Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
28 minutes ago, dcbc said:
43 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
Exactly! Who amongst us have not (checks notes) … enlisted our lawyers as accomplices to an effort to deprive a witness against us of their parental rights in an unrelated divorce case?
 

Who haven't?

You fool. You’ve just proven you know nothing about business.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

is she doing it topless? otherwise I'm not interested

Unfortunately, no, but it's kind of entertaining when she starts going off her talking points. CNN wondering if she could be opening herself up to some liability now with these public rants.

  • Haha 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

image.png.aba930f29ef3a0a465652b288395229c.png

She was truly damaged by the trauma of his rape. Amazing woman of many talents. This is a happy moment amid these dusky days.

 

 

Curiously enough, unlike the prior trial, this one was 100% defamation damages.  No consideration of sexual assault and no damages for same, and no consideration of whether the defamatory statements constitute defamation, just damages for repeating them.

This is 18.3 million for compensatory damages for defamation and another 70 for punitive damages to "encourage" him to stop defaming her.

The juries kinda shorted her for finger-rape.

 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

image.thumb.png.de3e9f3f2b96a18d48a87c14cd39f888.png

Obviously not a fan of either, but I really like the rose gold Rolex Sky Dweller. 
Normally she wears a gold white face 41mm datejust. Maybe a bday gift?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Your point is bullshit. The court did not delay because of Habba Dabba Doo’s illness.  You are getting all worked up about something when your predicate  factual basis and understanding is just wrong.

As to your goofy point that defense attorneys should turn in their clients to the prosecution, it might be worth a moment’s consideration that if every court system in every state with their own ability to change their procedure does not adopt your method, that maybe there is some validity to the process that escapes you. 

Habba may not have delayed the trial but instead of preparing her closing arguments, she decided to head up to NH for the victory party. But then again maybe she's done this so many times before, the closing argument prep only took her a few minutes to ask ChatGPT to create it.

Posted

Chickens coming home to roost on the mfers who use social media and TV to defame and damage other people. Alex Jones, Rudy Guiliani and now Donald Trump.  Wheels of justice often run slow but people need to realize that their words can have consequences.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

As mentioned above, there is an appeal of the first verdict ongoing.  From what I read it is not the usual borderline frivolous Trump bullshit that is easily dismissed.  Someone that is a more seasoned/sophisticated appellate practitioner will have to opine on that.  Maybe Carroll's brief will make me feel better about it.

But if that appeal works, the first verdict will be undone and this one will go right along with it as it is premised on the first one being "law of the case" that decided many of the issues.  The whole shootin match will have to be retried, if Carroll chooses to do that and the witness list for her may be quite different.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Unfortunately, no, but it's kind of entertaining when she starts going off her talking points. CNN wondering if she could be opening herself up to some liability now with these public rants.

She is.

Statements made by an attorney in a courtroom (e.g., she can argue "the plaintiff is a liar, she wasn't harmed at all," and in the first trial, she also could have argued "the plaintiff is a liar, she wasn't assaulted") are privileged, and cannot be the basis for a claim.  HOWEVER, the statements made on the courthouse steps, which are NOT in the course of any judicial proceeding, have ZERO privilege.  So, if Yabba Dabba Dipshit says "E Jean is a liar, there was no assault," she can absolutely be sued for defamation.  

How do I know that to be a fact?  Many moons ago, I knew an attorney who got sued for exactly that sort of thing (comments made outside the courthouse as to the opposing party).  And it's an intentional tort -- malpractice insurance doesn't cover that claim.  Damn near ruined him.  

Good rule for attorneys: do your talking in the courtroom, and in your filings.  Any public comments on anything substantive should simply say things like "my client maintains that the plaintiff is lying, and that no assault happened."  Attribute the statement to your client, who has indeed taken that position.  OR, simply read a direct quote from the filing -- our position was stated quite clearly: "This event did not happen.  Plaintiff is not telling the truth."

I hope she does get sued.  I hope everyone in his orbit faces a life of never-ending suffering, ruin, and pain.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, yoladu said:

image.thumb.png.de3e9f3f2b96a18d48a87c14cd39f888.png

Her hands are easily twice the size of his. You can read the hand envy on his grumpy ass face 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As mentioned above, there is an appeal of the first verdict ongoing.  From what I read it is not the usual borderline frivolous Trump bullshit that is easily dismissed.

Stop reading the NY Times' reporting on this. 😉

Posted
4 hours ago, C-Man said:

Same. Can't remember if you've made it by Via Triozzi yet. By far the best Negroni I've ever had. In fact, in the last five minutes I just ordered a 2-liter white oak barrel for the house so I can try and age a Negroni like they supposedly do. It brings the "tartness" down.

image.png.5407c726dc7badf60028209574dcbf1b.png

Well, damn, who knew such classy folk were here.  
A well-done Negroni is three things I really don't care for alone, but are a wonderful harmony when together.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

She is.

Statements made by an attorney in a courtroom (e.g., she can argue "the plaintiff is a liar, she wasn't harmed at all," and in the first trial, she also could have argued "the plaintiff is a liar, she wasn't assaulted") are privileged, and cannot be the basis for a claim.  HOWEVER, the statements made on the courthouse steps, which are NOT in the course of any judicial proceeding, have ZERO privilege.  So, if Yabba Dabba Dipshit says "E Jean is a liar, there was no assault," she can absolutely be sued for defamation.  

How do I know that to be a fact?  Many moons ago, I knew an attorney who got sued for exactly that sort of thing (comments made outside the courthouse as to the opposing party).  And it's an intentional tort -- malpractice insurance doesn't cover that claim.  Damn near ruined him.  

Good rule for attorneys: do your talking in the courtroom, and in your filings.  Any public comments on anything substantive should simply say things like "my client maintains that the plaintiff is lying, and that no assault happened."  Attribute the statement to your client, who has indeed taken that position.  OR, simply read a direct quote from the filing -- our position was stated quite clearly: "This event did not happen.  Plaintiff is not telling the truth."

I hope she does get sued.  I hope everyone in his orbit faces a life of never-ending suffering, ruin, and pain.

Well, the litigation privilege does extend outside of the courtroom, so long as the comments are confined mostly to the proceedings.

But yeah, do your talking in court.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the litigation privilege does extend outside of the courtroom, so long as the comments are confined mostly to the proceedings.

But yeah, do your talking in court.

Correct - that's why you say things like "it is my client's position," and "as we stated in our filing."  But if you just lost a defamation case, and run outside and repeat the thing that has now been ADJUDICATED to be false....you're fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Trump will raise that full amount from donations directly from MAGites' disability checks before midnight tonight.

......not from me.   How ignorant do you have to be to fund this asshole......and these folks are complaining about the cost of groceries!

Posted
2 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

......not from me.   How ignorant do you have to be to fund this asshole......and these folks are complaining about the cost of groceries!

 

But he's being indicted found guilty ordered to pay $84 million doing this for us!

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

You guys are crazy, he's not gonna get the money tonight....

 

 

Social Security checks post on the 30th.  

Most come in on the 3rd so he's got even longer to wait than you think!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

This makes him miserable all the same. He hates more than anything to look like a loser and today he’s all over TV looking like a loser. He lost to a woman too. So much worse in his eyes. 
image.png.0ae697fd3032eb8b106e77307cfab7ae.png

I don't give a fuck. I spent a day and a half inside a 2 man cell (part time) with 5 other guys for an unpaid no liability insurance traffic ticket in The Land Of The Free apologizing to the guy sleeping on floor whose face was closest to the toilet while I was peeing when I was poor as fuck and it's nauseating seeing this fuckstick know he's only subject to his VIP Civil code of goddamn law and quite confident he'll never experience the same even though he should be rotting in Guantanamo. 

  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Trump has an unlimited money spigot from the Saudis. Civil judgements mean nothing and he's peacocking that. 

You really think this greedy cocksucker is fine dishing out huge money? He won't pay small contractors who work on his buildings. He was in a cafe or McDonalds once and said he was paying for everyone then walked the check.

His whole being is tied up in his standing on the Forbes List.

He'd hate parting with more than a few hundred dollars to bury the mother of his children. Wait, that's not a hypothetical either.

He lost. He has to pay. He hates nothing more than either of those.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...