Posted on 03/05/2024 8:24:22 PM PST by bitt
When I was 19 a young lady asked me to give her a ride. I said sure. Took her and dropped her off. She was trying to hook up with a guy who wasn’t interested. She told him I tried to rape her. He confronted me. He knew she was a flake so he believed me when I denied it. So by this ruling she could sue me when I was 39 for attempting to rape her? That was 55 years ago and I can name a year.
Watch your back. Apparently, Statute Of Limitation guidelines don’t apply in civil cases.
“Wrong; no jury heard anything at all about what I posted!”
I didn’t say the first jury heard it. I said they would’ve been ALLOWED to hear it. If it wasn’t put in evidence, that was another mistake by Trump’s (former) lawyer.
At the second trial, Trump and his new lawyer weren’t allowed to re-litigate anything decided at the first trial. That’s why, at the second trial, the defense couldn’t attack Carroll’s story.
Trump’s problem on the appeal from the first verdict is that his not testifying was his own choice. His problem on the appeal from the second verdict is that the restrictions on what he could argue at the second trial were correct. The ban on re-litigating issues is called collateral estoppel. Summary here: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X9G5LJ8G000000/litigation-overview-collateral-estoppel
If Trump loses both appeals, he should consider an action for legal malpractice against his former lawyer, Joe Tacopina.
I think the janitor with a set of master keys f****d her good and because he had blond hair, she had to fantasize it was Trump to get through it.
She always wanted Trump, but was not getting what she wanted.
Caroll is a crazy woman sex fiend.
Absolutely bonkers.
Much of her testimony is based on regression therapy......pure imagination.
VCaroll has an over active fantasy life.
And Trump was not allowed to prove that by Kaplan.
This case will go away on appeal.
Bet they couldn’t tell the jury that a woman being raped in that exact department store’s dressing room was the plot of an episode of a tv show that Carroll admitted to being a huge fan of. Or that she also admitted to being a huge fan of “The Apprentice” AFTER the “rape” supposedly happened.
Tacopina might say that the prosecutor was threatening a criminal charge like sexual assault. Since Carroll couldn't even remember the year, and lied about the dress, it would have been a preposterous case, but a NY jury would probably convict him anyway. Watch dems use Trump's depositions in the general to try to present Trump as a monster and Carroll as a sympathetic victim. Because they need women to help Joes's poll numbers.
Tacopina might say that the prosecutor was threatening a criminal charge like sexual assault. Since Carroll couldn't even remember the year, and lied about the dress, it would have been a preposterous case, but a NY jury would probably convict him anyway. Watch dems use Trump's depositions in the general to try to present Trump as a monster and Carroll as a sympathetic victim. Because they need women to help Joes's poll numbers.
“Tacopina might say that the prosecutor was threatening a criminal charge like sexual assault.”
Carroll couldn’t remember the exact date, but it was clearly long enough ago that the statute of limitations on any criminal charge had run. IIRC the NY state legislature extended the statute only for civil cases like the one brought by Carroll.
Anyway, even if there were a credible threat of a criminal prosecution, that would be all the more reason for the defense to do its utmost to discredit Carroll. The best way to do that was for Trump to testify under oath and say that she was lying.
That witch and the judge and a few more holes needs to pay Trump double plus interest.
“My list of hideous men.”
All the men who never even knew she existed and didn’t “sexy rape” her.
Since it is patently obvious that you have never been inside an "high end " department store, in Manhattan, have ignored the FACT that E.Jean's imagined "attack" took place during the 1990s ( far older than TWENTY YEARS AGO! ), and that all I did was to state 100%, simple facts, attempting to imply that what I posted is false, not to mention degrade me, I shall now retort in a similar fashion.
So just where do YOU shop? THE SALVATION ARMY, OR DO YOU STILL JUST WEAR RAGS?
Not only am I able to tell you EXACTLY what every single upscale/high end department store, on Fifth Ave. was once like, but what they are like today; including all of the ones that that were once the hallowed halls of fashion for well to do women, but have now, sadly been long gone!
I am also able to do the same re Michigan Ave. in Chicago, and ones in several foreign countries!
If you had ever read some of the many threads, about this case, through the past few years, here on FR, you would have seen my full blast on how and why what she claimed happened, step by step, is IMPOSSIBLE; not to mention the fact that during ALL of the three years which she said the deed happened, I WAS SHOPPING IN BERGDORF'S!
Add to that, another poster, ON THIS THREAD, has corroborated what I stated! So have several other posters, on past threads, who are also familiar with this and other such stores!
Ergo, it would behoove you, mightily, in the future, to not talk about things you know less than nothing whatsoever about AND refrain from posting your fallacious assumptions about other posters!
Because they weren’t allowed to and since the hand picked people on the jury, were ALL Trump haters, it would NOT have made any difference.
And yes, everything you posted is correct. She's one evil, deranged "thing"!
Can’t take a joke, huh? Sorry to see you’re so fragile, not a good trait for on-line forums.
But it's a shame that YOU are such a crude, uncivil, vile person with a warped sense of humor, who is also a damned LIAR, when caught out for being who and what you are. Your pathetic excuse only makes you appear to be worse than your original post to me. All in all, the traits of a low class, uneducated, person who has no manners and no concept of how to behave in a civil discourse.
Oh go to hell. I’m done with you.
BTW, I’m not even reading your childish replies to me.
“NY is notorious for twisting legal principles to punish Trump. Sometimes the process is the punishment. I hope SCOTUS can understand that.”
IMO a lot of Freepers are putting too much faith in the appeal process.
The point of my post is that Judge Kaplan was NOT twisting legal principles. The applicable principles are well established in the law, probably since before Trump was even born.
First Carroll trial: Jury trials are central to the American legal system. Judges give great deference to jury verdicts, overturning them only when there is no rational basis for the decision. The bar is very high. A judge will uphold the jury verdict even if the judge thinks it’s wrong, as long as there’s some support for it in the trial record. On FR, people endlessly recite the arguments against Carroll’s credibility. No one wants to address the plaintiff’s best argument: She testified and Trump didn’t. That right there is enough that no judge will overturn the verdict.
Second Carroll trial: The principle here is collateral estoppel. The first jury decided that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll. As long as that verdict stands, it’s binding on Trump in subsequent lawsuits. Judge Kaplan was right, under the law, to prevent Trump from giving the testimony that he didn’t give the first time, namely that he had never assaulted Carroll. That ship has sailed.
SCOTUS surely understands the principles of deference to jury verdicts and collateral estoppel.
The only bright spot for Trump is that the second verdict, because it’s so large, is quite possibly subject to being reduced somewhat on appeal. I see no chance that the state appellate courts or SCOTUS will let him off the hook entirely, however.
But then, someone as low class as you, with a complete lack of intelligence and manners, can't manage to compete with most others.
Of course you shan't read what I reply; you are struggling to comprehend what I write. Buy a good dictionary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.