• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W: #1262] Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’

People (even jurists) have political biases. Among democrats Trump is guilty (prejudged) of everything he's accused of. Among Republicans, he's given a benefit of doubt. Present me with evidence that this claim is not valid.

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Benefit of the doubt?

Dude, the man was literally found liable for sexual assault on 5th Avenue and the only reason it wasn't officially classified as rape was because the woman couldn't tell if it was a penis or his finger. Which to be honest is embarrassing for a man anyway given the comments about his manhood from the porn star he boinked while his wife was at home having just given birth to his son.

The man literally had to shut down his charitable foundation for misappropriation of charitable funds.

His business was found liable for tax fraud in criminal and some of the principal officers were convicted of crimes and went to prison.

His business practices have been found persistent, fraudulent, and illegal and we are now only waiting to find out (a) how much it will cost him and (b) whether is business certificate will really be pulled shutting him down in New York.

Not to mention criminal charges in 4 jurisdictions.
.
.
.
.
Yes he deserves "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law, but "benefit of the doubt" in terms of public opinion? OMG, that's funny.

WW
 
Apparently Habba learned her lesson this time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jury trials are the default in New York in defamation cases where damages are sought. Especially when damages are measured in millions.

WW
 

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’​

By Charles Gasparino

Published Jan. 27, 2024
Updated Jan. 27, 2024, 7:18 p.m. ET

"Donald Trump’s lawyers will use an “insane” and previously unknown “conflict of interest” between E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.

Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.

“This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton."



E. Jeanne Carroll probably shouldn't be counting her millions yet.
And so, the appeal process has begun and at least one reason cited in the article is that the "good judge" must have for forgotten to mention a conflict of interest and went ahead committed a violation of judicial ethical rules. Justice my ass.
you CONS sure love your tabloid press, dont ya?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but jury trials are the default in New York in defamation cases where damages are sought. Especially when damages are measured in millions.

WW
Not a lawyer but I have mad Google skills.


Depending on the jurisdiction and applicable law, a party may have an automatic right to a jury trial on certain claims in federal court. However, a party still must properly demand a jury trial in most cases. If a party does not demand a jury trial at all, or does not timely and properly serve and file a written jury trial demand, a bench trial will likely result, with rare exceptions. Parties who desire a jury trial should therefore demand one early on in a case.
 
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Benefit of the doubt?
Yes, benefit of a doubt. It's the hallmark of our justice system. Even Biden deserves it, and that's ridiculous considering all the aisle cleanups his administration has had to do. He never talked to his son about his business. Then he wasn't in his business. Benefit of a doubt? Sure. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’​

By Charles Gasparino

Published Jan. 27, 2024
Updated Jan. 27, 2024, 7:18 p.m. ET

"Donald Trump’s lawyers will use an “insane” and previously unknown “conflict of interest” between E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.

Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.

“This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton."



E. Jeanne Carroll probably shouldn't be counting her millions yet.
And so, the appeal process has begun and at least one reason cited in the article is that the "good judge" must have for forgotten to mention a conflict of interest and went ahead committed a violation of judicial ethical rules. Justice my ass.
Come on, @trixare4kids ! Where'd you go? another fly by troll post??
you have 1 single post for a multiple page topic and NOTHING???
 
Yes, benefit of a doubt. It's the hallmark of our justice system. Even Biden deserves it, and that's ridiculous considering all the aisle cleanups his administration has had to do. He never talked to his son about his business. Then he wasn't in his business. Benefit of a doubt? Sure. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

You cut out this part: "Yes he deserves "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law, but "benefit of the doubt" in terms of public opinion? OMG, that's funny."

WW
 
as i have mentioned before, it appears to be a drive by post. Perhaps @trixare4kids should think before she posts if she doesn't want to discuss. I mean, were at 7pages now.
Isn't there enough content to keep you posting? Take the last word (if you must) on such a trivial point. Then come back and actually make a point.
 
I mean what kind of "American" fights for a rapist, thief, crook and traitor?

Exactly what happens in those households that make them want to support a person like that?
 

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’​

By Charles Gasparino

Published Jan. 27, 2024
Updated Jan. 27, 2024, 7:18 p.m. ET

"Donald Trump’s lawyers will use an “insane” and previously unknown “conflict of interest” between E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.

Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.

“This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton."



E. Jeanne Carroll probably shouldn't be counting her millions yet.
And so, the appeal process has begun and at least one reason cited in the article is that the "good judge" must have for forgotten to mention a conflict of interest and went ahead committed a violation of judicial ethical rules. Justice my ass.
If thats their recourse they are in deep doo doi
 
Man, Habba's really throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping something sticks. I get the feeling she's going to cost Trump more money....
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Gotta love the hyperbole too:


Oh, and great way to admit her and her team didn't do their homework before the case.

Does it really matter?

She’s just the latest in a long line of Trump hangers on and wannbees.

And, she’s watched Trump’s behavior long enough to know that the only way you stay on the train (and get paid) is if you loudly declare your filial piety to you liege lord.
 
This poster does this more times than not. It's a diversionary tactic when starting to lose the argument.
What did they call that over at the Hannity boards..."Flouncing out of the room..."?
 
Does it really matter?

She’s just the latest in a long line of Trump hangers on and wannbees.

And, she’s watched Trump’s behavior long enough to know that the only way you stay on the train (and get paid) is if you loudly declare your filial piety to you liege lord.
Totally irrelevant to the thread but there was a speck on my screen and i read the last bit as:
if you loudly declare your filial piety to you liege LARD.
Gave me a chuckle
 
Then come back and actually make a point.
So I’d like to make a point.

So by your like I’m guessing you agree…

The point of benefit of the doubt and the hallmark of justice system is like, considered basically sacred right? You consider it pretty important right?
 
Back
Top Bottom