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

[p0rtia]

Nice try, Alina.

They were indeed at the same law firm -- 30 years ago.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

(b) the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness;

Bolding is Habba's; blinky part is what she missed. She continues to prove that she's a pretty dumb lawyer.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

NY Post called the $83.3 mil verdict "eye popping". " It is "mouth shutting" as well since tfg hasn't said nary a word.

[northland10]

Nice try, Alina.

They were indeed at the same law firm -- 30 years ago.

And I assume being a "mentor" was the common practice of having a senior attorney help a newbie acclimate to their first job out of law school. It would not have been too long anyway, as he was nominated by Clinton in 1994.

[Kendra]

Rachel Maddow will have E Jean on her show tonight, and I believe BOTH lawyers.

[raison de arizona]

Unseemly, waiting to see context though.

Rachel Maddow asks E. Jean Carroll what she's going to do with "Trump's money" to help "women's rights."

Carroll says she and Maddow will "go shopping, get completely new wardrobes, new shoes...Rachel, what do you want, penthouse?"

Her lawyer nervously says "that's a joke":

[raison de arizona]

Right on.

"He's nothing. He is like a walrus snorting." E.Jean Carroll describes her surprise at how insubstantial Donald Trump's presence was in court, despite his image and hype.

Moar:

► Show Spoiler

E. Jean Carroll tells Rachel Maddow “it’s really not about me anymore,” then lays out the Anti-Trump agenda to “take back our future.”

She then (“jokingly”) lists off all the things she’s going to buy with Trumps money that she was awarded in court.

[bill_g]

He should just sign over MAL to her.

[AndyinPA]

I imagine she's got better taste than that.

Could sell it, of course.

[Resume18]

Walrus Snorting is Trump's NA name.

[RTH10260]

Walrus Snorting is Trump's NA name.

That's very tame versus the nicknames the FL senior takes into his mouth and spits out again.

[Rolodex]

He should just sign over MAL to her.

I don't think it's worth $83 million.

[p0rtia]

[raison de arizona]

Lawyer Kaplan's response letter to Habba's allegations. Worth noting is that she mentions Rule 11 sanctions.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .282.0.pdf

[Uninformed]

Wouldn’t it be grand if Carroll got hold of Merde a Lago and then managed to change its designation from commercial to residential.

[RTH10260]

... and kick out current squatters on a few days notice

[chancery]

Worth noting is that she mentions Rule 11 sanctions.

Meh. A mostly meaningless and unnecessary gesture.

Rule 11 sanctions aren't free-ranging bolts of lightning; they are only available in specific procedural contexts. And even if Habba is foolish enough to move for a new trial on this basis, I'm not sure that it would be a useful response for Carroll's lawyers to go through the Rule 11 rigamarole.

What Habba should be worried about is a sua sponte bar referral from Kaplan.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Worth noting is that she mentions Rule 11 sanctions.

Meh. A mostly meaningless and unnecessary gesture.

Rule 11 sanctions aren't free-ranging bolts of lightning; they are only available in specific procedural contexts. And even if Habba is foolish enough to move for a new trial on this basis, I'm not sure that it would be a useful response for Carroll's lawyers to go through the Rule 11 rigamarole.

What Habba should be worried about is a sua sponte bar referral from Kaplan.

Unless it's part of a pattern of Rule 11 violations that pervaded the whole trial (and that brings up the issue of whether they waited too long). Otherwise, it's penny ante even if successful unless she gets hit with nonmonetary sanctions from the judge.

[chancery]

Unless it's part of a pattern of Rule 11 violations that pervaded the whole trial

Rule 11 motions don't work that way.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Ah, must be a different Rule then (and thus the reason I included the parenthetical). I was thinking of the sanctions on the Kraken et al. in particular, what Rule were they sanctioned under?

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I should clarify: I was considering that any single Rule 11 violation would only require a few hours of attorney time to deal with, but if there was an extensive pattern of it, that could be lumped together in a single motion and add up to quite a lot of attorney fees in aggregate (you only get fees for the amount of time you spent on it, but if each violation took 4 hours and there were 20 violations, that's 80 hours, which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars).

[chancery]

Ah, must be a different Rule then (and thus the reason I included the parenthetical). I was thinking of the sanctions on the Kraken et al. in particular, what Rule were they sanctioned under?

Same rule. Motions for sanctions under Rule 11 are addressed to papers filed in federal court that don't satisfy the standards set forth in Rule 11(b)(1-4).* Rule 11 allows opposing counsel to recover the fees incurred in responding to a filing that does not satisfy the standards, but only if, before responding, they send a letter explaining why they believe that that the filing was improper and demanding that the filing be withdrawn. That's what the lawyers for the City of Detroit did with respect to the Kraken complaint: they sent the "safe harbor" letter, which plaintiffs ignored, so that, after successfully moving to dismiss the complaint, they were able to bring a successful motion under Rule 11 to recover some of their attorneys fees.

Rule 11 doesn't allow Carroll's lawyers to file a motion post-trial requesting reimbursement of legal fees on the grounds that Trump's lawyers engaged in lots of improper conduct over the course of the litigation.

________
*

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Okay, we're on the same page now, I just wasn't describing my thought process well.

[Reality Check]

Habba Babba sort of backs down (but not really) after Roberta Kaplan spanked her.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .283.0.pdf

Dear Judge Kaplan:
I write in response to the letter submitted earlier today by Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Roberta
Kaplan. ECF 282. In her letter, Ms. Kaplan mischaracterizes the substance of a letter recently
submitted on behalf of President Trump, see ECF 281, and makes inflammatory and unwarranted
accusations against the undersigned.

Contrary to Ms. Kaplan’s contention, there are no “false allegations of a ‘mentor-mentee
relationship between Your Honor and [Ms. Kaplan]’” contained in my January 29 letter. ECF 282
at 1. The purpose of the letter was simply to inquire as to whether there is any merit to a recently
published New York Post story which reported on the alleged existence of such a relationship. See
ECF 282, Ex. A. To be clear, this claim originated solely from the New York Post, where it was
purportedly sourced from a “former Paul Weiss partner who asked not to be named.” Id. at 2. I
played no part in uncovering this information; have never communicated with the unnamed Paul
Weiss partner; and have no personal knowledge as to whether the information contained in the article
is true or false. As I stated in my January 29 letter, I “learned for the first time” about the purported
mentor-mentee relationship from the New York Post. ECF 281 at 1. Although I am quoted in the
article, my statements were given in response to the reporter’s request for comment (which, per the
article, was also sought from Kaplan Hecker & Fink).

The point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information contained in the New
York Post article is accurate. Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee
relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved.1
We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.

1 There are, however, various other issues relating to the Court’s conduct, including potential bias
hostility towards defense counsel, that will be raised in post-trial motions and on appeal

[Luke]

If Donald became a furry, a Walrus is a perfect choice. Just created this, kinda hits the mark

Trump Walrus 2.webp (47.61 KiB) Viewed 1059 times

Has he said her name yet? Last I checked, he still hadn't. That is really an accomplishment. Robbie Kaplan said she was watching and if he did it again, boom back to court.