Fogbow

(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;

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 5:46 pm Nice try, Alina.

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

Steve Krakauer @SteveKrak wrote: 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":

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog wrote: "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.

Resume18 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:03 am Walrus Snorting is Trump's NA name.

bill_g wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:19 am He should just sign over MAL to her.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:14 pm Worth noting is that she mentions Rule 11 sanctions.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:17 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:14 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:27 pm
Unless it's part of a pattern of Rule 11 violations that pervaded the whole trial

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:41 pm 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?

(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.

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