E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2024 3:51 pm
This is my favorite ask from Carroll's attorney:
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
Fed. R. Evid. 402: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.
... Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
I'm crossing the streams a little here, but did you catch this tweet from Letitia James?Rolodex wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 6:16 pm 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.
NY AG James @NewYorkStateAG wrote: 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.
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.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 3:35 pmI dunno who the full team is, but Alina Habba is part of it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/ ... ation-suit
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.
bankruptcy doesn't necessarily protect Trump from having to pay up … as Alex Jones might be discovering.
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.
I think he should be careful what he asks for.Volkonski wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:52 pm Habba making desperate filing.
Trump lawyer insists he can testify at E. Jean Carroll trial
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... press.coop
Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:06 pmI think he should be careful what he asks for.Volkonski wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:52 pm Habba making desperate filing.
Trump lawyer insists he can testify at E. Jean Carroll trial
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... press.coop
Does Habba have a future as an attorney, or will she cash in as a talking head on Fox or Newsmax or OANnism?
W the actual F?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.”
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.
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.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:35 pm
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?
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).p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:35 pm 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.
W the actual F?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.”
"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
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.Rolodex wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 7:06 pmAh, 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).p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:35 pm 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.
W the actual F?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.”
"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
Whatever that was, it's been deleted.