Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
You're standing there with a hand on your hip tapping your foot waiting for proof.

Yeah, because right now all you're offering is woo.

originally posted by: JinMI
DNA...for example.

Maybe she should have entered that in the trial stage prior to the verdict and not the damages stage. Lawyering 101 which she seemed to have failed.

It's cute that you think I'm the one confused when you're still asking for evidence of Trumps innocence.

I haven't asked for anything about Trump, I'm here laughing about Habba's fails and the final judgement. That **** is hysterical.

And again, it most certainly can.

Character is a human trait and cannot be attributed to non-human things.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

The Judge against my client. Because when the Judge was in private practice he represented my chaps ex wife in a very bitter divorce which got very nasty so my chap objected to him hearing this case.

Right, so was it the client who harbored no ill will then, if not, why did the client object to him hearing his case?

a reply to: quintessentone

No. My client hated the Judge and it was pretty clear that the DJ hated him right back.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Apparently.

But the question on the table. Is it right? Is it justice?

It's already been decided, but obviously not for you.

I noticed you again disregarded the question.

I respond as I see fit. (Where's that beating a dead horse emoji?)

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

No. My client hated the Judge and it was pretty clear that the DJ hated him right back.

Okay sipping my second coffee now. So the judge who did harbor ill will towards your client who also harbored ill will, the judge did not recuse himself because he wanted to turn the knife in the client's back a little more? Or did the judge not care one way or t'other but the client did? So the judge's remark was that the client was and is still an a**hole?

a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much. That, and because the DJ was a complete ****.

originally posted by: lilzazz

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Apparently.

But the question on the table. Is it right? Is it justice?

It's already been decided, but obviously not for you.

I noticed you again disregarded the question.

I respond as I see fit. (Where's that beating a dead horse emoji?)

Exactly! / end thread

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much. That, and because the DJ was a complete ****.

Why do lawyers and other legal beagles have to get so emotionally involved, is it money-driven?

a reply to: quintessentone

They really shouldn't.

Human nature, I suppose.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not one to move goalposts regarding people charged with, found liable by a court or convicted of a crime. That you can be sure of.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: network dude

I'm not one to move goalposts regarding people charged with, found liable by a court or convicted of a crime. That you can be sure of.

then there are no worries.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe she should have entered that in the trial stage prior to the verdict and not the damages stage. Lawyering 101 which she seemed to have failed.

You mean the verdict where they jury didn't find rape but the judge said he raped? Or do you mean being denied the defense of the character of the accuser?

I haven't asked for anything about Trump, I'm here laughing about Habba's fails and the final judgement. That **** is hysterical.

Cool. I'm asking what convinced you and others that Trump is liable in your own view and words. Care to?

Character is a human trait and cannot be attributed to non-human things.

Testimony is a human thing. It's the only evidence that was allowed.......

What is this non human thing that is evidence please?

Well, 2 hours after Kaplan filed her letter, Habba backed down and is no longer requesting an inquiry.



Twitter

a reply to: frogs453

See the wording "on behalf of ... Trump", see she does what she it told and nothing more. And the bottom postscript blurb: reeee boo hoo the judge admonished and schooled me on proper etiquette and the law and that is bias and hostile.

a reply to: frogs453

She's still having a pop at him, mind.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: frogs453

She's still having a pop at him, mind.

She doesn't do anything on her own, it's all Donald who thinks he knows everything even how the law works.

a reply to: quintessentone

Oh, yes indeed. "In making these submissions I stress that I do so on my client's instructions, Your Honour..."

Translation: "Please , I am only obeying orders..."

What will Carroll do with the money?



A more in-depth interview:

a reply to: frogs453

Why would she not? It says there was no relationship like that. What you should take not of is where is says

there are, however, variouos other issues relating to the Courts Conduct , including potential bias,hostility towards the defense counsel that will be rasied in post-trial motions and on appeal

She is being polite. This is how things should be handled. As stated, this was just revealed.