Trump told the judge and jury that this woman is a loony toon and they ignored him out of their hatred.

She done messed up.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margo...arroll-case-n4925953

Last week, a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll a ridiculous $83.3 million in damages for alleged defamation by Donald Trump after she made dubious allegations that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

Trump’s antics in the courtroom have been widely reported, but so have the judge’s rather bizarre orders that essentially hamstrung Trump and his defense, forbidding him to present exculpatory evidence or defend himself.

There may be a reason why Trump wasn’t given the opportunity to adequately defend himself. It appears that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who presided over the case, may have a major conflict of interest.

The New York Post has learned that Kaplan was once a “mentor” to Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. The two aren’t related, but they worked together in the early 1990s at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown.

In a letter filed on Monday, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, demanded answers:

"If Your Honor truly worked with Ms. Kaplan in any capacity—especially if there was a mentor/mentee relationship—that fact should have been disclosed before any case involving these parties was permitted to proceed forward. This issue is particularly concerning since Plaintiff’s other lead counsel, Shawn Crowley, served as Your Honor’s law clerk, and we were previously advised that Your Honor co-officiated her wedding. 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) states that “[a]ny… judge … of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

It appears the judge in this case, Lewis A. Kaplan, worked with Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, and officiated at her wedding. Carroll’s other lawyer was also a law clerk for Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. That Lewis Kaplan didn’t reveal these conflicts of interest is enough for him to face major consequences, but clearly, he should have recused himself from the case.

Habba is calling on the judge to confirm or deny the associations.

“We believe, and will argue on appeal, that the Court was overtly hostile towards defense counsel and President Trump, and displayed preferential treatment towards Plaintiff’s counsel,” Habba said. “Indeed, the rulings, tone, and demeanor of the bench raised significant concerns even before the New York Post’s investigative journalism unearthed these new facts."

In addition to aiding Trump's appeal, this news most certainly will reinforce his claims that the legal system has been weaponized against him, and it will motivate his supporters even more.

Another example of why this country needs Star Chambers. If we want Justice, we’re not going to get it with the system that is currently in place.

quote:

First Latina and openly LGBTQ person on the federal district court in Washington.

Checks the right boxes.

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade dodge giving testimony


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...les-divorce-n2634397


Special prosecutor Nathan Wade conveniently reached a settlement in his divorce case Tuesday, sparing him in the eleventh hour from testifying about his alleged affair with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who had hired the underqualified private-practice attorney—despite his little prosecutorial experience—to prosecute former President Donald Trump.

Wade temporarily settled matters with his estranged wife, Jocelyn, on the eve of his much-anticipated testimony, according to a temporary order granted by Cobb County Superior Court Judge Henry Thompson. Wednesday's hearing, where Wade was set to answer questions under oath regarding reports of his "clandestine" relations with Willis, was thereby automatically canceled.

His last-minute salvation arrived shortly before 5 p.m. in the hours leading up to Wade's questioning Wednesday morning.

"The parties [...] agree that the necessity for hearing set for January 31st, 2024, is hereby resolved by this Consent Temporary Order and, as such, there is no need for said hearing," the two-page court document decrees, noting that Wade and Jocelyn have formally agreed to the resolution's terms. However, the conditions will be kept private and may not ever be made public.

"All of the issues we pled for temporary support and attorneys fees have been resolved by this agreement," one of Jocelyn's attorneys, Andrea Hastings, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in a statement. "The case is not resolved on a final basis. We still have a lot of work to do to be able to resolve this case through either a final settlement or a trial," Jocelyn's counsel added.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Fani Willis and Nathan Wade dodge giving testimony

So Nathan, the philanderer who fondled fascist, phony Fani's fanny for fallacious favored fees, has finessed a fortunate foregoing of justice.

.

Funny, but not funny.

DA Fani Willis, alleged lover Nathan Wade hit with subpoenas to testify in Trump election case

https://nypost.com/2024/01/31/...trump-election-case/

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her alleged lover and lead prosecutor on the Trump election fraud case in Georgia have been hit with subpoenas to testify at a court hearing later this month, according to a report.

The lawyers for Donald Trump co-defendant Michael Roman are seeking to have criminal charges against their client thrown out over the alleged “clandestine” affair between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade — a claim which will be fleshed out at a Feb. 15 hearing where Willis and Wade have been subpoenaed to testify, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Roman’s lawyer Ashleigh Merchant filed suit Tuesday against the DA’s office, claiming it has been stonewalling on turning over information the lawyer sought via the Open Records act in order to be ready for the hearing in two weeks.

“It is disappointing to have to file lawsuits to obtain access to records that the public is entitled to,” Merchant told the AJC Wednesday. “We believe that transparency is vital to an open and responsible government and we hope that this can be resolved quickly so that we can get the public documents we are entitled to receive.”

The DA’s office on Friday told Merchant her suit was “disingenuous” as it had already complied with her request for the information.

It clarified that some of the records Merchant was seeking are still being compiled for her, some the office doesn’t have, and others have already been turned over to her.

Merchant disclosed in the suit that she was seeking Willis’ and Wade’s testimony — though it’s unclear if the duo will try to get out of testifying publicly.

Separately on Tuesday, nonprofit watchdog group the Judicial Watch filed suit for all records related to Wade’s hiring, with the group’s president claiming Willis may have “something to hide,” Law & Crime reported.

That suit claims the group was given the runaround in its public records request from Jan. 11 for all information related to Wade’s appointment spanning from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 11, 2024.

“Fani Willis’ politicized and unprecedented prosecution of former President Trump has been further compromised by credible allegations of personal corruption tied to the hiring of Nathan Wade as special prosecutor!” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said on X Tuesday. “That Judicial Watch had to file a lawsuit to try to get records about this scandal further suggests that there is something to hide.”

The group received an email on Jan. 18 notifying it to check its account as a letter was posted there responding to the records request, when in fact no letter was there, the filing claims.

That same day, the group emailed the Fulton County Records Center and later called and left a voicemail with the agency, but to date, no one has responded, the suit claims.

This all while, “Plaintiff has a clear legal right to the records requested and Defendant has a duty to provide them,” alleges the suit against at Fulton County, first reported by Law & Crime.

More at link

Sorry guys, Been sick again, dealing with family issues.

Joey D
1/22/24



Joey D
1/29/24

And look at this: Fanni was warned but chopped off the head (fired) the messenger.



https://www.washingtonexaminer...suse-funds-concerns/

During the conversation, then-employee Amanda Timpson told Willis that campaign aide Michael Cuffee intended to use part of a $488,000 federal grant, which was intended to counter local gang activity, to pay for unrelated matters such as computers and travel expenses.

Willis later apologized to Timpson during their discussion, admitting that Cuffee “failed” her administration. But just 56 days later, the district attorney fired Timpson and had her escorted out of her office by seven armed investigators, Timpson told the Free Beacon.

When Timpson filed a whistleblower complaint in 2022 alleging wrongful termination, Willis issued a statement saying Timpson was a “holdover from the prior administration” who was fired because of her “failure to meet the standards of the new administration.”

More at link

O'Keefe is back at it.

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeef.../1752786076320600511

Trump already lost the case that determined the guilt or innocence of the sexual assault allegation. The recent E. Jean Carroll case was strictly to determine defamation liability for Trump's public post trial statements calling Ms. Carroll a liar. During the trial the judge would not allow any exculpatory evidence of his innocence of the original sexual assault allegation. That's because that issue had already been adjudicated. To borrow an expression - under the law you don't get a second bite at the apple of guilt or innocence of the original charge. The judge did allow information by the defense calling into question the alleged damages by E. Jean Carroll. For example, the judge did allow the defense to maintain that Ms. Carroll really suffered no loss since she was now more famous etc.

To be clear, my own view is the original charge of the assault is bogus. Yes this is part of the wholly unjustified legal assault underway against President Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Trump already lost the case that determined the guilt or innocence of the sexual assault allegation. The recent E. Jean Carroll case was strictly to determine defamation...

Thanks for this insight. I am assuming you are an attorney and have three questions:

1. Was the original, bogus, trial held in NYC too?

2. Was this judge the same one who presided over the original trial?

3. What effect will the judge's undisclosed prior relationship with the prosecuting attorney on the success of gaining an appeal?

.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Trump already lost the case that determined the guilt or innocence of the sexual assault allegation. The recent E. Jean Carroll case was strictly to determine defamation liability for Trump's public post trial statements calling Ms. Carroll a liar.

Trump wasn't found guilty of anything, that is a criminal term, that matters with this wretch are all civil. Carroll v. Trump. This wasn't the People of NY or U.S.A. v. Trump. The burden here is a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the Judge put his fingers on the scale to get Carroll's lawyers to that 51% of evidence in her favor. Lot of Appeals issues before Ole Jean sees a dime.

[/QUOTE]
Thanks for this insight. I am assuming you are an attorney and have three questions:

1. Was the original, bogus, trial held in NYC too?

2. Was this judge the same one who presided over the original trial?

3. What effect will the judge's undisclosed prior relationship with the prosecuting attorney on the success of gaining an appeal?
.[/QUOTE]

No I am not an attorney. My post was based on information provided by Jonathan Turley and other legal scholars who are not reflexively anti-Trump. I have heard the explanation I provided from a variety of of other sources as well. I am confident it is accurate. Also, it just makes sense.

I have followed the case close enough to know that the answer to your questions 1 and 2 is yes. Regarding question 3, I don't know the answer. I would think the answer should be yes. But I would say that it's going to depend almost entirely on who hears the appeal.

Spunk639's post is entirely accurate. I agree completely. My post should have said that Trump was found liable, not that he was found guilty. My bad. What I should have said was that Trump's liability has already been determined and his lawyers don't get a second bite at the liability issue.

I am an Attorney and Trump can get a second bite at the apple, if there was an error that made his trial unfair, even in a civil matter. Improper jury selection, excluded evidence, limited defenses, failure to disclose. There's also rule of law errors, all can be explored and presented to an appeals court, who can deny, reduce the award or verdict, or set aside the verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
I am an Attorney and Trump can get a second bite at the apple, if there was an error that made his trial unfair, even in a civil matter. Improper jury selection, excluded evidence, limited defenses, failure to disclose. There's also rule of law errors, all can be explored and presented to an appeals court, who can deny, reduce the award or verdict, or set aside the verdict.

I would 100 percent defer to your expertise. However, the trial that recently concluded was solely to determine defamation damages. Of course Trump can get a second bite at the apple on APPEAL of the original liability and/or defamation damages cases. But my understanding is that the judge would not allow presenting of exculpatory evidence of liability because that trial was solely to determine damages for defamation, not to determine liability. Or in your opinion was the judge wrong. Should he have allowed another look at liability at the defamation trial. This was not an appeal of the liability issue. The legal commentary that I heard was the judge was correct to only allow testimony relevant to the defamation issue, not the liability issue.

Liability was determined, however the Judge failed to disclose his prior relationship with opposing counsel to the Defendant Trump. The whole thing is now fertile for being flipped on appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:

The whole thing is now furtile for being flipped on appeal.

Is "furtile" a legal term (I have never heard that word), or is it a type, with "fertile" the intended word?

furtile: serving no useful purpose