trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse

OP is corrupt.

Trump is perfect and never wrong. Anyone who disagrees has TDS.

Antoninus said:

---

At a campaign rally in Rome, Georgia, Trump said:

Quote:

---

Lewis Kaplan, the judge in the Carroll defamation cases, is "a terrible person, a terrible judge" and "highly corrupt."

---

Reported in Newsweek

So, now he is defaming a federal judge.

This guy just CANNOT stop stepping on his own johnson.

---

Georgia Ag has drifted away from posting and new lawyer with TDS has appeared - hmmm…..

One that is 10X more pompous too.

AgDad121619 said:

---

Georgia Ag has drifted away from posting and new lawyer with TDS has appeared - hmmm…..

---

So far this week, I have been misidentified as GeorgiaAg, Lot-Y and KeithDB.

Keep 'em comin'. This is fun.

Old McDonald said:

---

trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse

---

by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.

Trump got his day in court.

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

So Trump was correct. The judge is corrupt. Maybe you should do your research before assuming he defamed the judge. You wouldn't want to defame him before you had all the evidence.

Speaking TRUTH is stepping on your johnson? You have issues.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse

---

by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.

Trump got his day in court.

---

So far, Judge Kaplan is corrupt because:

• the NY legislature passed a law unpopular here
• the jury made factual determinations unpopular here
• George Conway referred Jean Carroll to a lawyer
• George Conway recommended Jean Carroll file suit
• Judge Kaplan applied the doctrine of issue preclusion between Carroll I and Carroll II
• an embittered, disbarred, unsuccessful litigant in another case filed an ethics complaint against him

CoachtobeNamed$$$ said:

---

Speaking TRUTH is stepping on your johnson? You have issues.

---

No one else has managed anything.

Perhaps YOU can provide us with a specific instance (supported by evidence) of allegedly-corrupt behavior by Judge Kaplan.

Antoninus said:

---

CoachtobeNamed$$$ said:

---

Speaking TRUTH is stepping on your johnson? You have issues.

---

No one else has managed anything.

Perhaps YOU can provide us with a specific instance (supported by evidence) of allegedly-corrupt behavior by Judge Kaplan.

---

How about the appearance of impropriety in how he handled attorney Steven Donziger in the Chevron case? He refered the lawyer to SDNY for charges. SDNY declined to prosecute him. Undeterred, Judge Kaplan did this.

Quote:

---

In the U.S. justice system, federal prosecutors typically have the exclusive power to charge people with crimes, but unknown to most of the public, there are a vanishingly small number of exceptions.

So learned environmental attorney Steven Donziger, who has been fighting for his life, livelihood and liberty in a decades-long battle to hold Chevron liable for oil contamination to the Ecuadorean Amazon.

"This is a serious, serious case, OK," Donziger acknowledged last week during a bail hearing. "This is criminal. I get it. It is highly serious. I've been dealing with the civil up to this point."

Though the case is captioned United States of America v. Steven Donziger, prosecutors from the Southern District of New York declined to take up the case, and so a federal judge drafted criminal contempt charges and appointed private counsel to lead Donziger's prosecution on July 30.

The lead counsel for the "government," Seward & Kissel partner Rita Glavin, declined to comment.

Courthouse News reached out to five former federal prosecutors including veterans from the Southern District of New York, District of Alabama and the Northern District of California seeking precedent for the maneuver.

Despite a combined total of more than 70 years of experience, only one ex-prosecutor contacted had ever heard of a judge-appointed private prosecution for criminal contempt. That case, filed by an Alabama judge against another crusading plaintiff's attorney, was ultimately dismissed.

Highly unusual in every other respect, Donziger's appearance last Tuesday had all of the trappings of a typical bail hearing.

---

That sounds pretty sus to me.

Quote:

---

In 1993, attorneys in New York filed a lawsuit on behalf of thousands of indigenous and campesino rainforest residents, who claimed that Texaco, which Chevron would later acquire, left their jungle homes an oil-strewn disaster. Nobody doubts that the legacy of drilling left the Ecuadorean jungle dotted with petroleum pools, but the battles over liability for that pollution have stretched across three continents and more than a dozen jurisdictions.

The environmental case itself migrated to Lago Agrio, Ecuador where a judge slapped Chevron with a $9.8 billion judgment but Chevron brought new litigation in New York.

"Our L-T [long-term] strategy is to demonize Donziger," Chevron wrote in an internal memo in 2009.

Asserting violations of U.S. anti-racketeering law, Chevron accused Donziger of bribing a judge, ghostwriting the multibillion-dollar judgment against it and cooking scientific studies.

In 2014, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan labeled Donziger's conduct "criminal" in a nearly 500-page ruling affirming most of Chevron's allegations against him.

The U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York has declined the ruling's invitation to prosecute Donziger for more than half a decade, and Donziger vehemently denies the allegations against him as a retaliatory campaign by one of the world's most powerful companies to destroy him. On top of his criminal charges, Donziger faces ongoing disbarment proceedings and may have to pay Chevron millions in attorneys' fees.

---

LINK

FTR: That private law firm did legal wotk for Chevron in the past. And Kaplan appointed his buddy judge to oversee the case.

Now federal judges do tend to have a God complex wherein their power goes to their head but chasing that one guy down for over ten years appears obsessively vindictive to me.

Antoninus said:

---

CoachtobeNamed$$$ said:

---

Speaking TRUTH is stepping on your johnson? You have issues.

---

No one else has managed anything.

Perhaps YOU can provide us with a specific instance (supported by evidence) of allegedly-corrupt behavior by Judge Kaplan.

---

You'll just ignore it like the 40 page ethics complaint.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

At a campaign rally in Rome, Georgia, Trump said:

Quote:

---

Lewis Kaplan, the judge in the Carroll defamation cases, is "a terrible person, a terrible judge" and "highly corrupt."

---

---

---

He usually is.

Do we have responsive briefing? Was it resolved?

you know as well as I do that one side's pleading is usually about 90% sunshine pumping for its case.

Antoninus said:

---

Do we have responsive briefing? Was it resolved?

you know as well as I do that one side's pleading is usually about 90% sunshine pumping for its case.

---

Read the link I already posted and do your own research.

so, you don't know the answer to either question.

Thank you.

I will try to track it down

Antoninus said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

Georgia Ag has drifted away from posting and new lawyer with TDS has appeared - hmmm…..

---

So far this week, I have been misidentified as GeorgiaAg, Lot-Y and KeithDB.

Keep 'em comin'. This is fun.

---

that is rare air you are keeping

Lawfare.

How exactly is one "liable" of sexual assault, but not "guilty"

Jack Ruby said:

---

Lawfare.

How exactly is one "liable" of sexual assault, but not "guilty"

---

Criminal SOL had long since run so no prosecution allowed. Law was changed on civil cases to grant a one time (year) only extension of sexual assault/abuse could be brought no matter how many decades old.

That's how.

aggiehawg said:

---

Jack Ruby said:

---

Lawfare.

How exactly is one "liable" of sexual assault, but not "guilty"

---

Criminal SOL had long since run so no prosecution allowed. Law was changed on civil cases to grant a one time (year) only extension of sexual assault/abuse could be brought no matter how many decades old.

That's how.

---

To be clear, the vast majority of the monetary damages from the lawsuits were for defamation, which has nothing to do with the one year law for sexual assault claims. The defamation lawsuits could have been brought (and were brought) without the one year window.

Jack Ruby said:

---

Lawfare.

How exactly is one "liable" of sexual assault, but not "guilty"

---

The former is civil, the latter is criminal.

Remember a fella named Orenthal James Simpson? He was found "not guilty," but nonetheless "libel" to the families of his victims.

in most cases, this is possible because the burden of proof in a civil case is much lower than the burden of proof in a criminal case. in this case, it was a question of the statute of limitations.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

To be clear, the vast majority of the monetary damages from the lawsuits were for defamation, which has nothing to do with the one year law for sexual assault claims. The defamation could have been brought (and were brought) without the one year window.

---

The sexual assault case was tried first, with a finding that the assault did take place. That finding "carried forward" into the subsequent defamation case.

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

It's nice that you're much more analytical in trying to dismiss any claim Trump might have for defamation than you are at tossing out claims of possible defamation that Trump might have done.

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.

---

That's how a lot of jurisdictions in the south used to deal with colored people. Well, the jury found you guilty...Obviously that means you were.

Translate that to now where juries are politically skewed instead of just racially skewed...

OK, let's address the judicial ethics complaint that was filed against Judge Kaplan, since you guys are so proud of it.

first, it has nothing to do with this case. Second, the chances that Donald Trump was even aware of its existence, and thus referencing it when charging Judge Kaplan with corruption, is essentially zero. Nonetheless, let's take a look at the merits of that complaint.

What I have found is that Judge Kaplan is a notable hard ass. He was a hard ass towards Trump. I have learned that he is the judge in the Samuel Bankman-Fried case, and he is a hard ass in that case as well. he does not put up with a lot of crap, and you had better comply with his orders.

Apparently, he was also a hard ass in the case involving an environmental lawyer named Stephen Donziger. Donziger had represented a large group of Ecuadoran campesinos in an environmental damage suit against Texaco/Chevron. He eventually obtained a multi billion dollar judgment in his clients favor, but the evidence tends to indicate that he obtain that judgment in large part by bribing the hell out of the entire Ecuadoran judiciary.

Donziger then moved the case to the United States in an effort to collect that judgment, and it was assigned to judge Kaplan. During the course of proceedings in the United States, judge Kaplan presided over extensive discovery, and made multiple orders. Apparently, Donziger completely refused to comply with any of those orders, so Judge Kaplan held him in civil contempt. Donziger then refused to comply with the civil contempt order, so judge Kaplan referred the matter for a criminal contempt proceeding.

Judge Loretta Preska was assigned the criminal contempt case. Judge Preska sentenced Donziger to the maximum sentence of six months in prison. Preska said that Donziger had not shown contrition and "It seems that only the proverbial two-by-four between the eyes will instill in him any respect for the law".

During the course of all this, and several ancillary proceedings, Donziger filed multiple appeals to the second circuit and to the Supreme Court. All of those appeals were resolved against Donziger.

as a result of his outrageous behavior, Donziger was eventually disbarred in both New York and Washington DC.

yes, a coalition of international, liberal environmental lawyers filed a judicial ethics complaint against Judge Kaplan several years ago. My research has not been able to uncover that it is even been set for hearing, which indicates to me that the judge to whom it was referred sees it having no merit whatsoever. That is certainly consistent with the fact that Judge Kaplan, rather than attorney Danziger, prevailed in absolutely every appeal, at absolutely every level.

in other words, the ethics complain is nothing but sour grapes filed on behalf of an unsuccessful litigant.

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

That's how a lot of jurisdictions in the south used to deal with colored people. Well, the jury found you guilty...Obviously that means you were.

---

I try to avoid stupid tropes like "clown world," but did you seriously just compare Donald J Trump to Blacks in the American South during the Jim Crow era?

Bless your heart. You do keep trying...so hard...to defend E. Jean Carroll...your personal heroine.

So she's what 77-78? Call her maybe?

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

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).

---

She did win every case.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

That's how a lot of jurisdictions in the south used to deal with colored people. Well, the jury found you guilty...Obviously that means you were.

---

I try to avoid stupid tropes like "clown world," but did you seriously just compare Donald J Trump to Blacks in the American South during the Jim Crow era?

---

No...I didn't.

I compared biased juries.

Quote:

---

the complaints boil down to the fact that the jury accepted clearly-ADMISSIBLE (though disputed) evidence as "true," when you think it was false.

---

Quote:

---

Well, the jury found you guilty...Obviously that means you were.

---

I'm surprised you didn't understand that...

Antoninus said:

---

She did win every case.

---

Every = 1

aggiehawg said:

---

Bless your heart. You do keep trying...so hard...to defend E. Jean Carroll...your personal heroine.

So she's what 77-78? Call her maybe?

---

my assessment of Carroll, set forth clearly above, is that her evidence on the assault was pretty thin, and that I would not have found in her favor.

But, please, carry-on with the lies.

The fact that the jury found differently than I likely would have found does not mean that Judge Kaplan is "corrupt."

i'll be candid. I like hardass judges like Kaplan. You know exactly where you stand. You know what the rules are. You know what you can do and what you cannot do.

but when he makes an order, you damned-well better comply with it. your boy Donziger did not understand this, and apparently Trump did not understand it either.

Jack Ruby said:

---

Lawfare.

How exactly is one "liable" of sexual assault, but not "guilty"

---

What Hawg said plus: different standards of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt versus preponderance of the evidence. O.J. was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but liable in the civil trial.

so, how do you propose resolving disputed fact issues?

You don't trust judges. You don't trust juries.

Do you plan to call a seance?

or do we just believe the defendant, when you like the defendant, and then believe the complainant, when you like the complainant?