Quote:

---

Could it be argued on appeal that the short window actually creates a sort of Bill of Attainder, since it was designed to open and close so quickly?

---

Unlikely. Bills of Attainder are criminal in nature, not civil as this one was.

Im Gipper said:

---

The judge was biased, and Trump tried to get a new expert a month before trial, long after discovery closed. That's what just about any judge wouid do.

So while this judge was biased as hell, Team Trump did him no favors in this case.

---

Just to be clear for everyone, Trump's team badly missed the deadlines for getting the new expert witness in. Like by many months, maybe even a full year if I recall correctly.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Could it be argued on appeal that the short window actually creates a sort of Bill of Attainder, since it was designed to open and close so quickly?

---

Unlikely. Bills of Attainder are criminal in nature, not civil as this one was.

---

This defamation case could have proceeded with or without the Adult Survivors Act. This lawsuit was filed almost 3 years before the ASA came around. All the ASA allowed Carroll to do was formally add a claim for sexual assault in the second lawsuit.

And the ASA isn't a bill of attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative deprivation of trial rights in order to make someone guilty of a crime without trial. There isn't a deprivation of trial rights here.

The argument that Bill Cosby is making is that the ASA is a due process violation and ex post facto violation by essentially making something which was no longer "illegal" illegal after the fact.

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s lawyer in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’ https://t.co/5T706F8XjB pic.twitter.com/rYMTA1U0AZ

— New York Post (@nypost) January 28, 2024

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers will use an "insane" and previously unknown "conflict of interest" between E. Jean Carroll's lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan's "mentor.

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

Zak Sawyer, a rep for Roberta Kaplan, insisted no conflict exists.

"They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him," said Sawyer, who declined to provide further comment.

But a former Paul Weiss partner who asked not to be named said like all associates at the firm, Roberta Kaplan did her best to distinguish herself before partners, including Lewis Kaplan.

"Lew was like her mentor," claimed the former partner.

Messages left with Judge Kaplan's chambers and a rep for Paul Weiss were not returned Saturday.

---

Yeah, this is weak. Roberta Kaplan's co-counsel, Shawn Crowley was Judge Lewis Kaplan's law clerk for awhile. That was discussed early on. So I'm a meh on that argument.

I am now going back and listening to the Gouveia streams on the first trial wherein Joe Tacopina was Trump's counsel.

Judge refused to allow any written jury questionnaires, nor prior idenitfications of the one hundred member of the jury panel. Counsel could be present but not allowed to ask any questions during voir dire. Only the judge could ask questions. Counsel could submit questions they wanted in writing but it was up to the judge to ask them.

In a case this large, from a public perception standpoint, jury was chosen by the judge in just a few hours, less than four closer to three hours. It was 6 men and 3 women. Without any infrmation about the jury panel in advance, hard to decide which jurors to use challenges to get them excused. That goes double when counsel is not allowed to even ask any questions.

Just a reminder on how this s***show wound up in federal court in the first place. Caroll originally sued in NY state court in 2019, when Trump was still a sitting President. Hence, the removal to federal court. Then when NY state changed the law in fall 2022, she added the additional claim to the lond dormant case.

While being outraged at how lawfare is working, part of me admires the creativity and smarts at crafting this test case. Because that is what it is. A manufactured case. But that is allowed in our system. Roe v. Wade was a manufactured test case. Griswold v. Connecticut was a manufactured case.

And that is often the only way to challenge statutes and state laws. But those are usually agenda/issue driven, not election interference.

As I go back and watch more about the liability trial, I will update but I do want to note one thing. Judge Kaplan treated Joe Tacopina like crap too. Habba made mistakes, sure but the moment Tacopina stood up, judge was all over his ass as well.

What is this a "test case" for?

Lawfare.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s lawyer in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’ https://t.co/5T706F8XjB pic.twitter.com/rYMTA1U0AZ

— New York Post (@nypost) January 28, 2024

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers will use an "insane" and previously unknown "conflict of interest" between E. Jean Carroll's lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan's "mentor.

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

Zak Sawyer, a rep for Roberta Kaplan, insisted no conflict exists.

"They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him," said Sawyer, who declined to provide further comment.

But a former Paul Weiss partner who asked not to be named said like all associates at the firm, Roberta Kaplan did her best to distinguish herself before partners, including Lewis Kaplan.

"Lew was like her mentor," claimed the former partner.

Messages left with Judge Kaplan's chambers and a rep for Paul Weiss were not returned Saturday.

---

---

In other words, Habba is panicking.

She would be wise to not add something so frivolous to what will already be a difficult appeal.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Who cares, F him.

---

And then they came for the Jews and I kept my mouth shut….

---

Here it is, a post comparing Donald Trump to Jews who died in the holocaust, with 322 stars.

The maga cult brainwash is real.

---

Oh...this is horse *****

While Trump/MAGA cult members exist, this is NOT a post comparing Trump to the Jews in the Holocaust.

It's just a famous example of how you can't ignore a problem just because it's not occurring directly to you.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Who cares, F him.

---

And then they came for the Jews and I kept my mouth shut….

---

First they came for the billionaire shoving his fingers in a stranger's hoo-ha, then calling her a liar and skewering her on the internet, then getting a verdict against him and continuing to call her a liar and skewer her in the internet after the verdict… just like the jews and MLK.

This is the end of life as we know it No more shoving our fingers in a stranger's hoo-ha and disparaging her repeatedly in the internet. God help us.

Yeah fake post.

I think that's fake.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I think that's fake.

---

Yeah. I could see him saying it. Thank you.

We fixed the keg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

---

I knew it!

Quote:

---

I knew it!

---

aggiehawg's Voldemort. She dare not speak the name.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Who cares, F him.

---

And then they came for the Jews and I kept my mouth shut….

---

Here it is, a post comparing Donald Trump to Jews who died in the holocaust, with 322 stars.

The maga cult brainwash is real.

---

Oh…good grief.

Be smarter. Seriously.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,

Quote:

---

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.

---

When you have been adjudicated as having raped someone and then making defamatory comments about it, the legal recourse is to APPEAL. If you comment on the case, you can say "I disagree with the verdict and maintain my innocence, we are pursing an appeal." Go beyond that and you're playing with fire.

Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.

Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..

Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.

---

Bolded is a bald-faced lie, and just shows how TDS affects people. Even an attorney is so anti-Trump that they won't be honest about what the jury found.

In fact, it ISN'T defamation to claim you didn't do something that a jury found you didn't do.

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

…. she had zero proof of the assault. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and she had no proof, but knew NYC jury would side with her without question.

---

you do not seem to have a very good understanding of the concept of "evidence." Her testimony is "evidence," as is Donald Trump's testimony. The province of the court is to determine which evidence to believe, in which evidence to discard.

Civil lawsuits simply do not require "conclusive" proof. They really acquire only "a preponderance of the evidence"…"more likely than not."

in this case, that means that the judicial system has determined that it is "more likely than not" that she is telling the truth, and Donald Trump is lying.

that is a very distinct question from the question of whether this particular sort of "lie" should give rise to a claim for defamation.

---

So, it's more likely than not that he pushed her into a dressing room in a busy department store and nobody saw or heard anything? If it was not consensual, wouldn't she have been screaming? It's more likely than not because she says so, and no other evidence?

More likely than not, the judge and jury are as "get Trump" as most Manhattan voters, since they elected Bragg at 84% of the votes.

Rapier108 said:

---

So you believe I could claim you assaulted me 30 years ago and the jury should rule in my favor simply because I said it happened.

Good to know; I'll be calling my lawyer first thing Monday morning. I could use a multimillion $$$ payday.

(And yes staff, the last line is meant to demonstrate the absurdity by being absurd as Rush used to say.)

---

Isn't that what just happened to Trump?

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

So you believe I could claim you assaulted me 30 years ago and the jury should rule in my favor simply because I said it happened.

Good to know; I'll be calling my lawyer first thing Monday morning. I could use a multimillion $$$ payday.

(And yes staff, the last line is meant to demonstrate the absurdity by being absurd as Rush used to say.)

---

Isn't that what just happened to Trump?

---

Uh yeah, that was his point. Trump is an ass and yes he is being rail-roaded by the worst of the worst. All of these things can be true.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

So you believe I could claim you assaulted me 30 years ago and the jury should rule in my favor simply because I said it happened.

Good to know; I'll be calling my lawyer first thing Monday morning. I could use a multimillion $$$ payday.

(And yes staff, the last line is meant to demonstrate the absurdity by being absurd as Rush used to say.)

---

Isn't that what just happened to Trump?

---

Yes.

Rapier is defending Trump here.

It's possible to not want him as POTUS AND see that he's getting railroaded in court in every case.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Could it be argued on appeal that the short window actually creates a sort of Bill of Attainder, since it was designed to open and close so quickly?

---

Unlikely. Bills of Attainder are criminal in nature, not civil as this one was.

---

This defamation case could have proceeded with or without the Adult Survivors Act. This lawsuit was filed almost 3 years before the ASA came around. All the ASA allowed Carroll to do was formally add a claim for sexual assault in the second lawsuit.

And the ASA isn't a bill of attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative deprivation of trial rights in order to make someone guilty of a crime without trial. There isn't a deprivation of trial rights here.

The argument that Bill Cosby is making is that the ASA is a due process violation and ex post facto violation by essentially making something which was no longer "illegal" illegal after the fact.

---

And what was he found LIABLE for? ONLY sexual assault. So, the lawfare WAS critical after all, right?

Kind of. Critical may be the wrong word, but it definitely helped her case. Kaplan found as a matter of law that Trump had defamed her based on the jury verdict in Carroll II. The case still could have gone forward without that, but the burden would have been on Carroll to prove that what Trump said was defamatory.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,

Quote:

---

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.

---

When you have been adjudicated as having raped someone and then making defamatory comments about it, the legal recourse is to APPEAL. If you comment on the case, you can say "I disagree with the verdict and maintain my innocence, we are pursing an appeal." Go beyond that and you're playing with fire.

Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.

Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..

Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.

---

Bolded is a bald-faced lie, and just shows how TDS affects people. Even an attorney is so anti-Trump that they won't be honest about what the jury found.

In fact, it ISN'T defamation to claim you didn't do something that a jury found you didn't do.

---

There are ways you can criticize a judgment legally and ways you cannot. You can criticize the law and process as being unfair and perhaps say you maintain your innocence. You cannot post on social media one post after another calling your accuser a liar, fraud and whack job after it has been adjudicated otherwise.

"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.

"E Jean Carroll is a liar, whack job, fraud, out to get me, is too ugly for me, etc..." is not kosher. One utterance might be overlooked, but if you do it non-stop over two dozen times, then you are begging to be hauled into court again. Especially given Trump's fame and following. He knows it will reach millions of people. Taking a "I am above the law" and "there's nothing you can do to me" stance will further inflame a jury. Acting like an ass in court and having your lawyer act like an ass in court will likewise hurt you.

If this doesn't make you question Trump's intelligence, I don't understand it.

Again, Watermelon Man on page 9 summarized all of this perfectly:

Quote:

---

The thing about the trial where he was found to be liable is that the evidence against Trump was rather weak.

All he needed to do was take the stand in that trial and say, "I'm sorry, but I don't remember this at all. Ms. Carroll must be mistaken. This was years ago and memories can be tricky, people have vivid memories of things that never happened all the time. I am apologize for the things I said about her, but I felt I was being attacked and I needed to defend myself. I am sorry."

Less than 5 minutes of contrition, along with some decent lawyering for the defendant, and there would not have been a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of sexual assault. The reason he lost that trial was he provided no evidence, not that the jury didn't believe it

Perhaps a judgement would still have been made for defamation, making the argument that Trump's words were damaging even if assault could not be proven, but it would have been much less. Likely under 7 figures.

If, after that, he would have kept his mouth shut about it, it would have been over. It's really as if this is how Trump wanted it to turn out. He certainly had the opportunity to stop it. Instead, he took great steps to make sure he got this result.


Of course, he had the right to not show any contrition if he didn't want to. A wise man knows when he should exercise his rights and when to keep his mouth shut.

---

Quote:

---

"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.

---

If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.

E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.

If you have a competent attorney it will be.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

Yep. Weird how mods always step in when things aren't going a certain way. During covid times was extremely telling.

Since I did not pay attention to the original trial in April of 2023, I am in the process of going back to Gouveia's streams of that trial. Joe Tacopina was Trump's lead counsel for that one.

I am now on Day 4 of the trial. What a complete s***show. And FTR, Judge Kaplan was just as hostile towards Tacopina as he was to Alina Habba. Judge has been way out of line, adding his own explanations of what Carroll was trying say, making his own objections to Tacopina's questions when even Carroll's counsel was not objecting and had in fact stipulated to an exhibit being admitted, etc.

On Day 4, Tacopina filed a motion for mistrial based upon the judge's interjections and other improper actions such as vouching for Carroll.

Gouveia goes through the motion for mistrial starting at 16 minutes in this rumble

Oh well, now Alina Habba thrown under the bus!!

uncomfortable conversations in Trump's bedroom at Mar-A Lago!

I wonder if Melania is laughing her @ss off right now

Who’s next in line? @AlinaHabba - you’ve lost that loving feeling… pic.twitter.com/nR6ppM3LoP

— Joe G 🟧 (@EastEndJoe) January 28, 2024

Why are you posting something Confirmed to be fake? I know you weren't worried about credibility, but any you had is definitely gone now
!

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.

---

If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.

E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.

---

OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

What's the back story here????