her fourteen times as much in punitive (aka exemplary) damages for the defamation.

That can't be explained without recourse to the people who made the decision. I'm sure there's a rational explanation, but I can't imagine what it is, and so that's why it has me so curious.

I often say more will be revealed, but in this case I dunno.

I can understand it. The sexual assault was over quickly, and occurred 30 years ago. The defamation, however, was continuous, even up to the present day.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:53 pm I can understand it. The sexual assault was over quickly, and occurred 30 years ago. The defamation, however, was continuous, even up to the present day.

Makes sense to me

Yeah, that makes sense. But I think there are other possibilities.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:53 pm I can understand it. The sexual assault was over quickly, and occurred 30 years ago. The defamation, however, was continuous, even up to the present day.

That's the way i would read it. Ongoing day by day insults by himself and his cultists by a guy who has microphones shoved into his mouth all the time and whom the Media gleefully reports. That's more damaging than the assault itself.

Too, also, the sexual assault may have damaged some of her quality of life, but the defamation attacks her livelihood.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:25 pm Side question, though, for all the lawyers in the house:

A court of competent jurisdiction has now gone on record as finding Trump liable for defamation. This means a court has entered into the record that Trump has uttered publicly and 'loudly' a comment about someone that is, by legal definition, untrue. That means that a court has found Trump has lied.

Does this open any doors to be used elsewere in matters where Trump's probity or mendacity is at issue?

Follow-up to the above question: Since he a) is named in a second case by her, and b) is CONTINUING to call her a liar...

Trump added that he would “probably” attend the trial. “It’s a disgrace that it’s allowed to happen,” he ranted. “False accusations against a rich guy, or in my case against a famous, rich and political person that’s leading the polls by 40 points, and I have to go back for a woman who made a false accusation about me.”

“I’m going to go back, and I’m going to confront her because look, this woman is a disgrace and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in our country,” he continued. It’s totally false, it was fake, she’s a fake. She wrote in her book she’s a Democrat.”)

... can she use the liability verdict from the done trial as a weapon in the second trial or sue him a third time for the continuing defamation?

Talking head legal beagles suggested that the jury may have come up with a figure (3 mil) and worked backwards. They said that having talked with juries post-trial, this is common.

I personally think that if the above is what happened, then what the jurors did was to spread it around without much thought--cause they were in a hurry and they didn't think it mattered.

I mean, they barely had time to fill out the form; they clearly weren't going into the nuances of punitive v damages.

It might even have been suggested that they wanted to load up on the damages to show the Carroll had been seriously harmed, and went light on the punitive is because TFG is never gonna change and they know it, and has the money to pay, and they know it.

Anyway, that works for me.

I was curious about the defamation claim. Here's the 2019 statement that's at its heart:

Regarding the "story" by E. Jean Carroll, claiming she once encountered me at Bergdorf Goodman 23 years ago. I've never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book; that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.

Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves or sell a book or carry out a political agenda—like Julie Swetnick who falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It's just as bad for people to believe it, particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a dying publication to try to prop itself up by peddling fake news—it's an epidemic.

Ms. Carroll and New York magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video? No reports? No sales attendants around?? I would like to thank Bergdorf Goodman for confirming they have no video footage of any such incident, because it never happened.

False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.

If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or New York magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should know what's really going on. It is a disgrace, and people should pay dearly for such false accusations.

The usual bootlickers are noting the jury didn't find him liable for rape, yet liable for defamation for denying the rape occurred.

But I note he denied "any such incident" occurred, yet the jury's verdict means it found the incident did occur.