Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

  • Popular Post
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78677

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

- Trump ordered to pay $88 million to E. Jean Carroll
- Alex Jones $1.5 billion to Sandy Hook parents
- Rudy Giuliani $148 million to election workers
- Fox News $787 million to Dominion

 

Ice Hockey Sport GIF by NHL

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13628

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

This makes him miserable all the same. He hates more than anything to look like a loser and today he’s all over TV looking like a loser. He lost to a woman too. So much worse in his eyes. 
image.png.0ae697fd3032eb8b106e77307cfab7ae.png

I don't give a fuck. I spent a day and a half inside a 2 man cell (part time) with 5 other guys for an unpaid no liability insurance traffic ticket in The Land Of The Free apologizing to the guy sleeping on floor whose face was closest to the toilet while I was peeing when I was poor as fuck and it's nauseating seeing this fuckstick know he's only subject to his VIP Civil code of goddamn law and quite confident he'll never experience the same even though he should be rotting in Guantanamo. 

  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30583

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Trump has an unlimited money spigot from the Saudis. Civil judgements mean nothing and he's peacocking that. 

You really think this greedy cocksucker is fine dishing out huge money? He won't pay small contractors who work on his buildings. He was in a cafe or McDonalds once and said he was paying for everyone then walked the check.

His whole being is tied up in his standing on the Forbes List.

He'd hate parting with more than a few hundred dollars to bury the mother of his children. Wait, that's not a hypothetical either.

He lost. He has to pay. He hates nothing more than either of those.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47183

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....there's also this.

Seriously, I don't even know how the law handles serial, continuing defamation once there's already been a trial and verdict.

If you call me a pedophile who rapes my own kids, and I sue and get punitives of $10 million....and the minute after the verdict, you go outside and say Brisket is still a pedophile who rapes his own kids.....then that's a new tort.  The falsity of which has already been established in the first case.  So....I file suit again, and get a whole new bite at the punitive damages apple.  All.  Day.  Long.

See, for instance, the Georgia election workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26238

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

I guess I don’t see it as close a question as you’ve suggested. This reminds me of when the 11th circuit judge I clerked for swore me in to the bar (twice), he read me the oath, he repeated the part about candor two or three times. 
 

(He was a hell of a guy)

Sorry to derail, but why did you get sworn in twice? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106890

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


 

 

Yes and no.  As Twice noted, this case depends on the underlying case that found that defamation occurred, which IS on appeal and has actual appellate grounds.  If that case is reversed, then this one is toast too.  But on its own....yeah, not much chance for reversible error in this specific case.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27013

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


 

 

oh that's beautiful:

"For example, she kept saying 'no objection' as exhibits were entered into evidence.

"It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87181

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

oh that's beautiful:

"For example, she kept saying 'no objection' as exhibits were entered into evidence.

"It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before."

Season 5 Episode 20 GIF by The Simpsons

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As mentioned above, there is an appeal of the first verdict ongoing.  From what I read it is not the usual borderline frivolous Trump bullshit that is easily dismissed.  Someone that is a more seasoned/sophisticated appellate practitioner will have to opine on that.  Maybe Carroll's brief will make me feel better about it.

But if that appeal works, the first verdict will be undone and this one will go right along with it as it is premised on the first one being "law of the case" that decided many of the issues.  The whole shootin match will have to be retried, if Carroll chooses to do that and the witness list for her may be quite different.

This was an amendment to add more allegations to up the damages, which is why law-of-the-case would apply, correct?  But law of the case wouldn't apply to a subsequent suit, if I'm remembering it correctly.  But I suppose you could admit the prior judgment as evidence in support of the truth of the statement that she'd been raped so as to prove the falsity of the ongoing denials.  It seems like an awkward process going forward.

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, dcbc said:

She already had a trial, verdict, and damages.  This was a second damages hearing based on statements he made after the first one, right?

Curiously, both before and after. 

This case started as pure defamation because the sexual assault claims were barred by limitations.  The defamation alleged occurred when he was president and got bogged down in Westfall Act/immunity litigation and appeals. 

She filed a second suit alleging sexual assault and out of office defamation and that is the one that went to trial. New York revived barred sexual assault claims for one year, allowing them to be brought. 

The appeal mandate in favor of Carroll on the Westfall Act issues came down during or after the verdict in the first trial,which could not consider the 2019 defamatory statements. 

I suppose to some extent because the very first defamatory statements were excluded from Carroll I, and they usually inflict the most damage, that may explain the moderate award in the first trial and the fairly jumbo one here.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 11064

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 As Twice noted, this case depends on the underlying case that found that defamation occurred, which IS on appeal and has actual appellate grounds.  If that case is reversed, then this one is toast too.  

2bc.jpg.3bd79589ad37b069b3f05d01d9b97f65.jpg

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4191

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 He hates more than anything to look like a loser and today he’s all over TV looking like a loser. 

Oh? You should tune in to FoxNews. They were talking about the border when I flipped over. 
 

I wonder if the average maga cultist is even aware of today’s events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

oh that's beautiful:

"For example, she kept saying 'no objection' as exhibits were entered into evidence.

"It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before."

I've never had to wonder this before, but is there any form of "structural error" based on an argument of denial of procedural due process in a civil case that would not have to be preserved.  I've never seen an argument of structural error in civil cases.  Those lawyers tend to appeal trials where trial counsel was competent enough to make specific objections and get rulings.  If Habba dabba didn't preserve anything, I could see an appellate lawyer trying that if it even works in a civil case, if only to try to run out the clock on November on the off chance he wins, declares defamation the preferred form of speech, and turns the West Wing into one of those automated McDonalds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6601

Posted
Posted
Chickens coming home to roost on the mfers who use social media and TV to defame and damage other people. Alex Jones, Rudy Guiliani and now Donald Trump.  Wheels of justice often run slow but people need to realize that their words can have consequences.
The milstone does turn slow, but it grinds exceedingly fine.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

 

In addition to the judgment, Trump should have to build her a ramp, like Richie had to do for Beanzie.

Edited by dcbc
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:
 
 

He is not paying you, dear.

He's likely paying her at least $5M.  Under the strange procedural circumstances, I wonder if they could move to increase the supercedeas bond?  Or are they stuck with the one they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32078

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

He's likely paying her at least $5M.  Under the strange procedural circumstances, I wonder if they could move to increase the supercedeas bond?  Or are they stuck with the one they have.

Well, I think this would be a separate appeal of a separate judgment and require a separate bond in the amount of judgment.

Going to be a bit tougher to post this one.  Does Carroll dare attempt to collect pending appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...