Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,699
- 31,173
- 3,645
Concession accepted
E Jean Carroll verdict is in.
- Thread starter BULLDOG
- Start date
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 35,281
- 10,791
- 1,410
Whatever you say idiot.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,699
- 31,173
- 3,645
QED
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 35,281
- 10,791
- 1,410
Moron, can you say specifically what Caroll testified that Jury found not credible?
MagicMike
Platinum Member
"Trump SCOTUS?"
Are you MAGAts really THIS stupid?
There is no "Trump SCOTUS."
NONE of those justices took an oath to Trump.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,699
- 31,173
- 3,645
Which words did you not understand the first time around. Caroll explicitly testified that Trump raped her in a department store. She lied. The jury found she lied.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
So you are saying that it's okay for Trump to be a cad because Clinton was a cad? This is your argument?
3.7% unemployment, the working man has never had it this good.
The thing is the jury DID believe it. That's why Trump is going to end up paying.
Won't happen. If Trump keeps acting like he is, even sensible Republicans will have had enough of him.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,918
- 73,555
- 3,605
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 82,766
- 41,390
- 2,615
No. They didn’t . They said it wasn’t rape but sexual assault
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,699
- 31,173
- 3,645
Yes they did Caroll testified that Trump raped her in a department store. She lied. The jury found she lied. Deal with it.
View attachment 891374
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 35,281
- 10,791
- 1,410
...as I've already explained, in casual english people refer to getting hands in their vagina against their will as RAPE.
It's plain english language she was raped, a judge in the case said exactly that, but NY state LAW makes a technical distiction between [Sexual Assault] and [Rape].
Rape specificaly requires INTERCOURSE, which Caroll never claimed.
Caroll claimed that Trump put his fingers in her vagina against her will, which is sexual assault by law and thats exactly what jury found him liable for.
Do you get it this time or do we need to go over this a few more times?
Last edited:
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,699
- 31,173
- 3,645
Now you're lying.
The woman claimed 36 times in her complaint that Trump raped her. Not in the "casual english" bullshit your loon media has sold you on. But she claimed penis in vagina rape, in a department store, in the middle of the day. The jury found she was lying - she wasn't raped.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump 11:24:22
www.documentcloud.org
MagicMike
Platinum Member
"Suck a SCOTUS?"
Cute.
What are you...like eleven?
He probably won't win on appeal but IF he does it would most likely be a matter of trimming down the amount of the reward by a few million.
And I doubt the SCOTUS will have any interest in this civil case.
So the best inmate number P01135809
can realistically hope for is that a Circuit Court orders him to pay 50 million rather than 83.
It's still going to bankrupt him. Especially once the judgement comes in next week from his bank fraud trial to the tune of hundreds of millions he's going to owe.
And don't think that just because he files appeals he is off the hook having to come up with the money while waiting for the appeals to play out.
That is not the way this works in NY.
He has to come up with this money like, right now so it can be placed in a bond with the court until the appeal is settled.
He's toast.
Because he has been lying.
He doesn't actually have this kind of cash.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
It’s a jury decision. Nothing to appeal, bud.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,918
- 73,555
- 3,605
When I speak to a toddler, I use words they relate to. When I speak to homophobes and racists, I use words they relate to.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,918
- 73,555
- 3,605
Great tweet:
Finally, for those holding out hope of an appeal based on an "excessive” award, that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Let’s learn to evaluate this according to the actual rules that apply to damages and how they’re analyzed on appeal…
The $83M consists of two separate awards: compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Compensatory damages are exactly what they sound like. They're designed to make the victim whole. It's a calculation of what you lost as a result of the wrongful conduct. If someone hits my car at a red light, my compensatory damages would include things like the cost to repair my car, my medical bills, and any pay I missed from being out of work. Again, it's designed to compensate me and place me back in the same position as if the wreck never occurred.
Punitive damages are also exactly what they sound like. They are designed to punish the wrongdoer. Not all cases involve punitive damages. In fact, most don’t. The majority of the time there’s no need to additionally punish the wrongdoer. Using the example above, maybe the driver hit my car because they swerved to avoid a child. There’s no bad behavior there that needs to be deterred in the future.
Punitive damages are therefore, by their nature, awarded after and beyond all of the money necessary to make the victim whole. That is because punitive damages are not about the victim, they are entirely about the wrongdoer.
The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and discourage the same conduct in the future. They are designed to protect the rest of society from the same type of conduct by the wrongdoer by teaching the wrongdoer that there will be real consequences.
This is where "excessive award" does not simply mean "big number." Punitive damages are calculated by looking at the wrongdoer's net worth and deciding how much money is necessary to teach them a lesson.
A $10k punitive damages award might be more than enough to chasten your average citizen. That's a decent chunk of change. But it isn't enough to deter, for example, a large corporation like Exxon or Boeing. Because of that, the jury is called upon to make a factual determination as to what amount is necessary to teach THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT a lesson.
This is why E. Jean's lawyers did such a masterful job of using Trump's own boasts about his wealth against him. They created a factual record within the transcript that Trump has huge wealth, according to his own statements, and that to deter him, a commensurate punitive award was necessary.
As a young lawyer, I listened to a brilliant trial lawyer give her closing argument asking for a big punitive damages award. She explained this concept of proportionality to the jury using the Bible parable about the poor woman who had placed her last two little coins in the donation tray, and the rich man who made a show of filling the tray with gold. The poor woman had given more because the gold was such a puny percentage of the rich man's wealth.
If I have a net worth of $100k then $10k is a reasonable punitive award. If Trump is worth billions as he claims, $83M is a far smaller percentage of his total net worth. Importantly, it's not remotely excessive based upon the factual record in evidence.
And the factual record in evidence is all that matters because that is what is examined during any appeal. Ms. Habba failed to create any type of evidentiary record rebutting the evidence presented by E. Jean's lawyers about Trump's net worth. She didn’t even attempt to, for example, deny that such a sum was out of line with Trump’s wealth.
The jury then evaluated the actual evidence presented to them and determined that $83M was a fair and reasonable amount necessary to deter someone with billions. This type of finding of fact by the jury is given high deference on appeal because they were the individuals present in the courtroom to hear and personally evaluate witnesses and evidence.
A large punitive award is not "excessive" because it is large. It becomes "excessive" if it is completely out of proportion to the wealth of the individual or the compensatory award.
The ratio here is squarely within acceptable limits, and, frankly, even if it wasn't, Ms. Habba failed to create any countervailing record (generally, that's done by putting the Defendant on the stand and letting them testify to their lack of wealth; obviously Trump was never going to do that).
This is all very basic, non-controversial stuff in the legal world.
But now next time you hear someone spout off about "appeals" or "excessive" awards, you'll know the actual rules of the game.
Finally, for those holding out hope of an appeal based on an "excessive” award, that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Let’s learn to evaluate this according to the actual rules that apply to damages and how they’re analyzed on appeal…
The $83M consists of two separate awards: compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Compensatory damages are exactly what they sound like. They're designed to make the victim whole. It's a calculation of what you lost as a result of the wrongful conduct. If someone hits my car at a red light, my compensatory damages would include things like the cost to repair my car, my medical bills, and any pay I missed from being out of work. Again, it's designed to compensate me and place me back in the same position as if the wreck never occurred.
Punitive damages are also exactly what they sound like. They are designed to punish the wrongdoer. Not all cases involve punitive damages. In fact, most don’t. The majority of the time there’s no need to additionally punish the wrongdoer. Using the example above, maybe the driver hit my car because they swerved to avoid a child. There’s no bad behavior there that needs to be deterred in the future.
Punitive damages are therefore, by their nature, awarded after and beyond all of the money necessary to make the victim whole. That is because punitive damages are not about the victim, they are entirely about the wrongdoer.
The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and discourage the same conduct in the future. They are designed to protect the rest of society from the same type of conduct by the wrongdoer by teaching the wrongdoer that there will be real consequences.
This is where "excessive award" does not simply mean "big number." Punitive damages are calculated by looking at the wrongdoer's net worth and deciding how much money is necessary to teach them a lesson.
A $10k punitive damages award might be more than enough to chasten your average citizen. That's a decent chunk of change. But it isn't enough to deter, for example, a large corporation like Exxon or Boeing. Because of that, the jury is called upon to make a factual determination as to what amount is necessary to teach THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT a lesson.
This is why E. Jean's lawyers did such a masterful job of using Trump's own boasts about his wealth against him. They created a factual record within the transcript that Trump has huge wealth, according to his own statements, and that to deter him, a commensurate punitive award was necessary.
As a young lawyer, I listened to a brilliant trial lawyer give her closing argument asking for a big punitive damages award. She explained this concept of proportionality to the jury using the Bible parable about the poor woman who had placed her last two little coins in the donation tray, and the rich man who made a show of filling the tray with gold. The poor woman had given more because the gold was such a puny percentage of the rich man's wealth.
If I have a net worth of $100k then $10k is a reasonable punitive award. If Trump is worth billions as he claims, $83M is a far smaller percentage of his total net worth. Importantly, it's not remotely excessive based upon the factual record in evidence.
And the factual record in evidence is all that matters because that is what is examined during any appeal. Ms. Habba failed to create any type of evidentiary record rebutting the evidence presented by E. Jean's lawyers about Trump's net worth. She didn’t even attempt to, for example, deny that such a sum was out of line with Trump’s wealth.
The jury then evaluated the actual evidence presented to them and determined that $83M was a fair and reasonable amount necessary to deter someone with billions. This type of finding of fact by the jury is given high deference on appeal because they were the individuals present in the courtroom to hear and personally evaluate witnesses and evidence.
A large punitive award is not "excessive" because it is large. It becomes "excessive" if it is completely out of proportion to the wealth of the individual or the compensatory award.
The ratio here is squarely within acceptable limits, and, frankly, even if it wasn't, Ms. Habba failed to create any countervailing record (generally, that's done by putting the Defendant on the stand and letting them testify to their lack of wealth; obviously Trump was never going to do that).
This is all very basic, non-controversial stuff in the legal world.
But now next time you hear someone spout off about "appeals" or "excessive" awards, you'll know the actual rules of the game.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
The jury did just that.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
If Trump appeals he will have to put up the entire award in bond before it begins. If he loses it goes directly to her.
I bet Trump won’t appeal. He’s better off trying to delay or say he can’t pay.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
Because you don’t understand why.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
Indeed.
Trump got schlonged. Bigly.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
3-d printing of tissue directly into the human body
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 0
-
Federal Grand Jury indicts Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan- Started by toobfreak
- Replies: 0
-
Wasn't The Point of Tariffs to Make Companies Open Factories Here?- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 8
-
Trump promises to have no more than two $400 million dollar jets.
- Started by Eman623
- Replies: 1
-
the Milwaukee judge has been infected by a federal grand jury
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 1
