3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

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.

It doesn't matter what the sample is. Saliva, hairs, skin cells, whatever. The presence of Trump's DNA would prove he lied about never having met her.

 

Maybe I have more faith in science than you do. It's worth noting hundreds of convicted criminals have subsequently been exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence.

 

https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

 

Now tell me, how many people have been WRONGFULLY convicted on the basis of DNA evidence?

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Now tell me, how many people have been WRONGFULLY convicted on the basis of DNA evidence?

This ain't no <deleted> crossd-exam

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

This ain't no <deleted> crossd-exam

You don't like my questions? You're not the first.

The laugh emoticon was from me.

39 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You don't like my questions? You're not the first.

The laugh emoticon was from me.

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.

Still waiting for the Trump appeal of the $83 million verdict.

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Still waiting for the Trump appeal of the $83 million verdict.

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

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It doesn't matter what the sample is. Saliva, hairs, skin cells, whatever. The presence of Trump's DNA would prove he lied about never having met her.

Per Judge Kaplan:

 

On 1/31/2024 at 4:42 PM, Lacessit said:

You might be surprised to learn there are quite a few non-Americans ( aliens ) who know more about your systems, in all their cock-eyed glory, than many Americans.

Sure. But you aren't one of them.

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Still waiting for the Trump appeal of the $83 million verdict.

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

 

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

We’ll see what happens, but the full $65 million in punitive damages is uncertain to stand.

States the bleeding obvious.

 

There’s an appeal, the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, therefore the punitive damages remaining at $65 million is uncertain. 

 

It’s a kind of logic that enables people who get paid to write stuff that strings readers along to get away with presenting nothing new as something to worry about/get your hopes up.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

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

 

 

The question is whether Trump can get the bond required to file an appeal. Or whether he will bet the farm on his appeal of the initial verdict.

 

We will know within a few weeks.

On 2/6/2024 at 12:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

States the bleeding obvious.

 

There’s an appeal, the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, therefore the punitive damages remaining at $65 million is uncertain. 

 

It’s a kind of logic that enables people who get paid to write stuff that strings readers along to get away with presenting nothing new as something to worry about/get your hopes up.

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

 

Trump loses bid for mistrial in E. Jean Carroll case

 

Mostly denied because Trump's lawyers were incompetent, or deliberately sabotaging Trump.

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump loses bid for mistrial in E. Jean Carroll case

 

Mostly denied because Trump's lawyers were incompetent, or deliberately sabotaging Trump.

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

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

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

Yes, this is not the long awaited appeal of the first verdict.

 

BTW, the appeal of the second verdict is on hold, due to technical issues.

25 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yes, this is not the long awaited appeal of the first verdict.

 

BTW, the appeal of the second verdict is on hold, due to technical issues.

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.

Edited February 7, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

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 expect such a review will consider the defamation that Trump continued to heap on Carroll, even while in in court and in earshot of the jury.

 

It’s not a punitive damage award for a first offense against Carroll, it’s an award for continuing defamation after having first been found liable by the court for defamation.

 

The punitive damages were stepped up

as a direct result of Trump’s continuing defamation.

 

But you already knew that.

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I expect such a review will consider the defamation that Trump continued to heap on Carroll, even while in in court and in earshot of the jury.

 

It’s not a punitive damage award for a first offense against Carroll, it’s an award for continuing defamation after having first been found liable by the court for defamation.

 

The punitive damages were stepped up

as a direct result of Trump’s continuing defamation.

 

But you already knew that.

 do you just maker this stuff up?

On 2/6/2024 at 2:08 AM, jerrymahoney said:

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

 

I normally would agree with you that large punitive damage awards are normally chewed up by appeals courts ............ but, in this case, as noted above, Trump was punished for his continued defaming of Ms. Carroll after the first verdict. So, the jury concluded that a much larger verdict might shut Trump up. Which it did.

 

By no longer defaming E. Jean Carroll after the $83 million award, Trump has perfectly supported the award amount.

 

Let's say an appeals court chops the second award down to $10 million, and then Trump starts defaming Ms. Carroll again. Does the Appeals court have to say they are sorry?

 

Probably, there would further litigation, and an even bigger award, and then an appeal to reduce the award. What does the Appeals court do then? Increase the award?

 

The award to the plaintiff has got to be big enough to protect her from future defamation.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

 do you just maker this stuff up?

The post you responded to contained facts that are not in dispute.

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 do you just maker this stuff up?

Would you like to identify which statements I have made up?

 

 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Would you like to identify which statements I have made up?

 

 

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. 

Edited February 8, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I expect such a review will consider the defamation that Trump continued to heap on Carroll, even while in in court and in earshot of the jury.

 

It’s not a punitive damage award for a first offense against Carroll, it’s an award for continuing defamation after having first been found liable by the court for defamation.

 

The punitive damages were stepped up

as a direct result of Trump’s continuing defamation.

 

But you already knew that.

I don't see why such a review would extend to the second ruling if Trump only appeals the first one.

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

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. 

This is the post that you responded to:

 

"I expect such a review will consider the defamation that Trump continued to heap on Carroll, even while in in court and in earshot of the jury.

 

It’s not a punitive damage award for a first offense against Carroll, it’s an award for continuing defamation after having first been found liable by the court for defamation.

 

The punitive damages were stepped up as a direct result of Trump’s continuing defamation."

 

Your allusion to the 14th Amendment case makes me think you've lost the plot. We're talking about the Defamation case.

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No. Why should I

No  link.

Because you posted this?

 

30 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 do you just maker this stuff up?

 

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't see why such a review would extend to the second ruling if Trump only appeals the first one.

The conversation is about the potential appeal of the gigantic punitive award in the second defamation case.

 

It's hypothetical.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't see why such a review would extend to the second ruling if Trump only appeals the first one.

Regardless I was responding to JerryMahoney’s post regarding the punitive damages in the second case.

 

He seems not to be too happy with others expressing opinions on matters he himself raised.

On 2/6/2024 at 12:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a kind of logic that enables people who get paid to write stuff that strings readers along to get away with presenting nothing new as something to worry about/get your hopes up.

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

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your allusion to the 14th Amendment case makes me think you've lost the plot. We're talking about the Defamation case.

The 14th Amendment reference is that is where the Supreme Court amicus  docket lists a CV of Dr,Hasen who wrote the article 

 

Are the Courts Likely to Sustain the $65 Million in Punitive Damages Awarded Against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case?

 

And it seems you are not simpatico with Dr. Hasen's analysis:

 

CV BTW as posted above on 14th Amendment docket:

 

"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 electionlaw ..

 

 

Edited February 8, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

12 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

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

Oh do stick around for the final rulings.