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

[Rolodex]

This is my favorite ask from Carroll's attorney:

[noblepa]

I hope that judge Kaplan is more pro-active than judge Engoran about holding TFG to the rules.

The instant the Mango Mussolini says "I didn't know her" the gavel should come down. If he tries again, or tries to say "I didn't rape her", that should end his testimony.

As lawyer Kaplan pointed out in his letter, given the prohibition against trying to re-litigate the case, there really isn't much that the OSG can talk about. This trial is about damages, not facts. The facts have already been decided.

If he wants to argue that the damages are too high, just about anything he could say would involve an at least tacit admission that he did, in fact rape her and later defame her. He can't say "that judgement is too high because I didn't rape her". That would be an attempt to re-litigate the facts of the case.

I will be watching closely to see if the judge allows him to testify and what limits he places on TFG. I will also be watching to see if he enforces those limits.

[chancery]

Offhand, I can't think what relevant testimony Trump could give in a trial limited to Ms. Carroll's damages.

Fed. R. Evid. 401:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Fed. R. Evid. 402:

... Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

[Rolodex]

Exactly.

He could plea poverty - can't pay anything or has no income. That's not gonna fly.

Besides that, the only sorta reasonable witness a person guilty of defamation could offer would be an expert talking about how *they* would calculate damages for Carroll. I'm thinking of the expert speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Guiliani defamation case. She had a way to calculate damages. An expert in that field could rebut whatever calculation the Carroll team advances.

Are juries limited to thinking in terms of damages to the plaintiff (how much would it cost to repair her rep) vs an amount that would punish the guilty party? I'm thinking a $500,000 penalty would be nothing for this "billionaire" so they'd go significantly higher to actually make him feel it.

[raison de arizona]

Exactly.

He could plea poverty - can't pay anything or has no income. That's not gonna fly.

Besides that, the only sorta reasonable witness a person guilty of defamation could offer would be an expert talking about how *they* would calculate damages for Carroll. I'm thinking of the expert speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Guiliani defamation case. She had a way to calculate damages. An expert in that field could rebut whatever calculation the Carroll team advances.

Are juries limited to thinking in terms of damages to the plaintiff (how much would it cost to repair her rep) vs an amount that would punish the guilty party? I'm thinking a $500,000 penalty would be nothing for this "billionaire" so they'd go significantly higher to actually make him feel it.

I'm crossing the streams a little here, but did you catch this tweet from Letitia James?

Today, my office will present our closing arguments in our trial against Donald Trump for financial fraud.

For years, Donald Trump engaged in significant financial fraud to enrich himself and his family.

No matter how rich or powerful you pretend to be, no one is above the law.

[Rolodex]

I missed that!

Tish with a sick burn!

[p0rtia]

Do we know who the attorney for trump is in this Carroll trial?

I dunno who the full team is, but Alina Habba is part of it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/ ... ation-suit

It was Tacopina the first time around. I've heard both that he's been booted for this one, and that he's going to rep TFG in this one. No doubt we'll eventually find out.

[Sam the Centipede]

[Trump] could plea poverty - can't pay anything or has no income. That's not gonna fly.

The submission points out that Trump has already claimed in Engoron's NY court to be wealthy, so yes, it's not only not going to fly, the defendant has pulled off its wings, stamped on it, and given his opponents the photographs.

More credibly he could point out that he might be sorry of cash soon because a lot of his real and imagined wealth might be taken as he faces so many purse-sapping court cases?

[Dave from down under]

He could just declare bankruptcy again…

[Sam the Centipede]

He could just declare bankruptcy again…

bankruptcy doesn't necessarily protect Trump from having to pay up … as Alex Jones might be discovering.

[raison de arizona]

Dennied.

[Volkonski]

Habba making desperate filing.

Trump lawyer insists he can testify at E. Jean Carroll trial

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... press.coop

Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba outlined several issues with Carroll’s legal team’s requests, including “proposed unprecedented hurdles and unsupported ‘prophylactic measures and curative instructions’ in the event President Trump decides to testify in his upcoming trial.”

“This letter, which is the second letter motion that Plaintiff has filed in a two-day period leading up to trial, is nothing more than another desperate attempt to pigeonhole President Trump’s defense and to prevent his legal team from preparing for the upcoming trial,” Habba wrote.

Habba pushed back on the idea that Trump would have nothing to contribute in his testimony in the trial, in which Carroll is seeking $10 million in damages for defamation by the former president. The trial will determine what Trump owes in damages after a jury last year determined that Trump was liable in sexual battery.

Habba argued Trump should be allowed to testify to “the affirmative questions he was asked by reporters, which propagated his response and denial to Ms. Carroll’s story in New York magazine, and whether he was acting with hatred or ill will when he provided answers.” Habba also said Trump should be allowed to testify to the “circumstances of his comments, as they related to comments in Ms. Carroll’s continuous parade of interviews and publicity.”

Habba also took issue with the request that Trump be required “to state on the record and under oath, out of the presence of the jury, but in open court—that he understands that it is established (only) for purposes of this trial that he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll, and that he spoke falsely with actual malice and lied what accusing her of fabricating her account and impugning her motives.”

Habba said Trump is “well aware of the court’s rulings” on the matter but still maintains his innocence and, Habba said.

The other proposals, Habba said, “are similarly far-fetched and highly prejudicial,” including the requirement that there be evidence provided in support testimony Trump plans to share. Habba also pushed back at the requirement of “admonishing Mr. Trump with respect to the conclusions and testimonial implications of the Court’s collateral estoppel decision,” and at the requirement of informing Trump of consequences of not following the court’s rules.

“This is unnecessary and certainly should not be done within the presence of the jury, as making this warning in front of the jury would certainly prejudice President Trump and his defense,” Habba said.

“Given the Court’s prior rulings in this case, President Trump’s ability to defend himself at trial is already severely limited. Precluding him from taking the stand altogether would be a manifest injustice and a clear violation of his constitutional rights.”

On Saturday, Carroll’s team suggested that Trump’s lawyer misrepresented the former president’s need to delay the trial in connection to $10 million in defamation damages that the writer is seeking.

[Maybenaut]

Habba making desperate filing.

Trump lawyer insists he can testify at E. Jean Carroll trial

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... press.coop

I think he should be careful what he asks for.

[realist]

Habba making desperate filing.

Trump lawyer insists he can testify at E. Jean Carroll trial

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... press.coop

I think he should be careful what he asks for.

[RTH10260]

Does the former guy want to take the stand and answer questions to the value of his 3 story golden appartment in NYC or his MaL property in FL

[Rolodex]

Of course Habba is misrepresenting. He's never been asked to not take the stand; he's just been given parameters of what he can and can't talk about. They just hate they have to follow reasonable rules.

[Resume18]

Of course Habba is misrepresenting. He's never been asked to not take the stand; he's just been given parameters of what he can and can't talk about. They just hate they have to follow reasonable rules.

Does Habba have a future as an attorney, or will she cash in as a talking head on Fox or Newsmax or OANnism?

[p0rtia]

I'm going to spend some time today coming up with adjectives to describe Habba. She is nuts, by first thought after reading the above, is not doing it for me.

I first heard her when she was representing somebody in whatever the 2020 case was that sanctioned a bunch'o lawyers, including an unhappy Dershowitz, for submitting B.S. filings.

At first she impressed me. She's a fluent speaker, with pleasing delivery, and was engaged in the content of the hearing. That lasted about an hour before the gibberish and bullying started. And believe me, it was mild compared to what it is now.

Anyway:

Habba argued Trump should be allowed to testify to “the affirmative questions he was asked by reporters, which propagated his response and denial to Ms. Carroll’s story in New York magazine, and whether he was acting with hatred or ill will when he provided answers.” Habba also said Trump should be allowed to testify to the “circumstances of his comments, as they related to comments in Ms. Carroll’s continuous parade of interviews and publicity.”

W the actual F?

Is "affirmative question" a legal term of art? Someone please enlighten me before I get too sarcastic.

FTR, in English grammar and usage, an affirmative question is simply your basic question structure, like "Are you going to the store?" As opposed to a negative question, which would be "Aren't you going to the store?"

Is La Habba suggesting that if fuckhead had been asked, for example, "Didn't you know Ms. Carroll?" instead of, "Did you know Ms. Carroll?" that would have made a difference?

"Propagated his response." I can see her groping for a word that tries to shift responsibility for the slanderous answer to the questioner. But, propagated? I propagated a coleus recently (and if you haven't propagated your coleuses, you should). My domain name servers propagated last time I changed them. "Instigate" wasn't working for you, Habba? "Provoked?" Or if you wanted to be outrageous as well as stupid, "Forced him kicking and screaming to give responses that he in no way believed but only gave to get those aggressive reporters off his back."

And yes, let's hear how the world's most famous liar never speaks with ill-will or hatred. Let's hear him testify about that. Because that would be useful. As Maybenaut and Realist have pointed out, that would be...interesting.

And how DARE Ms. Carroll tell all those people, and write in her book, that fuckhead had raped her! Perhaps Judge Kaplan didn't know about that; surely if he had, he would have realized that _she_ was the aggressor, and that fuckhead had, as he likes to say, every right to attack her back with as much ill will as he liked! Because she deserved it!

Oh wait, no, that doesn't work.

Which I know, even though IANAL, does not even put a dent in the legal insanity of her words.



Okay, I'm done. Affirmative question.... /muttering

[p0rtia]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .265.0.pdf

La Habba's version of recent events in Judge Engoron's courtroom:

With respect to the case commenced by the New York State Attorney General in New YorkState Supreme Court (the “AG Case”), the situation was markedly different from the instant case, where the President Trump was giving a closing statement after a long trial. President Trump properly asked the Court to consider the financial statements, the present state of the Trump Organization’s insurance company (“…Zurich, one of the most prestigious property and most prestigious insurance company in the world…”,) the lack of witnesses (“There was no witnesses against us,” “They have nothing”), the lack of damages (“the banks got all their money paid back. The banks are happy as can be.”), and an explanation for one piece of evidence that should have no bearing on damages (“They do have a triplex where they made a mistake and they corrected it immediately when it was made, and it was de minimis, because the amount of money they’re talking about compared to the billions of dollars of net worth is irrelevant. It’s virtually irrelevant. It’s a very small number. It was a mistake that was corrected.”) Letter, Ex. B. In the Letter,
Plaintiff presents a contrived narrative of what transpired, cherry-picking President Trump’s testimony without acknowledging that he talked about the lack of damages and lack of intent, which were elements of the six causes of action that remained post-summary judgment and were the subject of the trial. See Letter at 2. Also, contrary to Plaintiff’s misrepresentation in her letter, President Trump honored the time limitations imposed by the court.

[Maybenaut]

W the actual F?

Is "affirmative question" a legal term of art? Someone please enlighten me before I get too sarcastic.

FTR, in English grammar and usage, an affirmative question is simply your basic question structure, like "Are you going to the store?" As opposed to a negative question, which would be "Aren't you going to the store?"

Is La Habba suggesting that if fuckhead had been asked, for example, "Didn't you know Ms. Carroll?" instead of, "Did you know Ms. Carroll?" that would have made a difference?

I understood it as describing questions he was affirmatively asked, as opposed to extemporaneous statement that he made, either on his own or in response to some other question. I think she’s trying to say that when reporters ask him a question, he should be able to answer it because if he says “no comment” or is silent, that might be taken as an admission. So they asked, he responded, and now he gets to talk about why he said what he said.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in your interpretation; I just had a slightly different take - that affirmative modified the fact that the question was asked, rather than the content of the question.

As to the other, I think provoked was the word she was looking for. That makes the most sense to me.

But like I said, if he gets to testify about this stuff, the plaintiff gets to cross-examine him on it. This is a perjury minefield that could have implications beyond this trial.

[Rolodex]

I'm going to spend some time today coming up with adjectives to describe Habba. She is nuts, by first thought after reading the above, is not doing it for me.

Habba argued Trump should be allowed to testify to “the affirmative questions he was asked by reporters, which propagated his response and denial to Ms. Carroll’s story in New York magazine, and whether he was acting with hatred or ill will when he provided answers.” Habba also said Trump should be allowed to testify to the “circumstances of his comments, as they related to comments in Ms. Carroll’s continuous parade of interviews and publicity.”

W the actual F?


"Propagated his response." I can see her groping for a word that tries to shift responsibility for the slanderous answer to the questioner. But, propagated? I propagated a coleus recently (and if you haven't propagated your coleuses, you should). My domain name servers propagated last time I changed them. "Instigate" wasn't working for you, Habba? "Provoked?" Or if you wanted to be outrageous as well as stupid, "Forced him kicking and screaming to give responses that he in no way believed but only gave to get those aggressive reporters off his back."


Which I know, even though IANAL, does not even put a dent in the legal insanity of her words.



Okay, I'm done. Affirmative question.... /muttering

Ah, but you see, the court is not the actual audience for her words. Mainly, an audience of one, with higher-functioning MAGAts thrown in (the ones who might actually read as well as watching OANN).

[Dave from down under]

He won’t want to testify where he could be cross examined.

He will want to make an unhinged unfettered closing statement as he did in New York.

[RVInit]

https://x.com/Pmfjfla/status/1744785703219650794?s=20

[p0rtia]

I'm going to spend some time today coming up with adjectives to describe Habba. She is nuts, by first thought after reading the above, is not doing it for me.

Habba argued Trump should be allowed to testify to “the affirmative questions he was asked by reporters, which propagated his response and denial to Ms. Carroll’s story in New York magazine, and whether he was acting with hatred or ill will when he provided answers.” Habba also said Trump should be allowed to testify to the “circumstances of his comments, as they related to comments in Ms. Carroll’s continuous parade of interviews and publicity.”

W the actual F?


"Propagated his response." I can see her groping for a word that tries to shift responsibility for the slanderous answer to the questioner. But, propagated? I propagated a coleus recently (and if you haven't propagated your coleuses, you should). My domain name servers propagated last time I changed them. "Instigate" wasn't working for you, Habba? "Provoked?" Or if you wanted to be outrageous as well as stupid, "Forced him kicking and screaming to give responses that he in no way believed but only gave to get those aggressive reporters off his back."


Which I know, even though IANAL, does not even put a dent in the legal insanity of her words.



Okay, I'm done. Affirmative question.... /muttering

Ah, but you see, the court is not the actual audience for her words. Mainly, an audience of one, with higher-functioning MAGAts thrown in (the ones who might actually read as well as watching OANN).

Of course. That goes without saying. My academic sensibilities are wounded by the total absence of intent or meaning, in part accomplished by the misuse of words, and a design to skirt around the Thing She Wants To Say with what she thinks is clever ambiguity. I'll leave others to give her an F in Briefs 101. I'm giving her an F in Writing 101.

[Suranis]

https://x.com/Pmfjfla/status/1744785703219650794?s=20

Whatever that was, it's been deleted.

That's why its a good idea to copy and paste the text sometimes.