Two tiered justice system!!

Attorneys being found in contempt for courtroom antics is very very very rare.

But normally the bar of what a judge needs to do to send a message is much much lower.

Like in my little legal community, a state or federal court opinion or trial court order calling you out by name for acting unethically or fucking something up is basically DEFCON 5 worst case scenario. But Trump's lawyers present the unique circumstance of not caring about stuff like that, and about it not mattering at all to their employment.

There would have to be a significant change to American legal courtroom culture to adapt to a new reality in which more lawyers don't care, and harsher measures have to be used.

I was around a case years ago where a defense attorney threw a tantrum in a motion response and accused the judge of being bought, corrupt, stupid and/or all of the above (a literal list of options like that). He was found in contempt and there was a minor penalty, including having to do some kind ethics training. The ACLU dove into the case and wrote a brief that said over and over again that the defense attorney was "penalized for criticizing a judge" in violation of his first amendment rights. Just used that phrase 100 times, "penalized for criticizing a judge". The appellate oral argument had one of the biggest crowds I ever saw attend - all based on the ACLU first amendment angle. The defendant won on appeal, though, the court didn't have to reach the first amendment issue, because there was a flaw in the manner in which the contempt order was issued, rules-wise.

That guy may have been an ACLU superhero at the time, but, I don't think he worked in the legal profession in any significant capacity again. Maybe he could join the Trump legal team.

Turns out the "OMG Willis divorce conflict of interest stuff" was just a fishing expedition.. that of course, got nothing.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/uns...da-fani-willis

Reminds me of the old saying, "When the law is on your side, pound the law, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table"

Lot of table pounding attempts.

Sure, as long as you ignore the airline flights Wade bought for Willis on his credit card.

Here's another judgement against Trump.

Trump must pay $ 83.3 MILLION to E. Jean Carroll for defamation, a federal jury has ruled.

STORY, @TheMessenger https://t.co/x1LzU2IOg4

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 26, 2024

good for Carroll, but i think trump will go to his grave before his estate pays any of this-i think he will just ignore the ruling

They were asking for at least 12 mil to send a message. 83 million is certainly a message.

Hopefully this is a precursor to the criminal trial. I’ll bet people will be lining up to have Habba defend them.

And the hits keep on coming for trump;


https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/stat...88375308263475

Yeah, I think that's also why he had one of the worst attorneys I've ever seen handling his case. He gets to play the martyr and will never pay a dime.

There is some sweet irony in this as Trump spent years saying he wanted libel laws to be loosened so he could sue people over things they say about him.

I know that I'm going to be in the minority here, but it seems to be that the civil court system here is a farce in this case. It should take more than a "more probable than not" standard for a person to essentially be convicted of a sexual assault that allegedly happens decades ago and pay hefty damages.

He said he will appeal the ruling. If he does, he has to place around $90 million in escrow in the event he loses the appeal.

I can understand your wariness about that. Hell, you can even send a criminal rape charge with a life sentence to a jury on victim testimony alone. Prosecutors don't typically do that, but they can. (I have no idea what the evidence is in Trump's case).

It's the hardest line to get a handle on in criminal law, where a charge is appropriate in that kind of case. But civilly, its kind of the wild west if you're willing to file the complaint and make accusations.

I have a feeling he will not be appealing the ruling.

In fairness, the original penalty was $5 million. Not terribly high for someone who has been sexually assaulted and defamed publicly to hundreds of millions of people.

The new amount is because he didn't stop defaming her after the initial trial. Like he went on TV to continue defaming her right away. I don't know what the appropriate amount is, but that feels like a jury deciding that the $5 million was clearly not enough to get him to stop.

Regardless, the civil system has some issues I'm guessing. But Trump will never pay her a dime which is also part of the issue.

Although they centered on sexual assault/rape I believe they were all defamation suits, involving being publicly defamed by arguably the most famous person in the world & he was ultimately (originally) found to be liable for .5% (not 50 percent, but half-of-one-percentage-point) of his (claimed) net worth. Is that really egregious?

If he doesn't appeal how would he avoid paying? This judge doesn't seem like the type to just let him not pay

What is the judge going to do?

Between trusts, annuities, homestead exemptions, offshore accounts, retirement accounts, insurance, shell companies, etc, there are way too many ways for rich people to avoid paying. And Florida is notoriously difficult to recover any sort of assets from (just ask OJ).

Heck, I'm still owed a $37k judgement from 12 years ago where the courts basically have said "what do you want us to do about it?".

haha 83_ miollion....FUCK YOU Turdrump

The US bankruptcy trustee may end up suing Trump for unpaid legal fees on behalf of Giuliani.

he hasn't paid any bills any fees any invoices....he's infamous for that

CNN so it must be fake news

Trump (and others) tax return leaker gets 5 years in prison;


Trump tax return leaker sentenced to five years in prison - POLITICO

Uhhhhhhhh....

Middletown police arrest man who claims on YouTube to behead father

man how horrible, wonder where he got these ideas from?

On Trump org fraud watch: Judge said he would decide the amount to fine Trump org and other penalties by today. get your popcorn ready!

:popcorn:

To be fair, he sounds like he's very greatly mentally disturbed, and probably if it wasn't this that caused it to happen, it would have been something else.

Just about everything he said in his video is standard fare right-wing talking points.

Again, he was mentally ill (which shouldn't surprise anyone), and had been off his rocker for a decade. If it wasn't Right Wing Talking Points, it would have been chemtrails, the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, whatever.

“He’s been ranting and railing about the government for 10 years now and how they’re out to get him and how he should be president — all the crazy stuff that was said on the video last night,” Michael Prickett said over the phone. “He’s been essentially doing that for 10 years now.”

Davis Rebhan lived with Mohn in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 2016, two years after Mohn graduated from Pennsylvania State University, according to a court filing. Rebhan wasn’t close with Mohn, who he said had a reputation for telling tall tales — “like how he got into this big fight with six guys and won.” He also said Mohn “would talk a lot about his beliefs, which were pretty out there.”

“It was a lot of the conspiracy stuff,” said Rebhan, who was a college senior at the time. “He didn’t really have a lot of friends.”

Rebhan, who now lives near Portland, Oregon, said the living arrangement was cordial until one day several months into their lease, when he returned home after a few hours to find Mohn had “caused a significant amount of damage” to their place.

“He broke a big, old mirror that was in our kitchen that had been put up by the apartment, and there were holes in the walls,” Rebhan said. “He basically told me he blacked out and had an incident.”

I think it's a failure (and an indictment) of our mental health treatment options more than "Those damn right wingers made him do it"

I watched his rant out of morbid curiosity.

Really no different than lots of other right-leaning anti-government militant stuff you might see on social media. Except that he holds up his father's severed head first.

He just did what people on January 6th said they wanted to do. Heck, a Congressman came out today calling for the extrajudicial killing in a gruesome manner (dropping out of a helicopter).

The head bit was dramatic but his message and actions are in line with the base of his party. I'd guess a surprisingly high percent of people on the right agree with his actions.

Reading through Fanni Willis' response to the court on the disqualification, she has carefully not denied the relationship with Wade but instead made arguments that a relationship in and of itself is not disqualifying (which is completely true). But the funniest thing I have found so far is under the arguments against Wade not being qualified for his appointment. She provided a picture of the opposing counsel in an "Wade" t-shirt campaigning for him when he ran for judge.

wow now that's funny

In Wade's affidavit he confirms the relationship, but states it started after he was named Special Prosecutor. He says of the vacation expenses that they had both shared such expenses relatively equal with her paying for some trips and he paying for others. That's the crux of the argument for dismissal. They have to find Willis materially benefited from Wade's appointment. I don't know if the filing will be enough to have the whole thing thrown out without a hearing, but unless the defense has some smoking gun they have released the motion isn't likely to survive a hearing.

4D chess as they like to say

In the end, it is more pubic relations damaging than actually legal. It is a very bad look that she was sleeping with someone that worked under her, and it allows Right-wing media to go nuts. It shouldn't affect the legalities but it will taint the outcome to those who want it to.

Like all Trumps legal cases the right cares very little for the process and instead chooses to melt down over how thing "should" be based off Trumps claims of being treated unfairly.

Several examples of this such as him claiming he should have had a jury trial in the fraud case, the judge is claiming his club is worth 18 mil, etc...

Ok, the response from Roman's attorney is damning. They claim to have evidence that Wade has lied in the affidavit, that their relationship started well before he was hired, and that they have lived together. Wade in essence committing perjury would be a problem.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

The DC Circuit ruling is in.

It’s unanimous.

No immunity for Trump. https://t.co/l5c2P1P1kZ

— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) February 6, 2024

I don't think it will happen, but I would love the Supreme Court to just refuse the case.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I would too, and it would be a way "out" for the conservative justices to not have to tell trump he can't be a dictator. But this seems so big for them to rule on and get future precedence on, that they may have no choice but to rule on it.

I agree. I think almost every justice will want the opportunity to write an opinion on this.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I actually just herd an expert on MSNBC say the opinion is so well written there is a good chance the SC turns it down

One thing that the DC panel did here was force the issue to the Supreme Court with minimal delay.

An appellate case can be acted on when the "mandate" issues. And normally the rules provide for an automatic stay (pause) in the issuing of the mandate if a party files for rehearing en banc (the whole appellate court, not just the three judge panel).

Here, they said that they would NOT stay the mandate for an en banc petition. But they still gave Trump until Monday to file with the Supreme Court for a stay, so they are not prejudicing him or trying to overstep the Supreme Court. They are just not going to let him add a two-week delay for no reason

dola:

Let's assume that all 9 Justices are, at least on this question, completely interested partisan actors who care only about results and not the law.

I think that--even in that world--it isn't a slam dunk for Trump. I think that there's a chance that Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all decide that it is for the greater good of the conservative movement for Trump to go away. They are conservatives--but they aren't MAGA types who want to burn it all down.

Just my musing.

It only takes four justices to take a case and Alito and Thomas seem like locks.

And probably Justice Gorsuch.

You'd really need all three of the other conservatives to decide not to hear it.