Let’s put it another way, shouldn’t Carroll have an opportunity to make an argument? Because that’s how this is worded.
Carroll’s lawyer should just draft up some quick legalese that basically says in a nice formal way:
“No, this is a bullshit request and should be laughed out of court. It’s idiotic.”
It’s fucking bullshit, and the judge should kick Trump in the teeth for trolling. Carroll’s part in this has been completed, and she’s free.
If you think that once a verdict happens in civil court the plaintiff’s job is done, you don’t know very much about civil law.
With some minor exceptions, each party has a right to weigh in on any motion. It’s the default position of the court, so I completely understand the judge saying “let’s hear what the plaintiff has to say” before he rules.
Yeah, I’m not a fucking lawyer, but I know bullshit when Trump throws it.
I know it’s annoying, but this has become the M.O. in how judges handle Trump. Don’t give him a shred of an argument for any kind of appeal. Those with more wisdom in such matters (@Aspenglow) have seen this as prudent, and this judge has run a tight courtroom. I’m not worried.
If the judge says, “In this case because Trump is the defendant, we’re going to dispense with the normal legal procedures and I’m going to cut the plaintiff out of this…” You’re just asking to give Trump a legitimate reason to appeal, I’m thinking.
Accept this for what it is, another opportunity for Trump to get embarrassed by a pretty easy rebuttal.
Yeah, and we’re gonna drag the gal who got raped back into this because… Trump said something.
I wonder what’s coming next?
Trump demanding to grab Carroll by the pussy or he won’t pay?
I’m pretty sure her lawyers have this handled, she doesn’t need to do anything.
It does suck. But keep in mind, the judge is actually protecting her and her $$$.
Judge should say “Fine. Document your wealth for me, submit it under oath. End.”
And as for the documentation, he could request a receipt from the escrow company.
I think the easier answer is no, this is standard procedure and you have given no justification for granting an exception in your case. But again, give the plaintiff a say first.
This is easier. And better. And doesn’t drag innocent bystanders into a pool of bullshit.
It’s easier to request more documentation than to just say “no”?!
Oh, that’s not what your post said.
My post said:
The rest is just why it’s “no”.
And dragged Carroll back into some bullshit. It was subtle, I’ll grant you that. But I caught it.