Again, it’s like you’re operating under some weird assumption that the judge is going to demand that E. Jean Carroll personally come into his courtroom and explain to him why he shouldn’t grant a stay to Trump. That’s not how this works. Carroll’s lawyers are being given a chance to do their job and grant a rebuttal. They may not even bug her about any of this unless she wants them to.
As long as Trump isn’t asked to document his claim, first, you have a point.
It’s fucking bullshit, and she should be left alone, completely.
How about this, I look forward to Carroll’s lawyers, in equisitely polite language, point out all the ways that Trump’s request is unspeakably foolish, in all the ways they can twist the knife, while keeping scrupulously honest.
Oh, and make many veiled statements that the reason he is doing this is he’s broke.
Then, the judge will happily deny Trump’s request, which I note, did NOT extend the time for him to come up with funds in any way.
Possibly, but IANAL consider additional damages (only for the lawyers work on the rebuttal) for a frivolous claim while he’s at it.
Trump says he’s got too much money to bother with petty things like bonds.
(Everybody else closes their eyes and plugs their ears.)
Hypothetical smart judge of the future says: OK, prove it.
I would like to humbly submit a template for Judge Kaplan to use when he does write a formal response to this post. Credit to Principal James Downey:
Mr. Trump, this motion is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in this rambling, incoherent document were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this courtroom is now dumber for having been exposed to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I would like to modify the last statment of the quote to remind @Euphonious_Polemic of the many times (in the many Trump threads) we’ve mentioned the meme of some Republican evoking God and a voice from the heavens speaks “For the Last Time, Leave Me OUT of it!”.
IE no one who’s been paying attention should suggest Trump is worthy of mercy, especially as he is the farthest thing from Repentant that I can imagine.
“may you be cast into the fiery pit”?
Naw, this is purely a formulistic legal dance, lawyers only, parties need not participate. Carroll’s lawyer cites the relevant statute on the requirements for pursuing an appeal, says no grounds for an exception; judge agrees; done.
ETA: Or, as @ParallelLines points out, Carroll’s attorneys could have some fun with it, but the rest of what I said holds true.
Precisely. This is what lawyers do. Except imagine that this is a duel where one person has a bazooka and the other has a spork.
Carroll is the one who invoked the jurisdiction of the court by bringing her action. That means that she has to accept the rules of the court.
Audi alteram partem is a basic principle of the courts, closely tied to due process. A judge must “hear both sides” before making a decision. It ensures that the judge is an impartial arbiter, not an adversary of one side, or proponent for the other side. It also ensures that the facts and arguments in the point in dispute, both pro and con, are both fully developed before the court makes its decision.
Even when it’s a weak or even frivolous point, the judge instinctively turns to the other side and asks for their comments. That’s to ensure that the judge is fully briefed on the point, and that there is no allegation that the judge is biased in favour of one side.
The easy answer here, which I expect Carroll’s lawyers to make, is that it’s true she argued for a large settlement from Donnie based on his wealth, but there has been a significant change in circumstances since the jury ruled in favour: Judge Engoron’s decision has been a massive increase in Donnie’s liability, and she needs a bond to to be granted to protect her from his increased liability.
Put bluntly, he’s no longer as rich as he was when the jury ruled in her favour, which is what he seems to be arguing, since even if his assets are unchanged, the liability side of his ledger is much, much worse.
That won’t be a difficult argument for Carroll’s lawyers to make.
That faint sound you hear is the ghost of Leona Helmsley laughing.
More like:
Judge does a Picard Face Palm, turns to the plaintiff’s representation and asks for any comment, as they have the right to weigh in. The plaintiff’s counsel replies that it is obviously total bullshit, and cites the relevant case law. The judge agrees and denies the motion.
Apparently Trump thinks he’s an influencer getting a free meal.
“Tell you what, judge; I won’t pay the judgement, but I have thousands of followers, and I’ll tell them what a great court you have here. They will all want to come to court, and you’ll make lots of money!”
IIRC, one of his defenses was that Carroll has, in fact, made more money than she would have if it wasn’t for him and this case. That line of reasoning is right on the first page of the influencer handbook on how to get things for free; “Tell people you shouldn’t have to pay them and angrily insist they should be happy to accept the exposure/publicity instead”.
This. Even more justification for a bond, besides any statutory requirements.
Is Trump paying her attorney’s fees? Is that an option if he incurs additional fees through frivolous actions? Can they submit a letter than says something like,
Carroll’s lawyers are not required to reply to Trump’s latest ridiculous move, rather they’re being given an opportunity to reply, which I’m sure they will do as a matter of form and procedure, and maybe to have some fun with the pervasive stupidity of Trump’s lawyers.
What I’m suggesting is that if Team Carroll never replied at all, the judge would very likely go with the ruling that he’s probably already made up his mind about: “another ridiculous request hereby denied”. But the expected strong submission from Team Carroll strengthens the ruling against future appeal, and I’m sure the judge has the same expectations that I do of the response from Team Orange, namely that it will be incoherent drivel, since they have no legal argument. Having all of this on the record is helpful, and I’m sure the appeals court will be amused by Trump’s incessantly illogical and often frivolous arguments.
Talk about projecting. What are the two most desirable things in Donald Trump’s universe? Why, money and publicity, of course! He’s evidently not even capable of comprehending that many or even most people would likely not want to draw attention to themselves. Particularly for something negative.
^^^^This. Folks who haven’t been exposed to it have no idea just how formalized a dance the practice of law can be, indeed has to be, to protect the interests of everyone caught up in its toils, as well as the integrity of the judicial system.