Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yes, there certainly was a desired result by the judge.


Folks can hate Trump and also wish to call out injustice systems and actors.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Words are worth 100X more at getting a liable verdict. Read what the 11 witnesses had to say.

www.politico.com...

lol all unprovable hearsay and 2nd hand maybe this maybe that 😀

All reversible at appeal

originally posted by: quintessentone
Words are worth 100X more at getting a liable verdict. Read what the 11 witnesses had to say.

www.politico.com...

Check all of their bank accounts from before the trial started for large deposits.
There won’t be “Payment for lying” on the memo but I would bet the con artist Dems payed them for their lies.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh, thats right. The judge allowed two women to talk. They shut down Trumps side...

Birnbach said Carroll was adamant. “She said, ‘Promise me you will never speak of this again and promise me you will tell no one,’” Birnbach testified. “And I promised both of those things.”

the other one talked about Trump assaulting her on a plane....are we to belive Trump was flying coach?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: JinMI

Oh, thats right. The judge allowed two women to talk. They shut down Trumps side...

Birnbach said Carroll was adamant. “She said, ‘Promise me you will never speak of this again and promise me you will tell no one,’” Birnbach testified. “And I promised both of those things.”

the other one talked about Trump assaulting her on a plane....are we to belive Trump was flying coach?

I imagine it was First Class Epstein

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

I just posted the 11 witnesses and what they had to say, I know it upset you, but hey reality and truth sometimes are hard to swallow but you can try.

Heh, why would you or your source upset me? Do you find it also just a little odd that there are no witnesses that can point to Trump and/or Carroll at the establishment?

I've gotta go now been on here way too long for maintaining good mental health, so ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side.

So you're taking the Carp strategy as well then. When backed into a corner made of your own tripe....bail.

Smart move.

Carp strategy? You are on ATS way too long bud. Take a long break and get your head right.

In answer to your question, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of the witnesses or their testimony but the people of the jury - they hold all the power .

You didn't answer my question. What do you think of Donald losing another lawsuit for trying to silence three reporters?

originally posted by: JinMI
Why would it need to sink in that Trump offered his DNA after the case had moved to a certain point and not before?

What needs to sink in is that Trump had a chance to offer exonerating evidence but either through his own hubris and/or a terrible legal strategy, they didn't. Oh well, time to pay the E. Jean Piper.

Then why do you keep mentioning it to me as if I care?

I mention it because it's fun to do. I like that the person who hires the very best people hired this low-grade moron.

As usual, disagree. Why does one need to be compelled to separate from their property to prove their innocence?

Hmmm...let's see. Provide exonerating DNA evidence or pay a huge multi-million dollar judgement. Wow, this is a tough one, but I think I'm going to go with the first option, Alex, for $2000.

This isn't a criminal trial, did you forget?

No, it isn't, but civil trials have juries as well and the jury in the first trial said 'guilty'. In this one the jury said 'pay up loser'.

If you've followed what I've said here, especially to you, you'd know my concern lies with what is and isn't evidence and what the judge allows....and doesn't.

Did you offer these concerns to Alina Habba? Did she file an appeal based on your deep understanding of the legal process? I'll stand by for your joint filing.

Well, Trump on Truth Social last night states he's looking for attorneys to handle his appeal, so it appears Habba just got run over by the Trump bus. Wonder if he will pay her.

originally posted by: frogs453
Well, Trump on Truth Social last night states he's looking for attorneys to handle his appeal, so it appears Habba just got run over by the Trump bus. Wonder if he will pay her.

How did I know that would happen? Why should he pay her? (Trump's mind: "she lost the case even though she followed my orders, no payment required")

On second thought, I am reminded of what Michael Cohen (a former Trump lawyer) mentioned, that if you don't throw yourself under the bus for Trump you are gone. That letter that Hadda sent to save her butt was essentially getting out from under the Trump bus and that's why she is now gone. Next, assume the position.

a reply to: frogs453

Are there any left?

The real problem highlighted by this thread is that over the Pond juries get to decide the amount of damages in these cases.

US damages awards have always been insane.

Hope Habba got paid up front.

Wonder who will want his brief?

The next to get thrown under the bus.

a reply to: quintessentone

"So ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side."

Please, don't. I really can't be bothered after 30 pages of this.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

"So ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side."

Please, don't. I really can't be bothered after 30 pages of this.

I know, it's gotten to that stage.

a reply to: quintessentone

When lawyers take on a new client generally speaking alarm bells ring when they have sacked /changed a couple of previous ones.

If they'd sacked as many as the Donald, those bells must be deafening!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

When lawyers take on a new client generally speaking alarm bells ring when they have sacked /changed a couple of previous ones.

If they'd sacked as many as the Donald, those bells must be deafening!

He bragged he has $400 million in cash assets. He owes $400,000 to three reporters. He owes Carroll $5 Mil plus $83 Mil. His next trial if he loses will cost him $370 Mil.

$88 Mil
$400,000
$370 Mil =

$458,400 Mil

Where's the other $58,400 coming from? lol

a reply to: JinMI

"So you're taking the Carp strategy as well then. When backed into a corner made of your own tripe....bail."

Tripe?

You backed me into a corner?

If you say so.

More like bored thee pants off me.

Like I say, the real problem is stupid damages awarded by juries rather than judges.

That, and a bonkers model of litigation.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

"So you're taking the Carp strategy as well then. When backed into a corner made of your own tripe....bail."

Tripe?

You backed me into a corner?

If you say so.

More like bored thee pants off me.

Like I say, the real problem is stupid damages awarded by juries rather than judges.

That, and a bonkers model of litigation.

Only when it comes to Trump it seems.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

I would assume so because aren't witnesses ok'd by both parties lawyers? I'm not a lawyer, maybe ask OldCarpy.

Anyway, Donald lost another case and has to pay another $400,000 to 3 reporters.

www.cbc.ca...

Judges can dismiss people for bias. Judge eliminated all trump friendly jurors,in short NO ONE who was a peer of donald trump was on the jury.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

I would assume so because aren't witnesses ok'd by both parties lawyers? I'm not a lawyer, maybe ask OldCarpy.

Anyway, Donald lost another case and has to pay another $400,000 to 3 reporters.

www.cbc.ca...

Judges can dismiss people for bias. Judge eliminated all trump friendly jurors,in short NO ONE who was a peer of donald trump was on the jury.

Would they not have selector jurors who don't give a rats ass about politics? I also believe the defendant's lawyers get to say 'nay' or 'yay' too.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

I would assume so because aren't witnesses ok'd by both parties lawyers? I'm not a lawyer, maybe ask OldCarpy.

Anyway, Donald lost another case and has to pay another $400,000 to 3 reporters.

www.cbc.ca...

Judges can dismiss people for bias. Judge eliminated all trump friendly jurors,in short NO ONE who was a peer of donald trump was on the jury.

Would they not have selector jurors who don't give a rats ass about politics? I also believe the defendant's lawyers get to say 'nay' or 'yay' too.

Lawyers get a FINITE NUMBER of jurors to choose from. And the Judge over rides Lawyers. In short you get so many picks,and after that the judge decides.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

I would assume so because aren't witnesses ok'd by both parties lawyers? I'm not a lawyer, maybe ask OldCarpy.

Anyway, Donald lost another case and has to pay another $400,000 to 3 reporters.

www.cbc.ca...

Judges can dismiss people for bias. Judge eliminated all trump friendly jurors,in short NO ONE who was a peer of donald trump was on the jury.

Would they not have selector jurors who don't give a rats ass about politics? I also believe the defendant's lawyers get to say 'nay' or 'yay' too.

Lawyers get a FINITE NUMBER of jurors to choose from. And the Judge over rides Lawyers. In short you get so many picks,and after that the judge decides.

I am not reading that within the source below.

The judge and attorneys ask the potential jurors questions, general or related to the specific case before them, to determine their suitability to serve on the jury.

www.uscourts.gov...

Are you making that up?