jerrymahoney

This is the last post of yours to which I will reply. Have fun in Burkina Faso or wherever it is you are from.

No. Why should I No link. I posted an article above by Richard Hasen who is listed on the current Supreme Court docket 14th Amendment as "Richard L. Hasen is Professor of Law and Political Science (with PhD and JD) at UCLA School of Law, where he directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project, which aims to preserve free and fair elections in the United States. Professor Hasen is an internationally recognized expert in election law .. And you just dismiss it as click bait to the He's gonna get away with it crowd. So I'm tired of of taking your comments seriously.

do you just maker this stuff up?

Lawyers on both sides in Donald Trump fraud case urge judge to ignore reported perjury inquiry The judge, Arthur Engoron, said perjury by Trump's former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, might affect his ruling, but government lawyers argued other evidence already contradicted him. Bart Jansen USA TODAY 6 PM ET update 07 Feb 2024 Lawyers for Donald Trump and the New York attorney general's office both told the judge Wednesday in his civil fraud trial he shouldn't delay ruling in the case because of reports a witness possibly committed perjury while testifying. Government lawyers handling the civil case said they were unaware of any plea negotiations between Trump's former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, as reported in the The New York Times. “At this time, we are not involved in any negotiations and are unaware of what specific trial testimony may be the subject of the plea negotiations or whether Mr. Weisselberg has conceded that he testified falsely,” wrote Kevin Wallace, senior enforcement counsel for the attorney general's office. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/07/donald-trump-fraud-trial-witness-possible-perjury/72507168007/

And just to note while the RawStory link says "While (Judge Kaplan) still has not entered judgment ... " he now has. And the Carroll reply on Trump's appeal of the NY State victims case ($5million award) is not due until 20 March.

A motion within Judge Kaplan's District Court; not an appeal.

In the excerpt for the 'click bait' article I quoted above it states: Apart from any state court review, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that punitive damages sometimes are unconstitutional under the due process clause and require independent review (one of the leading cases here is State Farm v. Campbell. So there is a US Supreme Court ruling that might apply in a Federal case of damages. But you already knew that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Co._v._Campbell

I moved to a new province and as above the notion of 'Transfer account " does not exist. I could have opened a new account in the new province but then I would have to change all the transfer via SWIFT info on my US accounts. So the only real problem is the 15 baht ATM fee (which I use sparingly) and the new province bank has to contact the old province bank to get the required reports for 65K+ plus per month for their once a year retirement extension. But they have said no problem to do so.

As I noted above, I just got a new US Passport so I cannot do the next 90-Day TM30 online. Has to be done in the office. I went to the 90 day window. OK. After giving me the new 90 Day form (with a date next in May) the gent said you have to transfer the current extension from the old passport to the new and said But you can do it tomorrow. I said I am not leaving Thailand at all so I can do it at the next extension (just carry the 2 passports). He said Right. And a nice Good-bye.

Sure and there have topics on here to wit: If I don't declare a pre-existing condition, how can the insurer found out when I put in a claim?

And when there is an eventual decision, the handicapping is that the swing votes will mostly come from Trump's 3 Supreme Court appointees (plus CJ John Roberts)

But in the meantime: Are the Courts Likely to Sustain the $65 Million in Punitive Damages Awarded Against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case? January 26, 2024, 2:08 pm To begin with, there’s the question whether the compensatory damages will stand. If they are found to be excessive, then the punitive damages would likely be gone as well, and a new trial on both damages held. I don’t have an opinion on the excessiveness of the compensatory damages because I did not pay close enough attention to the evidence at this latest trial. But the punitive damages question presents different issues. Apart from any state court review, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that punitive damages sometimes are unconstitutional under the due process clause and require independent review (one of the leading cases here is State Farm v. Campbell). ... It’s fairly common for a jury to award very high punitive damages to a rich defendant who has engaged in egregious conduct, only to see the punitive award lowered either by the trial court or on appeal. We’ll see what happens, but the full $65 million in punitive damages is uncertain to stand. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=140964

Just to note, I had CIGNA Global with HQ in Scotland for 5 years. No claims. This was from my 2018 policy:

Sure. But you aren't one of them.

Per Judge Kaplan:

You should let them know -- maybe they will hurry it up.

I get lots of interrogations. And when it's "Let me ask you a question I often these days feel like saying: Take your question and do a Vern Unsworth with it.

This ain't no <deleted> crossd-exam

I see -- so you now wouldn't be screaming to high heaven to get your DNA included if you were innocent but charged with a crime. And the sample was not sperm. But the trial is over. What seems to be at issue in the appeal, in this area, is not the DNA per se but that the Judge allowed the motion by Carroll to exclude any mention of her extra-judicial comments on the DNA. **************** Trump rape case: After years of back and forth over Trump's DNA, jurors won't even hear about it Mar 28, 2023, 3:26 AM GMT+7 The judge presiding over E. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump has banned lawyers from even mentioning DNA evidence in front of the jury when the case goes to trial next month. US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled Monday that both sides would be "precluded from any testimony, argument, commentary or reference concerning DNA evidence" during the trial, which is scheduled to begin April 25. While DNA evidence was thrown out of the case, Trump's lawyers continued to fight for the chance to question Carroll about her comments insinuating she had DNA evidence to prove her sexual-assault claim. In 2021, Carroll tweeted about Trump's mounting legal issues, writing, "Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan District Attorney, has Trump's taxes. Fani Willis, the Georgia Prosecutor, has Trump's phone call. Mary Trump has her grandfather's will. And I have the dress. Trump is basically in deep <deleted>." She also acknowledged in her deposition that she publicly claimed to have Trump's DNA. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rape-case-lawyers-banned-from-speaking-about-dna-judge-rules-2023-3

February deposit received. Have a nice day, Mr. Merry Mailman

ADDENDUM to the above: How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice. In criminal investigation, DNA evidence can be a game-changer. But DNA is just one piece of the puzzle, rarely giving a clear “he did it” answer. According to a consortium of forensic experts who released a report earlier this year, there are limits to what DNA can tell us about a crime. And what it can and can’t reliably prove in court needs to be much clearer. ... Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states. ... The lesson of all this research: DNA evidence is a powerful tool in criminal investigation and prosecution, but it must be used with care. It should never be oversold in court, and it should only ever be considered in light of other available evidence. https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/ And a note on Robbie Kaplan, Ms. Carroll's lead attorney: Kaplan successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of LGBT rights activist Edith Windsor, in United States v. Windsor, a landmark decision that invalidated a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_Kaplan

How Your DNA—or Someone Else’s—Can Send You to Jail Although DNA is individual to you—a “fingerprint” of your genetic code—DNA samples don’t always tell a complete story. The DNA samples used in criminal prosecutions are generally of low quality, making them particularly complicated to analyze. They are not very concentrated, not very complete, or are a mixture of multiple individuals’ DNA—and often, all of these conditions are true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/how-your-dna-or-someone-elses-can-send-you-jail And from my post above: < “Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” (Judge) Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.” So why did Carroll's attorneys decide not to compel a DNA sample?

The whole issue of DNA lab reports in or out will likely not be an issue of appeal. The exclusion of Ms. Carroll's extra-judicial comments about DNA likely will.

So we know from the AN Vox Populai why Trump would not want the DNA in the case. (because he's guilty) What was Carroll's strategic reason? And I'll respond to others post or queries when I feel like it or not.

In other words, you don't know.