Punitive damages?

[forkup]

So as the E Jean Carroll case is resuming I want to pose the question. What punitive damages are appropriate here?

This trial is solely about damages, meaning Trump's denials are irrelevant, in fact, they are prejudicial. Publicly denying it happened and calling her a liar is cause for further defamation.

Since the trial started, he has repeatedly done so. And in NY there's no cap on the amount. The whole idea of punitive damages is to deter the causing of further harm.

My figure runs in the hundreds of millions since Trump needs to feel the pain if you need him to stop. And tens of millions aren't cutting it.

Thoughts?

 

[DGS49]

EJC has suffered no actual damages, as the counsel for the defense has more than adequately pointed out. Nevertheless, for an intentional tort actual damages are not necessary.

But the fact is that the incident in question never happened, as juries in 97% of the country would have quickly realized. How much must damages be to force the tortfeasor to stop telling the truth?

Now THAT is a puzzling question.

 

[forkup]

EJC has suffered no actual damages, as the counsel for the defense has more than adequately pointed out. Nevertheless, for an intentional tort actual damages are not necessary.

But the fact is that the incident in question never happened, as juries in 97% of the country would have quickly realized. How much must damages be to force the tortfeasor to stop telling the truth?

Now THAT is a puzzling question.

First, stating that the defense has pointed out anything adequately is begging the question. The jury hasn't even ruled yet. You are stating an opinion.

So is the 97 percent figure. Carroll provided 2 witnesses willing to state they were told about the event contemporaneously. 2 witnesses willing to state under oath they were assaulted by him too. He stated on tape he grabs woman by the pussy. Lied about not knowing her, and could not even state if sexual assault by "stars" was a good or bad thing.

In his defense Trump provided... A doctor's note for an expert willing to testify to his mental state, who didn't come. And nothing else. Are you telling me that only 3 percent of juries would determine that he did what was claimed by the preponderance of the evidence?

As for your question. That's what I'm asking. What would it take for him to stop attacking her?

 

[Dekster]

So as the E Jean Carroll case is resuming I want to pose the question. What punitive damages are appropriate here?

This trial is solely about damages, meaning Trump's denials are irrelevant, in fact, they are prejudicial. Publicly denying it happened and calling her a liar is cause for further defamation.

Since the trial started, he has repeatedly done so. And in NY there's no cap on the amount. The whole idea of punitive damages is to deter the causing of further harm.

My figure runs in the hundreds of millions since Trump needs to feel the pain if you need him to stop. And tens of millions aren't cutting it.

Thoughts?

My assumption is that Trump has everything of significance shielded behind trusts and companies and such that it will be hard for her to get at much of any of it anyway.

 

[forkup]

My assumption is that Trump has everything of significance shielded behind trusts and companies and such that it will be hard for her to get at much of any of it anyway.

I don't think he can shield his assets the way you are suggesting. But it's not really my question.

What would be appropriate punitive damages for continues willful defamation?

 

[BULLDOG]

EJC has suffered no actual damages, as the counsel for the defense has more than adequately pointed out. Nevertheless, for an intentional tort actual damages are not necessary.

But the fact is that the incident in question never happened, as juries in 97% of the country would have quickly realized. How much must damages be to force the tortfeasor to stop telling the truth?

Now THAT is a puzzling question.

The jury disagrees with you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Premise:

• The first award was $5,000,000 (that's millions).
• If FPOTUS#45 is worth $3,000,000,000 (that's billion).

So that's about 0.17% of his total net worth.

That would be the equivalent of someone making $100,000 and getting a fine for $170.

So it seems that the "punitive" portion of the original decision had no impact. Maybe 10% with most of the money going toward Sexual Assault Victim support programs/charities? That might get his attention.

WW

 

[Hellokitty]

First, stating that the defense has pointed out anything adequately is begging the question. The jury hasn't even ruled yet. You are stating an opinion.

So is the 97 percent figure. Carroll provided 2 witnesses willing to state they were told about the event contemporaneously. 2 witnesses willing to state under oath they were assaulted by him too. He stated on tape he grabs woman by the pussy. Lied about not knowing her, and could not even state if sexual assault by "stars" was a good or bad thing.

In his defense Trump provided... A doctor's note for an expert willing to testify to his mental state, who didn't come. And nothing else. Are you telling me that only 3 percent of juries would determine that he did what was claimed by the preponderance of the evidence?

As for your question. That's what I'm asking. What would it take for him to stop attacking her?

Just like the Ford nut was lying about Kauvanaugh so is Carroll. There's a reason they claim to not have a date or even a year because they know such high profile people specifically TRUMP could account for where they were at such time.
People working in a department store would remember TRUMP being their even if it was 30 years ago. Not giving a date prevents TRUMP for witnesses on his behalf.
She's a nutcase and is being paid to lie. The whole case is a joke.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just like the Ford nut was lying about Kauvanaugh so is Carroll. There's a reason they claim to not have a date or even a year because they know such high profile people specifically TRUMP could account for where they were at such time.
People working in a department store would remember TRUMP being their even if it was 30 years ago. Not giving a date prevents TRUMP for witnesses on his behalf.
She's a nutcase and is being paid to lie. The whole case is a joke.

So trump's lawyers didn't think to mention any of that? If he didn't refuse to pay so many lawyers, he might be able to get a good one.

 

[Dekster]

I don't think he can shield his assets the way you are suggesting. But it's not really my question.

What would be appropriate punitive damages for continues willful defamation?

Nothing. They are separate cause of action. And a well designed trust very much can shield assets. You just have to surrender control of them over to a third party trustee and give that trustee all the control and discretion with no direct right of the beneficiaries in any of the assets. It is not dissimilar to what people do for special needs or druggie children.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nothing. They are separate cause of action. And a well designed trust very much can shield assets. You just have to surrender control of them over to a third party trustee and give that trustee all the control and discretion with no direct right of the beneficiaries in any of the assets. It is not dissimilar to what people do for special needs or druggie children.

Possible, but I'd assume such a trust would have to have been in existence prior to the court case. That attempting to create such a shield trust after you have been found liable via court action would be seen as an invalid attempt to evade justice.

Of course the reason for such trust are typically because of incompetence. So it would be a hoot watching FPOTUS#45 creating a trust based on incompetence while running for President.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

Fuckup poses a very dull question here.

The alleged “victim” was not injured at all.

So, no damages is the right figure. And punitive damages are irrelevant. You really can’t punish an alleged tortfeasor for exercising a right to deny a false claim.

 

[DGS49]

Rational juries draw on their own experiences when assessing testimony. They look at the hundreds of Trump-hating Leftist women who have accused Trump of all manner of indiscretions, with none of them producing a shred of hard evidence. They look at their experiences in department store fitting rooms and ask themselves if the events described are even possible with nobody contemporarily noting anything amiss.

The "rape" story was utterly preposterous, and it doesn't matter if she told a filled-to-capacity Madison Square Garden. A lie is a lie,

And as for grabbing women by their private parts, no woman has ever even hinted that Trump did that to them. How stupid do you have to be to even bring that up?