jerrymahoney

As it would seem neither of the 2 civil appeals re: the Carroll cases will be decided before 05 NOV 2024 election day so you can maybe wait on your hypothetical hypotheticals until the results are in.

Well the above scenario almost presumes that Trump's chances of being elected President are greater than the chance that he wins on 2 appeals which is something I care NOT to ponder.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=140964 Are the Courts Likely to Sustain the $65 Million in Punitive Damages Awarded Against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case?

They mostly already have. The appeal brief on the assault trial has already been filed. The appeal of the defamation-only case has been filed but no brief as yet however the appeal will likely follow the motion filed for a new trial in that case as rejeted by Judge Kaplan.

That's what is on appeal. Again Trump has submitted the basis of the appeal in the assault case. Maybe he will win -- maybe lose.

Absolutely. A jury can only make its decision based upon the evidence admitted in Court. And the appeal of the assault verdict and the likely basis of the more current defamatory verdict is largely that the esteemed Judge Kaplan excluded evidence which should have been admitted and admitted evidence with should have been excluded.

Not much point in suing a poor person. 'Opportunist' because there was no direct evidence that Trump ever even met Carroll * but, in conjunction with her attorney, the case has been made in 2 separate trials that Trump is the kinda person who would do this. * except for the much shown photo showing Trump 'met' Carroll on a charity event reception line. BTW the Carroll response to the Trump appeal of the first (assault) verdict is due 15 March.

An opportunist.

Thank you. It wasn't Waco. But when I lived in Oklahoma City, I used to park my car in back of the Murrah Federal building when using the OKC library in the EXACT spot where Timothy McVeigh placed his avenging Waco truck bomb. But I had left OKC 3 years before.

Via NY Times March 8, 2024, 11:04 a.m. ET: The terms of Mr. Trump’s bond deal have not been publicly disclosed, but bonding companies often charge a fee of anywhere between 1 and 3 percent, and require enough collateral to cover the bond. Chubb, in a statement, said it did not comment on “client-specific” information, but that it provided appeal bonds in the normal course of business. “These bonds are an ordinary and important part of the American justice system, protecting the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs,” the company said. https://archive.is/nZZwn << It could also be that Chubb does not inform Trump or any surety client with just whom they might have shared the risk.

First off, while Ms. Habba is the current Counsel of Record, the Appeal is going to largely managed by John Sauer, who was a law clerk to Assoc. Justice Antonin Scalia and was Solicitor General for the State of Missouri. And the basis of appeal is really no mystery: It will largely come from the motion submitted by Ms. Habba and Mr. Sauer for a new trial that was rejected by Judge Kaplan.

Sounds like almost the way I was in the USofA before I left.

Well maybe RawStory can come up with some more current info on that.

I am saying what I wrote. This was a surety transaction underwritten by a company registered in Indiana. If you have a problem with that, write to their insurance commissioner.

Your Raw Story article is out of date. It quotes a 2022 report. Since then, Switzerland has honored in part EU sanctions on Russia. POS Chubb is Swiss registered company. 1.3 Have there been any significant changes or developments impacting your jurisdiction’s sanctions regime over the past 12 months? No. However, on February 28, 2022, in a remarkable u-turn from its previous policy traditionally driven by the country’s state of neutrality, the Federal Council decided to implement the sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia and Belarus in connection with Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. While Switzerland does not automatically adopt each further EU sanctions package against Russia and Belarus, the Federal Council has so far relatively consistently revised the Swiss sanctions regime to substantially reflect additional EU sanctions packages enacted in the meantime. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/sanctions/switzerland

Federal Insurance Company, subsidiary of Chubb, is licensed in the State of Indiana.

via NY Times March 8, 2024, 11:04 a.m. ET: Chubb, in a statement, said it did not comment on “client-specific” information, but that it provided appeal bonds in the normal course of business. “These bonds are an ordinary and important part of the American justice system, protecting the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs,” the company said. https://archive.is/nZZwn

Updated 8:10 AM GMT+7, January 17, 2024 NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump shook his head in disgust Tuesday as the judge in his New York defamation trial told would-be jurors that an earlier jury had already decided the former president sexually abused columnist E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s. https://apnews.com/article/trump-carroll-lawsuit-defamation-trial-5e536a371df5245b7bf390d1f864b5dc So if Trump were to win on appeal the 'already decided' sexual abuse verdict of last May 2023, the second defamation-only verdict might also be at risk.

From the RawStory link above: The Federal Insurance Company secured Trump’s bond Friday in the New York defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, the writer the former president has been found liable for sexually abusing and defaming, court records show. ***************** Address of the bonding company: FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 202B HALL'S MILL ROAD WHITEHOUSE STATION, NJ 08889 800-252-4670 which is about 5 miles from Bedminster, NJ. home of Trump golf course and Ms. Habba's NJ offices.

Per the link above: The Fulton County Board of Ethics was expected to hear two complaints against Willis after her romance with a special prosecutor on the election interference case involving former President Trump raised concerns of a conflict of interest. The board determined it does not have jurisdiction over Willis, who is a state constitutional officer in her role, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. From the AJC report referenced above: The Fulton County Board of Ethics has determined it does not have jurisdiction to hear two complaints against District Attorney Fani Willis — a finding that undermines defense attorneys’ contention that the DA violated county ethics rules in the election interference case. But when the meeting convened, Chairman Daraka Satcher announced the board did not have jurisdiction over the complaints because Willis is a state constitutional officer, not a county official subject to the ethics code. Instead, Satcher said the Georgia State Ethics Commission is the proper venue for the complaints - a contention that is also in dispute. “The Fulton County Code of Ethics, our code of ethics, only applies to county officers and employees,” Satcher said, reading a prepared statement. https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-board-says-it-doesnt-have-jurisdiction-over-willis-ethics-complaints/33VEAHPKTVCRRPCVP2NFNYCRSE/

Per the link above: The Fulton County Board of Ethics was expected to hear two complaints against Willis after her romance with a special prosecutor on the election interference case involving former President Trump raised concerns of a conflict of interest. The board determined it does not have jurisdiction over Willis, who is a state constitutional officer in her role, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

If nothing else works, wai not?

At a hearing preceding testimony, McAfee noted that under the law, "disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one." He said he wanted testimony to explore "whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed and whether it continues." https://www.gpb.org/news/2024/03/01/lawyers-press-judge-disqualify-fani-willis-over-romantic-relationship-threatens

With zero records from Ms. Willis or Mr. Wade that she did so. As noted earlier this topic: (Judge) McAfee, though, said it is no longer "speculation and conjecture" that there was a personal relationship between the prosecutors, and that money changed hands. "Where the ledger stands" may still be an open question, the judge said. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-trump-georgia-case-hearing-fulton-county-today/

Merchant said the $17,000 worth of trips was all she could prove was spent, but that the real issue was that Willis received gifts that cost more than $100 and that she did not properly disclose them. “What we’ve got is we’ve got these financial disclosures where they’re not being truthful, Ms. Willis is lying under oath — which is the same thing my client is charged conspiring to do, lying under oath — about receiving a benefit over $100,” she said. “(Then) you’ve got this concerted effort ... to hide this information from the public. I think that it is very reasonable for a court to think that that is a conflict of interest.” https://www.ajc.com/politics/senate-committee-hears-testimony-on-da-willis/DAGWGGXRX5BGNBIK5IFZRHJVJE/