E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[Sam the Centipede]

Off Topic

RTH attended the same school as Dan Quayle!

[AndyinPA]

Off Topic

RTH attended the same school as Dan Quayle!

Off Topic

[RTH10260]

Did I dip my toe in cold water

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Maybe, maybe not, but your alleged classmate dipped his potatoe in hot water.

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/politics ... index.html

Former President Donald Trump is asking a federal appeals court to delay his defamation trial set for next month in a lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll so he can consider other legal moves, including potentially taking the case to the US Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court rejected Trump’s use of presidential immunity as a defense to the defamation charges stemming from statements he made while president, saying he had waived his right to assert it by making the claim too late into the litigation.

The court sent the case back to the trial judge to move ahead to trial, which is set for January 16.
In a motion Thursday, Trump’s attorneys asked the appeals court to stay the trial to allow them time to consider their appellate options, including asking a full panel of appeals court judges to hear his arguments or taking the case to the Supreme Court.

[MN-Skeptic]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

JUST IN: The 2nd Circuit appeals court has denied Trump’s motion to stay the ruling rejecting his claim of immunity from E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit.

Trump had asked for the stay — and to delay the January trial — while he considered appealing to SCOTUS.

The court also denied Carroll’s motion to effectuate its immunity ruling by Jan. 5.

[p0rtia]

Effectuate its immunity ruling means what? I mean, we know all the words but the practical meaning in law is elusive. Tx!

[bob]

Effectuate its immunity ruling means what? I mean, we know all the words but the practical meaning in law is elusive. Tx!

The tweet's "explainer," well, didn't.

An appeal officially ends when the appellate court issues its "mandate." (The mandate directs the lower court to resume proceedings, as instructed by the appellate court's ruling.)

The defendant asked the appellate court to hold the mandate, which would effectively keep the case with the appellate court and deny the district court of jurisdiction to try the case.

Carroll asked the appellate court to issue the mandate by January 5, or to at least return jurisdiction to the district court, so the January 6 trial could proceed.

The appellate court said "nope" to both requests. Meaning the case will proceed in due course, as if it were a regular case.

The likely next step will be a cert. petition to SCOTUS, with an application to stay pending the cert. petition. Which SCOTUS likely will grant. Unless a party asks for an expedition, the cert. petition will proceed in due course.

I would not expect the January 6 trial to happen.

[chancery]

Yabut, the Second Circuit previously, on September 13, denied Trump's motion for a stay pending Trump's interlocutory appeal of the order denying his motion for dismissal on grounds of immunity. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .216.0.pdf

And if you look at the district court docket, you'll see that the parties and the court have been busily proceeding with the final stages of preparation for trial during the pendency of the appeal.


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18 ... er_by=desc

And finally, on December 13, the Second Circuit's mandate for its order denying and dismissing the various components of Trump's appeal and remanding to the district court for further proceedings was transmitted to the district court. (I don't know if there's a procedure for recalling the mandate if Trump pursues reconsideration or certiorari.)

So I'm

Not having access to Wright & Miller, I can only speculate there's a penumbra of uncertainty about whether an interlocutory appeal of denial of an immunity motion automatically deprives a district court of jurisdiction in a way that precludes a court of appeals for authorizing the district court to carry on. I've also seen something to the effect that, to the extent that loss of jurisdiction is automatic and mandatory, it does not apply to appeals from a court of appeals to the Supreme Court.

I further speculate that this uncertainty is tolerable with respect to pre-trial proceedings, because the prior actions of the court can be ratified at a later date, presumably even in the face of objection from a party. But plaintiff is justifiably worried about proceeding to trial when there is some uncertainty about the district court's jurisdiction.

[chancery]

I forgot to mention that the Courtlistener page for the interlocutory appeal appears to include only selections from the Second Circuit's docket. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... l-v-trump/

I couldn't find Carroll's motion on the Courtlistener page, which would have clarified why she asked the Second Circuit to issue a mandate on January 5 that had apparently already been issued on December 13, and more generally what concerns prompted her to ask the court of appeals to confirm that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed. And I don't have the time or the inclination to wrestle with appellate pacer.

[p0rtia]

Effectuate its immunity ruling means what? I mean, we know all the words but the practical meaning in law is elusive. Tx!

The tweet's "explainer," well, didn't.

An appeal officially ends when the appellate court issues its "mandate." (The mandate directs the lower court to resume proceedings, as instructed by the appellate court's ruling.)

The defendant asked the appellate court to hold the mandate, which would effectively keep the case with the appellate court and deny the district court of jurisdiction to try the case.

Carroll asked the appellate court to issue the mandate by January 5, or to at least return jurisdiction to the district court, so the January 6 trial could proceed.

The appellate court said "nope" to both requests. Meaning the case will proceed in due course, as if it were a regular case.

The likely next step will be a cert. petition to SCOTUS, with an application to stay pending the cert. petition. Which SCOTUS likely will grant. Unless a party asks for an expedition, the cert. petition will proceed in due course.

I would not expect the January 6 trial to happen.

As someone somewhere recently commented, Meidas Touch has largely descended into running TFG clips and saying how stupid he is. Not exactly riveting--and unwatchable for anyone who, like me, doesn't want to hear TFG's voice or see his hateful face.

But I still enjoy the legal stuff MT presents. Just now, Ben M did a recap of the 2nd Circuit denial of the two motions.

So, for the record, and not because I have an opinion one way or the other--I'm just an interested bystander who likes to keep track: His take, regarding the denial of Carroll's motion to put the "no immunity" ruling into effect by Jan 5 was that the Court was saying "don't tell us when to effectuate our rulings" and that he (Ben) thought that the 2nd Circuit would in fact do the effectuating _before_ Jan 5, i.e., immediately.

Ben thinks the trial is on track to begin on Jan 6. No mention of cert. petitions to SCOTUS.

[chancery]

I've realized that I misread the district court's docket sheet.

I wrote:

And finally, on December 13, the Second Circuit's mandate for its order denying and dismissing the various components of Trump's appeal and remanding to the district court for further proceedings was transmitted to the district court. (I don't know if there's a procedure for recalling the mandate if Trump pursues reconsideration or certiorari.)

I couldn't find Carroll's motion on the Courtlistener page, which would have clarified why she asked the Second Circuit to issue a mandate on January 5 that had apparently already been issued on December 13

The district court docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18 ... er_by=desc

Docket No. 236, dated December 13, contains the Second Circuit's order and two case management housekeeping entries, which read:

Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to District Judge

and

Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re: 236 USCA Order.(km)

These housekeeping entries record the transmission of either an order or a mandate; in this instance, in light of Carroll's subsequent motion, it was evidently only the order.

However, a passage in the order confirms my speculation about the "no harm, no foul" aspect of Judge Kaplan's permitting pre-trial proceedings to continue in the district court, despite the possibility that the court of appeals might have held that the appeal had divested the district court of jurisdiction.

The District Court determined that it retained jurisdiction because Defendant’s appeal was frivolous. We need not decide whether Defendant’s appeal is frivolous, for we conclude that under the singular circumstances presented here, considerations of judicial economy and efficiency favor the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would require the District Court on remand to possibly undertake the rather pointless exercise of readopting the orders it has issued since July 19, 2023, the date Defendant appealed the July 7 Order.83 “[O]ur application of the divestiture rule must be faithful to the principle of judicial economy from which it springs,” and “it should not be employed to defeat its purposes or to induce endless paper shuffling.” This Court has declined to apply the divestiture rule under similar circumstances in the past, and we reach the same result here.

Footnote: See United States v. Rodríguez-Rosado, 909 F.3d 472, 478 (1st Cir. 2018) (“We think applying the bench-made divestiture rule today would surely short-circuit its aim of judicial efficiency . . . . [W]ith jurisdiction back in its hands, the district court, undoubtedly, would again deny [defendant’s] motion, like every other time it has confronted—and denied—the motion. And then, chances are that [defendant] would once more appeal his case to us. Which would present to us [another] variation on the original theme of this case, like an encore, featuring the very same parties, the very same motion, the very same denial order, and the very same arguments on the merits. That seems to us too much to ask of a rule fashioned to ferret imprudence out of the courts.”); see also United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2009) (“(B)ecause [defendant’s] interlocutory appeal was ultimately a losing one, any claimed error in proceeding with limited pretrial matters was harmless and no useful purpose would be served by requiring that court to redecide the pre-trial motions.” (quotation marks omitted)).

[Rolodex]

Carroll's expert is the same expert that testified in the Giuliani case (where he was slapped with $148 million fine/penalty).I don't have any info yet on the expert tfg wanted (probably Eastman LOL)
Trump is having a pretty bad end of 2023 and I'm here for it!

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/politics ... index.html

A federal appeals court denied Donald Trump’s effort to delay his defamation trial set to begin in two weeks.

In a brief court order issued late last week, a three-member panel of judges for the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, denied Trump’s motion without elaborating.

Trump asked the appeals court to delay the trial after he lost an earlier attempt to use presidential immunity as a defense to the defamation allegations. He said he needed additional time to consider his options, including potentially seeking review by the US Supreme Court. He could still do that, but he would need to move quickly since the defamation trial is set to begin on January 16.

Also, Trump’s attorneys moved to block the jury in the second trial from seeing the video of Trump’s deposition that was played at the first trial. In the video, Trump mistakes Carroll in a photograph for his second wife, Marla Maples, calls Carroll a “whack job,” and says “historically” celebrities could grab women: “If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.” His attorneys say Trump is listed as a witness so his deposition shouldn’t be played.

Carroll’s lawyers oppose it, writing to the judge, “We have heard this song before.” Trump was also listed as a potential witness in the first trial, but didn’t testify. They said they can still use the video in their case. The judge has not ruled in that dispute.

[Rolodex]

Is this the Carroll I case or something she slapped on after he defamed her when he lost the Carroll II case?

[Dr. Ken]

Is this the Carroll I case or something she slapped on after he defamed her when he lost the Carroll II case?

This is the second case. After he defamed her and lost and she was awarded damages he immediatedly started defaming her again. So she sued him again.

[Rolodex]

Is this the Carroll I case or something she slapped on after he defamed her when he lost the Carroll II case?

This is the second case. After he defamed her and lost and she was awarded damages he immediatedly started defaming her again. So she sued him again.

Thanks. Her cases are confusing. The first suit she filed they call Carroll I. But when they changed the NY laws about sexual abuse statues of limitations, she filed another suit designated Carroll II - which ended up in court first. I know he defamed her right after that case and was fairly sure she refiled a defamation case based on that. Bless her.

[chancery]

Is this the Carroll I case or something she slapped on after he defamed her when he lost the Carroll II case?

This is the second case. After he defamed her and lost and she was awarded damages he immediatedly started defaming her again. So she sued him again.

That's not correct; it's hard to keep straight.

This is the first-filed case, that was based on statements Trump made while he was president. The first-tried case was based on comments made by Trump after his term, and also claims for sexual assault, under the NYS revival statute that permitted claims for sexual assault previously barred by the statue of limitations.

I believe that the plaintiff has added claims based on statements made by Trump after the verdict in the first-tried case.

Edit: "Jinx"

Edited again to clarify to whom I was responding.

[p0rtia]

To simplify, this is Carroll 1 (one).

Stuff said while president*.

[Rolodex]

To simplify, this is Carroll 1 (one).

Stuff said while president*.

Thanks. I learned of the cases as Carroll I and Carroll II so that's what makes sense in my head. She won II last year (rape and $5mm) and toward the end of last year, I think, they decided that defamation was not indeed an official act of a president so Case I could proceed ... and I guess now here we are!

[MN-Skeptic]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney

The federal appeals court in NY has *denied* Donald Trump's request for the full bench to hear his civil immunity appeal. This could be moving ot SCOTUS imminently.

[chancery]

Er, no.

As I read the Second Circuit's order, the court, noting that a petition for rehearing [by the panel] or rehearing en banc [by the full court of appeals] has been filed with an accompanying application to stay proceedings in the district court, has denied

not the petition for rehearing

not the petition for rehearing en banc

just the application for an order staying proceedings in the district court. The trial can go forward.

But the appeal can't (in the ordinary course) go forward to the Supreme Court until the court of appeals resolves the petitions for rehearing.

Now, this is a very, very, very, very bad omen with respect to the success of the petitions for rehearing. Yet it's not dispositive. A well-functioning court of appeals goes to some pains to avoid wasting the time of the district courts within its supervisory powers. However, if, by some miracle, the court within the next month or two had a revelation that caused it believe that it should grant one of the petitions for rehearing and order the case dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, it would do so, and "too bad, so sad," for the wasted efforts of the parties, the jury, and the district court on going forward with the trial.

But it's not ... very ... likely.

Nonetheless, it's a bad look for @kyledcheney to have muddled this.

[Reality Check]

Yes, the two cases are confusing. E. Jean Carol v Trump I got delayed because in fall of 2020 the Trump DoJ filed to substitute the USA as a defendant in the case because it claimed Trump was a government employee when he made the defaming statements. Even the Garland DoJ continued to argue this claim. However after multiple losses in the District courts and appellate courts the DoJ eventually withdrew all the actions last year. The case is finally going before a jury this month since the 2nd Circuit will not issue a stay.

[Dr. Ken]

He's having a real normal one this morning. Providing more fodder for E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit and he sent 9 posts this morning on his social media site talking shit about her.

[Rolodex]

He's having a real normal one this morning. Providing more fodder for E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit and he sent 9 posts this morning on his social media site talking shit about her.

He must spin his Wheel of Grievances every morning to decide whom to attack. There are so many to choose from; how could he possibly decide!