LadySkinsFan Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 That was a good interview by Maddow. The lawyers said that when actually in the courtroom, Trump finally figured out that he had to tone it down and everyone else realized he's just a guy, to use a football term. That without the rallies, his minions (not their word, mine), and the press he's basically without an audience. And this was a federal court. Speaking of televising the Jan 6 trial in DC federal court controlled by Judge Chutkan, I'm thinking that an audio broadcast may be a better solution so the public can at least hear what's happening in court. If there's no video, Trump won't have a forum to act out because it's a criminal trial and he has to appear. If there's audio, Chutkan can shut him up with penalties for speaking unless he's actually testifying. I want to hear what's going on. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 E. Jean Carroll's lawyer threatens sanctions against Alina Habba after Trump lawyer pushes false conflict-of-interest story E. Jean Carroll's lawyer is fighting back against former President Donald Trump's claim that the judge in their defamation trials had been her mentor 30 years ago — writing in a court filing Tuesday that she had zero memory of interacting with the judge during their brief time working at the same large, national law firm. "The length of our overlap at Paul, Weiss was less than two years," from the end of 1992 until mid-1994, Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan wrote in a response filed Tuesday morning, adding: "During that relatively brief period more than thirty years ago, I do remember the Paul, Weiss partners with whom I worked and none of them are Your Honor." Alina Habba raised the claim in a Monday court filing, saying Roberta Kaplan and US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw both of Carroll's lawsuits against Trump, had a close professional relationship at the law firm in the early 1990s. She asked the judge to "provide defense counsel with all of the relevant facts" for a motion to vacate last week's jury verdict awarding Carroll $83.3 million for Trump defaming her. Habba has also said she intends to appeal the verdict. "The underlying defamation case tried last year, and the damages trial completed last week, were both litigations in which there were many clashes between Your Honor and defense counsel," Habba wrote. "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." The rumor that the two Kaplans (who are not related to each other) had a mentor-mentee relationship came from a New York Post article by the columnist Charles Gasparino that quoted an anonymous source described as a former Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner. The quote said: "Lew was like her mentor." Habba herself also complained about the decades-old professional overlap between the judge and Carroll's lawyer, calling it "insane and so incestuous." Roberta Kaplan wrote in her Tuesday letter that she had no memory of ever interacting with the judge while he was at Paul, Weiss. "I remember no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all," she wrote. "This is hardly surprising since at that time, I was a very junior associate at a large New York law firm and Your Honor was one of the leaders of the Paul, Weiss litigation department." About two hours after the letter from Carroll's attorney, Habba said she was just asking questions. "The purpose of the letter was simply to inquire as to whether there is any merit to a recently published New York Post story which reported on the alleged existence of such a relationship," she wrote. In her own letter earlier, Roberta Kaplan wrote that Trump and his attorney "have pushed a false narrative of judicial bias so that they could characterize any jury verdict against Trump as the product of a corrupt system," and quoted one of the judge's previous rulings to point out that such complaints had no effect in a courtroom. She also wrote that she may seek sanctions against Habba for the false accusation. Click on the link for the full article 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I hope Attorney Kaplan sues Habba through the roof! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 He's actually got to put up the 83 mill if he appeals. We'll see if he puts his money where his mouth is 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 What's the timeliness on when he has to either pay her, put up bond for appeal, etc? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: What's the timeliness on when he has to either pay her, put up bond for appeal, etc? From the link: https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/appellate-issues-litigation/2017/taking-a-toll-the-effect-of-post-judgment-motions Counsel contemplating an appeal often depend on the “tolling” effect of authorized post-judgment motions, which can extend an otherwise-applicable appeal deadline. In particular, in most federal civil cases, the appellant has 30 days from the rendition of the applicable final order or judgment in which to file its notice of appeal; see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), but Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(i)-(vi) also provides that the following authorized post-judgment motions, if filed within 28 days of the entry of that final order or judgment, extend the time in which to appeal until 30 days from the date on which the district court rules on the last such remaining motion: [list of motions] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) “Interviewing various law firms”, huh? Sounds like Habba is headed back to the Tilted Kilt day-shift. Edited January 31 by TradeTheBeal! 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, TradeTheBeal! said: “Interviewing various law firms”, huh? Sounds like Habba is headed back to waiting tables at MaraLago. I bet Paul O'Neill is a ****ty tipper. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, TradeTheBeal! said: “Interviewing various law firms”, huh? Sounds like Habba is headed back to waiting tables at MaraLago. She's obviously not qualified to handle an appeal. 1. No experience, and 2. no temperament for elevated courtroom behavior due to temperament in district court. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 12 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: She's obviously not qualified to handle an appeal. 1. No experience, and 2. no temperament for elevated courtroom behavior due to temperament in district court. I read an article about the NY attorneys at the trial. They said the way Habba talked in the interview right after the verdict was the way she talked to the judge in court. Same tone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 11 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: She's obviously not qualified to handle an appeal. 1. No experience, and 2. no temperament for elevated courtroom behavior due to temperament in district court. I heard one cable news legal pundit (can't remember which one) who was in the courtroom for much of the trial who said that Habba's demeanor shifted depending on whether or not Trump was in the courtroom. When he wasn't, she had a more "normal" courtroom presence, more professional and deferential to the judge's rulings. But when Trump was there she was much less respectful toward Judge Kaplan and more demonstrative and combative in general. But her ignorance of the rules of evidence was evident regardless of whether Donny was in the courtroom or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 "The process" is defined as "going through the phone book and hoping ONE of these firms will stay on the phone after they find out who is calling" ~Bang 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Bang said: "The process" is defined as "going through the phone book and hoping ONE of these firms will stay on the phone after they find out who is calling" ~Bang Kinda like the search for a new Commanders head coach. Edited January 31 by Dan T. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 minutes ago, Dan T. said: I heard one cable news legal pundit (can't remember which one) who was in the courtroom for much of the trial who said that Habba's demeanor shifted depending on whether or not Trump was in the courtroom. When he wasn't, she had a more "normal" courtroom presence, more professional and deferential to the judge's rulings. But when Trump was there she was much less respectful toward Judge Kaplan and more demonstrative and combative in general. But her ignorance of the rules of evidence was evident regardless of whether Donny was in the courtroom or not. Yes, I saw on Maddow's interview that the younger lawyer (can't remember her name) said the same, which I found interesting. Playing to the wretch who's paying her. I hope Habba's retainer was worth it because she won't get another dime from her client since she lost. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 37 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: What's the timeliness on when he has to either pay her, put up bond for appeal, etc? Not sure on exact timeline. All I know is that he'll have 83 million in limbo for months/years Quote Donald Trump likely will either post $83.3 million as a cash deposit or as a bond to cover the verdict in the New York federal court defamation damages case he lost last week to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll pending appeal, legal experts say. If he doesn’t post the amount a jury on Friday decided he should pay for defaming Carroll, it could trigger a messy and time-consuming collections process involving property liens and frozen bank accounts, according to legal experts. If Trump posts a bond, it would cost him fees in addition to what he owes Carroll. Quote Trump’s legal team could try to get the Supreme Court to examine aspects of the case if he loses on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan. That would come after other routine post-verdict motions were decided. That means Carroll, 80, may not see the money for many months or years. She could opt to work with a litigation finance firm that for a considerable fee would essentially front her the money owed by Trump. “He has to come up with cash one way or another. … After exhaustion of all appeals [up to] denial or review by the Supreme Court,” Saba said. Quote After Trump lost to Carroll in a separate sexual-abuse-related battery and defamation case last year, Carroll was awarded $5 million. That amount is currently being held by the court while his appeal is litigated. While several legal experts considered the punitive damages Friday within an accepted range, Trump may have viable grounds to appeal those damages, according to New York Law School professor Anna Cominsky. “Where I see him having some sort of a real potential argument is with respect to the punitive damages because courts do examine punitive damages and they take a look to see whether or not the award is excessive,” Cominsky said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/29/donald-trump-finances-carroll-verdict/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Well, the amount of punitive damages seems to be working because he hasn't mentioned Carroll's name since the judgment, at least in public. So that part is working. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: Well, the amount of punitive damages seems to be working because he hasn't mentioned Carroll's name since the judgment, at least in public. So that part is working. Depends on your perspective. I kinda want Round 3. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I'm ready for the immunity decision and that appeal if it occurs, and the criminal trials moving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said: Depends on your perspective. I kinda want Round 3. I'd rather skip to an injunction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said: I read an article about the NY attorneys at the trial. They said the way Habba talked in the interview right after the verdict was the way she talked to the judge in court. Same tone. Thus explaining why Trump hired her. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 7 minutes ago, Larry said: Thus explaining why Trump hired her. LOL, Trump hired her because she's pretty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: LOL, Trump hired her because she's pretty. She was cute before all the surgery n injections made her look like a duck. Much like working for Hefner or Vince McMahon way back when the plastic surgery is most likely a requirement. 😒 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Roberta Kaplan says Trump threw papers across table at Mar-a-Lago deposition because his legal team agreed to feed her lunch Attorney Roberta Kaplan said former President Donald Trump threw papers across a table and stormed off during a deposition at Mar-a-Lago after learning that his legal team had agreed to provide her lunch. Kaplan, who has represented clients in high-profile cases against Trump, including E. Jean Carroll, said on an episode of the “George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell)” podcast recorded Thursday that she rejected the former president’s request that they work through a lunch break because he believed the deposition was “a waste of my time.” https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) He also called her a "****" when she was leaving, like the juvenile lug he is. "See you next Tuesday" is the code word. So not clever that guy. I can't express how much I hate him. Edited February 2 by LadySkinsFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 Judge criticizes Trump’s midtrial mistrial request in Carroll defamation case The federal judge who presided over the jury trial that resulted in an $83 million award to writer E. Jean Carroll for her defamation claims against former President Donald Trump said Wednesday that his rejection of his lawyer’s unusual midtrial mistrial request was not a close call. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a written opinion to explain his swift denial of attorney Alina Habba’s mistrial request, which she made in front of a Manhattan jury as Carroll testified about her instinct to immediately delete death threats she received in emails after the public first heard of her rape claims against Trump. Habba said a mistrial was in order because Carroll, 80, was confessing that she destroyed evidence that should have been preserved for trial. Generally, lawyers make mistrial requests out of the presence of a jury. “The motion made no sense,” Kaplan wrote, explaining that Habba had known for more than a year that Carroll had said that she deleted some emails making death threats against her and yet waited until trial to act surprised and request a mistrial. “Granting a mistrial would have been entirely pointless.” In addition, the judge said, neither Habba nor Carroll’s lawyers managed to elicit from Carroll exactly what she had deleted and for how long. He called their questioning “confusing” and said the record on the subject was left “unclear.” And he said Habba had failed to take any steps to try to recover any deleted materials through other means or to ascertain whether they were emails or social media posts. Kaplan said in his opinion Wednesday that it was possible that Carroll, rather than Trump, was harmed by the inability to show jurors the death threats. “With fewer examples to show, Ms. Carroll’s case for damages was weakened, and Mr. Trump benefitted as a result,” Kaplan wrote. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now