Antoninus said:

---

Bonfire.1996 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

I am saying that this is NOT a privileged statement and that a claim of corruption in a public official is a serious charge, for which Trump may now be facing STILL MORE civil liability.

---

unless the judge is actually corrupt

---

Yes, truth is a defense in a defamation action, and the burden of proof on that defense will fall upon Trump.

Exactly what evidence have YOU seen that Federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan is "corrupt," other than the fact that you don't like his rulings?

The law has very specific definitions of "corruption" related to bribery, graft and conflict of interest. In VERY broad terms, a government official is "corrupt" if he asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of his official duties.

Whatcha got?

---

I bribed the judge in a department store a few decades ago. I'm not sure what the date was but there were no witnesses.

Ag with kids said:

---

Looks to me like the Center for American Progress accused Trump of public corruption. So, do you think that he has a case to sue for defamation?

---

Skimming your article, they seem to cite a lot of actual hard evidence, so it would likely be difficult for a plaintiff (here, Trump) to meet the higher burden of proving defamation against a public figure. Could Trump file a lawsuit? Certainly. Would that lawsuit survive the Motion to Dismiss (or for No Evidence Summary Judgment)? Probably not.

By contrast, Trump likely has no such evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Looks to me like the Center for American Progress accused Trump of public corruption. So, do you think that he has a case to sue for defamation?

---

Skimming your article, they seem to cite a lot of actual hard evidence, so it would likely be difficult for a plaintiff (here, Trump) to meet the higher burden of proving defamation against a public figure. Could Trump file a lawsuit? Certainly. Would that lawsuit survive the Motion to Dismiss (or for No Evidence Summary Judgment)? Probably not.

By contrast, Trump likely has no such evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

---

What was the evidence that Trump raped that crazy lady?

RogerFurlong said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Trump likely has no ... evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

---

What was the evidence that Trump raped that crazy lady?

---

Well, that has exactly ZERO relevance to his potential liability for defaming Judge Kaplan.

But, as I recall, the only evidence was her live testimony. I fully understand that you do not believe her. Personally, it seemed damned thin to me, too. But it WAS admissible under the FRE, and the jury believed her,. That is all that really matters when a court resolves a factual dispute. Who does the jury believe?.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Looks to me like the Center for American Progress accused Trump of public corruption. So, do you think that he has a case to sue for defamation?

---

Skimming your article, they seem to cite a lot of actual hard evidence, so it would likely be difficult for a plaintiff (here, Trump) to meet the higher burden of proving defamation against a public figure. Could Trump file a lawsuit? Certainly. Would that lawsuit survive the Motion to Dismiss (or for No Evidence Summary Judgment)? Probably not.

By contrast, Trump likely has no such evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

---

Did any of that evidence result in his conviction for corruption? Seems to me that just because you CITE evidence, doesn't make corruption fact. Or are you just allowed to follow up the corruption claim by stating some accusations (no matter how correct they are) and that is enough to get you off the hook for defamation?

But, take it a step further...there are MANY people that have accused Trump of corruption WITHOUT even citing evidence. So, are THEY liable for defamation?

Ag with kids said:

---

Did any of that evidence result in his conviction for corruption? Seems to me that just because you CITE evidence, doesn't make corruption fact.

---

It doesn't. But it is not a question of whether there was enough evidence to convict Trump of a felony. The question is whether the evidence was adequate to negate the mens rea requirements for a defamation claim against a public figure.

Quote:

---

But, take it a step further...there are MANY people that have accused Trump of corruption WITHOUT even citing evidence. So, are THEY liable for defamation?

---

Impossible to say, without the facts specific to each case.

Again, could Trump state a cause of action? Maybe. Could it survive the motion to dismiss? No way to know without more facts.

annie88 said:

---

The loon couldn't remember the year. No rape victim ever forgets the days and time, much less the year.
But sure.

The dress she claimed to have on wasn't in production the few years she guessed at.

Wasn't going to even try for the case before George Conway and his ilk pushed her.

And that's only a few of the BS things in the trial.

---

You are just re-trying a case that a jury has already decided. All of that was presented to the jury, and they were not convinced.

Quote:

---

Quit defending this corruption. It's truly gross. Don't be a George Stephanopoulos..

---

AGAIN, what evidence of "corruption" exists? Who bribed Kaplan? HOW do you contend he had a legal conflict of interest?

Hell, show me even an evidentiary ruling that you think was clearly wrong, and we can look at THAT.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, the complaints boil down to the fact that the jury accepted clearly-ADMISSIBLE (though disputed) evidence as "true," when you think it was false.

Antoninus said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Trump likely has no ... evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

---

What was the evidence that Trump raped that crazy lady?

---

Well, that has exactly ZERO relevance to his potential liability for defaming Judge Kaplan.

But, as I recall, the only evidence was her live testimony. I fully understand that you do not believe her. Personally, it seemed damned thin to me, too. But it WAS admissible under the FRE, and the jury believed her,. That is all that really matters when a court resolves a factual dispute. Who does the jury believe?.

---

Sorry, you'll have to do better than this if you want anyone to give you a sliver of credit. You're proving our point that this was a kangaroo court set up by libs to shakedown Trump when you make statements like this. The court didn't resolve any facts, regardless of whatever legalese you want to use, EVERYONE knows it was completely unfair and it's why we think Democrats and their judges are corrupt. YOU CAN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT. You can only defer to a kangaroo court. You lose.

Antoninus said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

That's some in-depth analysis right there.

---

Yes, it did assume a certain level of knowledge and intelligence. My bad.

The Carroll case is over in the trial court. I am not saying that Kaplan can or will retaliate against him in court in that case.

I am saying that this is NOT a privileged statement and that a claim of corruption in a public official is a serious charge, for which Trump may now be facing STILL MORE civil liability.

---

Court presidence states that you are completely incorrect when it comes to defemation of a public official.

One day the worm is going to turn. And as much as I would like to see you sleep in the bed that you helped make, I can't do it. I won't ever support lawfare, even against my enemies, as you have done. So rest easy at night when you realize conservatives operate with a moral compass. Even when your side doesn't.

Antoninus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

The loon couldn't remember the year. No rape victim ever forgets the days and time, much less the year.
But sure.

The dress she claimed to have on wasn't in production the few years she guessed at.

Wasn't going to even try for the case before George Conway and his ilk pushed her.

And that's only a few of the BS things in the trial.

---

You are just re-trying a case that a jury has already decided. All of that was presented to the jury, and they were not convinced.

Quote:

---

Quit defending this corruption. It's truly gross. Don't be a George Stephanopoulos..

---

AGAIN, what evidence of "corruption" exists? Who bribed Kaplan? HOW do you contend he had a legal conflict of interest?

Hell, show me even an evidentiary ruling that you think was clearly wrong, and we can look at THAT.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, the complaints boil down to the fact that the jury accepted clearly-ADMISSIBLE (though disputed) evidence as "true," when you think it was false.

---

They changed the law for one year only to go after Trump. If you can' see this I can't help you.

Again, I hope you are never put in the situation. Your defense is gross.

aggiehawg said:

---

Does changing a statute of limitations (and then only for one year) solely for the purpose of going after Trump, not something the judge should even question?

---

Trial court should have probably found that the law was unconstitutional but did Trump's attorneys even argue that in pre-trial motions? Serious question as I'm not familiar with what happened pre-trial in that case.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Trump likely has no ... evidence that Kaplan engaged in any "corrupt" behavior.

---

What was the evidence that Trump raped that crazy lady?

---

Well, that has exactly ZERO relevance to his potential liability for defaming Judge Kaplan.

But, as I recall, the only evidence was her live testimony. I fully understand that you do not believe her. Personally, it seemed damned thin to me, too. But it WAS admissible under the FRE, and the jury believed her,. That is all that really matters when a court resolves a factual dispute. Who does the jury believe?.

---

Sorry, you'll have to do better than this if you want anyone to give you a sliver of credit. You're proving our point that this was a kangaroo court set up by libs to shakedown Trump when you make statements like this. The court didn't resolve any facts, regardless of whatever legalese you want to use, EVERYONE knows it was completely unfair and it's why we think Democrats and their judges are corrupt. YOU CAN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT. You can only defer to a kangaroo court. You lose.

---

All of which STILL has no relevance to the topic of this thread ... Trump's (alleged) defamation of a federal judge.

But let's do Civil Lawsuits 101.

We have trials to resolve disputes. Sometimes those disputes are entirely legal, with no factual disagreement. The judge resolves those disputes on his own, usually by summary judgment. Sometimes disputes arise from disagreement as to exactly what happened. In those cases, the factual dispute is resolved by a jury (if one has been requested) or otherwise by the judge. Sometimes, a case involves disputes of both types.

In the FIRST case tried of Jean Carroll against Trump, for sexual assault (usually called Carroll I), it was primarily a "fact dispute" case. Did he do it, or did he not? He said, she said. The parties had requested a jury, and the jury believed what "she said." You do not seem to like it, but that has been the nature of our civil justice system for about four centuries or more. You can argue all day long about how YOU would have made a different factual finding, but that DOES NOT MATTER. It was not your call to make. It belonged to the jury.

If you are insisting that I make an argument that the jury made the "correct" finding, I cannot do that. As I said, the evidence seemed pretty thin to me. Unless there was evidence that I have not seen, I probably would not have found him liable, had I been on the Carroll I jury.

You don't like that the NY Legislature opened the window for Epstein victims and that Trump got caught in the crossfire. Hell, you have probably convinced yourself that Trump (rather than Epstein) was the target. That is not REMOTELY what the legislature history shows, but you won't be convinced otherwise.

You probably do not like that Judge Kaplan did not allow the Carroll II jury (the defamation case) to relitigate the sexual assault claims. Sorry, but that is a matter of issue preclusion, and it was absolutely the correct call legally.

You cannot raise even ONE legitimate legal issue. You are just angry. Anger is not an appellate point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Does changing a statute of limitations (and then only for one year) ..., not something the judge should even question?

---

No. Separation of Powers.

That is the prerogative of the legislative branch, unless Trump challenged the Constitutionality of that action, and I don't know whether he did so or not.

Quote:

---

solely for the purpose of going after Trump

---

and there it is. The problem with this argument is that the change was targeted at Epstein, not Trump.

annie88 said:

---

They changed the law for one year only to go after Trump. If you can' see this I can't help you.

---

What CONCEIVABLE relevance does that LEGISLATIVE action have to the assertion that Judge Kaplan (a FEDERAL, rather than State, Judge) is "corrupt?"

You contend that a FEDERAL judge is somehow responsible for (allegedly) improper action by a STATE legislature?

aggiejayrod said:

---

Trial court should have probably found that the law was unconstitutional but did Trump's attorneys even argue that in pre-trial motions? Serious question as I'm not familiar with what happened pre-trial in that case.

---

I typed my post on this point before seeing yours, but that is indeed the correct question to ask.

Candidly, I have never researched the question of whether a retroactive change in the SoL in a CIVIL case would be unconstitutional.

I can make one HELL of a good argument that it is bad policy, though. A statute of limitations is intended to do several things. One, it is intended to provide a time after which the parties should be able to just get on with their lives without constant fear of litigation. Second, it is intended to be sure that evidence is adequately "fresh" as to be reliable. Retroactively extending a statute of limitations works against BOTH of those policy considerations.

Antoninus said:

---

Yes, truth is a defense in a defamation action, and the burden of proof on that defense will fall upon Trump.

Exactly what evidence have YOU seen that Federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan is "corrupt," other than the fact that you don't like his rulings?

---

I'm a big fan of common sense.

Trump is as right as he can be.

Antoninus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Seinfeld skit video introduction really took the mask off the charade, imho. His wife's posts and absurd gym pictures only added to the hilarity.

---

HOLY CRAP.

You don't even know which case we are discussing ... or which judge.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

---

LOL.

Keeping the identity of the corrupt judges straight can be exhausting.

Antoninus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

They changed the law for one year only to go after Trump. If you can' see this I can't help you.

---

What CONCEIVABLE relevance does that LEGISLATIVE action have to the assertion that Judge Kaplan (a FEDERAL, rather than State, Judge) is "corrupt?"

You contend that a FEDERAL judge is somehow responsible for (allegedly) improper action by a STATE legislature?

---

Let's argue the hyperbole for a second. If there was a law that said you could sue Trump for anything you want, for whatever amount of money you think you're owed, that law would be unconstitutional on its face. If a judge heard a case under that law and didn't strike it down, then that judge is very likely corrupt.

Let's not forget that the judicial branch is intended to be a check against the legislative branch. Courts shouldn't write laws (they do but that's a different argument) but courts should absolutely not trample on a person's rights just because a legislature wrote a bad law.

bobbranco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Seinfeld skit video introduction really took the mask off the charade, imho. His wife's posts and absurd gym pictures only added to the hilarity.

---

HOLY CRAP.

You don't even know which case we are discussing ... or which judge.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

---

LOL.

Keeping the identity of the corrupt judges can be exhausting.

---

I will grant you that Engoron did not seem to be "up to the task" of such a complex and high-profile case

By contrast, Kaplan seems to be a VERY competent judge.

Antoninus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Does changing a statute of limitations (and then only for one year) ..., not something the judge should even question?

---

No. Separation of Powers.

That is the prerogative of the legislative branch, unless Trump challenged the Constitutionality of that action, and I don't know whether he did so or not.

Quote:

---

solely for the purpose of going after Trump

---

and there it is. The problem with this argument is that the change was targeted at Epstein, not Trump.

---

Epstein died before the legislation was changed, first off. And secondly why was it sunsetted after one year?

But who filed a complaint at 12:01 AM the day the new law went into effect? E. Jean Carroll.

aggiehawg said:

---

Epstein died before the legislation was changed, first off. And secondly why was it sunsetted after one year?

But who filed a complaint at 12:01 AM the day the new law went into effect? E. Jean Carroll.

---

His estate didn't die, nor did his insurance policies.

I've not read the legislative history, but I suspect that the law had a one-year shelf life for EXACTLY the policy reasons that I outlined above as to why the change itself constituted "bad policy." The Epstein victims certainly have my sympathy, but I don't think a retroactive change in the SoL is good policy.

No one contends that Carroll did not take advantage of the Epstein-inspired change in the law. Dozens of litigants with no ties to Epstein did so. None of that changes the legislative history as to why the law was enacted.

How's the trolling progressing today?

nortex97 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Seinfeld skit video introduction really took the mask off the charade, imho. His wife's posts and absurd gym pictures only added to the hilarity.

---

HOLY CRAP.

You don't even know which case we are discussing ... or which judge.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

---

Oh well so sorry to get the wrong communist show trial sham bull**** mixed up. You got me.

Perhaps for hack 'judge' Kaplan he was referring to this complaint as to his corruption:

Quote:

---

NEW YORKSeptember 1, 2020Dozens of legal organizations around the world representing more than 500,000 lawyers along with over 200 individual lawyers today submitted a judicial complaint documenting a series of shocking violations of the judicial code of conduct by United States Judge Lewis A. Kaplan targeting human rights lawyer Steven Donziger after he helped Indigenous peoples win a historic judgment against Chevron in Ecuador to clean up the pollution caused by decades of oil drilling with no environmental controls.

The complaint was formally filed by the National Lawyers Guild in conjunction with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). IADL was founded in Paris in 1946 to fight to uphold the rule of law around the world and has consultative status with UN agencies.

Five pages in length with a 40-page appendix with 15 exhibits, the complaint is to be turned over to the chief judge in the federal appellate court in New York that oversees the trial court where Kaplan sits. The complaint is signed by an unprecedented number of legal organizations from approximately 80 countries collectively representing 500,000 lawyers.

The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert Katzmann, has a duty to read the complaint and determine whether he will appoint a committee to investigate and issue findings.
The complaint could result in a censure of Kaplan or even his removal from the bench.

"We wrote this judicial complaint after studying the record in this case and coming to the conclusion that Judge Kaplan has been acting as a de facto lawyer for Chevron in this litigation. He has shown a shocking pattern of escalating efforts to harm Mr. Donziger for his advocacy of the rights of indigenous people in Ecuador spanning a 10-year period," said Jeanne Mirer, the President of the IADL. "The violations constitute a clear breach of the norms set out in the judicial canon of ethics that govern the behavior of judges in the United States. We believe the complaint demands urgent investigation by Judge Katzmann to stop this pattern of abuse and to prevent a highly regarded human rights lawyer from being unjustly convicted."

The complaint documents what its authors say is a pattern of ethics violations committed by Judge Kaplan, a former tobacco industry lawyer. Kaplan denied Donziger a jury, put in place a series of highly unusual courtroom tactics, severely restricted Donziger's ability to mount a defense, and through his had picked judge to try him for criminal contempt has had him detained him at home for more than one year on contempt charges that were rejected by the U.S. Attorney, and allowed him to be prosecuted by a private law firm that has Chevron as a client. He also imposed enormous fines on Donziger without a jury finding that have all but bankrupted him.

---

But yeah, because he wears a black robe at work we should never allow public discourse as to his plausible/documented/obvious/in-your-face history of corruption. He's not political at all.

Clown world.

---

Damn. Thanks for the post.

Kaplan should never have been allowed on the bench. His law license should have been yanked after that corrupt behavior.

Not smart to avoid research.

But if you are only trolling and making up stuff as you go along it really doesn't matter.

bobbranco said:

---

How's the trolling progressing today?

---

He reminds me of a famous law student turned attorney from the old school rivalries board (not the new complete garbage "old rivalries" board that took it's place after texags murdered it for some odd reason).

Antoninus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Epstein died before the legislation was changed, first off. And secondly why was it sunsetted after one year?

But who filed a complaint at 12:01 AM the day the new law went into effect? E. Jean Carroll.

---

His estate didn't die, nor did his insurance policies.

I've not read the legislative history, but I suspect that the law had a one-year shelf life for EXACTLY the policy reasons that I outlined above as to why the change itself constituted "bad policy."

No one contends that Carroll did not take advantage of the Epstein-directed law. Dozens of litigants with no ties to Epstein did so. None of that changes the legislative history as to why the law was enacted.

---

You really didn't follow this stuff at all, did you? Who pushed for the change to the SOL? George Conway who had a freakin' power point presentation on his tablet to show E. Jean Carroll to get her onboard, BEFORE the law was changed. Conway hooked Caroll up with Roberta Kaplan and secured funding for Carroll's lawsuit from the LinkedIn guy.

Epstein was a fig leaf and a very small one at that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Epstein died before the legislation was changed, first off. And secondly why was it sunsetted after one year?

But who filed a complaint at 12:01 AM the day the new law went into effect? E. Jean Carroll.

---

His estate didn't die, nor did his insurance policies.

I've not read the legislative history, but I suspect that the law had a one-year shelf life for EXACTLY the policy reasons that I outlined above as to why the change itself constituted "bad policy."

No one contends that Carroll did not take advantage of the Epstein-directed law. Dozens of litigants with no ties to Epstein did so. None of that changes the legislative history as to why the law was enacted.

---

You really didn't follow this stuff at all, did you? Who pushed for the change to the SOL? George Conway who had a freakin' power point presentation on his tablet to show E. Jean Carroll to get her onboard, BEFORE the law was changed. Conway hooked Caroll up with Roberta Kaplan and secured funding for Carroll's lawsuit from the LinkedIn guy.

Epstein was a fig leaf and a very small one at that.

---

You nailed it and the obvious malarkey crap being peddled by Antoninus.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Yes, she is a liar and corrupt. The judge is at best incompetent for allowing the trial to move forward when the "victim" can't remember the year that it happened. It's impossible to provide a defense when no date of the "crime" was provided and there were no witnesses. Yes, the plaintiff and judge seem corrupt.

---

This.

aggiehawg said:

---

You really didn't follow this stuff at all, did you? Who pushed for the change to the SOL? George Conway who had a freakin' power point presentation on his tablet to show E. Jean Carroll to get her onboard, BEFORE the law was changed. Conway hooked Caroll up with Roberta Kaplan and secured funding for Carroll's lawsuit from the LinkedIn guy.

Epstein was a fig leaf and a very small one at that.

---

The initial bill was filed by state senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal. He specifically stated that it was aimed at Epstein and made no mention of anyone else. Similar legislation was passed in several other states, and all made specific reference to Epstein in committee, etc. Perhaps you will insist that this state senator was in secret cahoots with Carroll and Conway and lied about Epstein as being the target. Maybe all the sponsors of the similar bills in other states as well.

Your representation about the powerpoint is new to me, and I would be interested to see what you have on that point. I have read that he and Carroll ran into one another at a cocktail party, briefly discussed her situation and that he introduced her to attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation) the next day to discuss the DEFAMATION case ... the sexual assault SoL having already expired and the sexual assault SoL not having been changed yet. Remember, the defamation case was initiated long before the sexual assault case.

Maybe he did a powerpoint at some point later. Hell, maybe he even lobbied for the change that Hoylman filed to go after Epstein, with the intent of using it on Trump, but that does not change the author of the bill's own stated intent for filing it.

richardag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Seinfeld skit video introduction really took the mask off the charade, imho. His wife's posts and absurd gym pictures only added to the hilarity.

---

HOLY CRAP.

You don't even know which case we are discussing ... or which judge.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

---

Oh well so sorry to get the wrong communist show trial sham bull**** mixed up. You got me.

Perhaps for hack 'judge' Kaplan he was referring to this complaint as to his corruption:

Quote:

---

NEW YORKSeptember 1, 2020Dozens of legal organizations around the world representing more than 500,000 lawyers along with over 200 individual lawyers today submitted a judicial complaint documenting a series of shocking violations of the judicial code of conduct by United States Judge Lewis A. Kaplan targeting human rights lawyer Steven Donziger after he helped Indigenous peoples win a historic judgment against Chevron in Ecuador to clean up the pollution caused by decades of oil drilling with no environmental controls.

The complaint was formally filed by the National Lawyers Guild in conjunction with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). IADL was founded in Paris in 1946 to fight to uphold the rule of law around the world and has consultative status with UN agencies.

Five pages in length with a 40-page appendix with 15 exhibits, the complaint is to be turned over to the chief judge in the federal appellate court in New York that oversees the trial court where Kaplan sits. The complaint is signed by an unprecedented number of legal organizations from approximately 80 countries collectively representing 500,000 lawyers.

The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert Katzmann, has a duty to read the complaint and determine whether he will appoint a committee to investigate and issue findings.
The complaint could result in a censure of Kaplan or even his removal from the bench.

"We wrote this judicial complaint after studying the record in this case and coming to the conclusion that Judge Kaplan has been acting as a de facto lawyer for Chevron in this litigation. He has shown a shocking pattern of escalating efforts to harm Mr. Donziger for his advocacy of the rights of indigenous people in Ecuador spanning a 10-year period," said Jeanne Mirer, the President of the IADL. "The violations constitute a clear breach of the norms set out in the judicial canon of ethics that govern the behavior of judges in the United States. We believe the complaint demands urgent investigation by Judge Katzmann to stop this pattern of abuse and to prevent a highly regarded human rights lawyer from being unjustly convicted."

The complaint documents what its authors say is a pattern of ethics violations committed by Judge Kaplan, a former tobacco industry lawyer. Kaplan denied Donziger a jury, put in place a series of highly unusual courtroom tactics, severely restricted Donziger's ability to mount a defense, and through his had picked judge to try him for criminal contempt has had him detained him at home for more than one year on contempt charges that were rejected by the U.S. Attorney, and allowed him to be prosecuted by a private law firm that has Chevron as a client. He also imposed enormous fines on Donziger without a jury finding that have all but bankrupted him.

---

But yeah, because he wears a black robe at work we should never allow public discourse as to his plausible/documented/obvious/in-your-face history of corruption. He's not political at all.

Clown world.

---

Damn. Thanks for the post.

Kaplan should never have been allowed on the bench. His law license should have been yanked after that corrupt behavior.

---

What does Civil Law 101 say about this corruption?

RogerFurlong said:

---

richardag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The Seinfeld skit video introduction really took the mask off the charade, imho. His wife's posts and absurd gym pictures only added to the hilarity.

---

HOLY CRAP.

You don't even know which case we are discussing ... or which judge.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

---

Oh well so sorry to get the wrong communist show trial sham bull**** mixed up. You got me.

Perhaps for hack 'judge' Kaplan he was referring to this complaint as to his corruption:

Quote:

---

NEW YORKSeptember 1, 2020Dozens of legal organizations around the world representing more than 500,000 lawyers along with over 200 individual lawyers today submitted a judicial complaint documenting a series of shocking violations of the judicial code of conduct by United States Judge Lewis A. Kaplan targeting human rights lawyer Steven Donziger after he helped Indigenous peoples win a historic judgment against Chevron in Ecuador to clean up the pollution caused by decades of oil drilling with no environmental controls.

The complaint was formally filed by the National Lawyers Guild in conjunction with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). IADL was founded in Paris in 1946 to fight to uphold the rule of law around the world and has consultative status with UN agencies.

Five pages in length with a 40-page appendix with 15 exhibits, the complaint is to be turned over to the chief judge in the federal appellate court in New York that oversees the trial court where Kaplan sits. The complaint is signed by an unprecedented number of legal organizations from approximately 80 countries collectively representing 500,000 lawyers.

The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert Katzmann, has a duty to read the complaint and determine whether he will appoint a committee to investigate and issue findings.
The complaint could result in a censure of Kaplan or even his removal from the bench.

"We wrote this judicial complaint after studying the record in this case and coming to the conclusion that Judge Kaplan has been acting as a de facto lawyer for Chevron in this litigation. He has shown a shocking pattern of escalating efforts to harm Mr. Donziger for his advocacy of the rights of indigenous people in Ecuador spanning a 10-year period," said Jeanne Mirer, the President of the IADL. "The violations constitute a clear breach of the norms set out in the judicial canon of ethics that govern the behavior of judges in the United States. We believe the complaint demands urgent investigation by Judge Katzmann to stop this pattern of abuse and to prevent a highly regarded human rights lawyer from being unjustly convicted."

The complaint documents what its authors say is a pattern of ethics violations committed by Judge Kaplan, a former tobacco industry lawyer. Kaplan denied Donziger a jury, put in place a series of highly unusual courtroom tactics, severely restricted Donziger's ability to mount a defense, and through his had picked judge to try him for criminal contempt has had him detained him at home for more than one year on contempt charges that were rejected by the U.S. Attorney, and allowed him to be prosecuted by a private law firm that has Chevron as a client. He also imposed enormous fines on Donziger without a jury finding that have all but bankrupted him.

---

But yeah, because he wears a black robe at work we should never allow public discourse as to his plausible/documented/obvious/in-your-face history of corruption. He's not political at all.

Clown world.

---

Damn. Thanks for the post.

Kaplan should never have been allowed on the bench. His law license should have been yanked after that corrupt behavior.

---

What does Civil Law 101 say about this corruption?

---

It says that it would be foolish to voice any opinions about a multi-year dispute and a 40-page pleading that I have never seen before.

On its face, it LOOKS like sour grapes in support of an unsuccessful litigant.