Is she putting her law license at risk? Even if you can’t control your client in the courtroom, I’d think that appealing the case because your client thinks the judge should have allowed him to continue acting like a baby would be considered blatantly frivolous and a complete waste of time and resources. OTOH, if she thinks she’s right, maybe the bar needs to reevaluate her knowledge of how all this works.
This reminds me of a former employee that we fired. The simplified version of that was that he was fired, denied unemployment compensation, appealed the decision and missed the appeal hearing. He appealed the default judgement against him and that appeal had ONE question to be answered, why didn’t you show up to the first hearing. Instead of answering that, he launched into his argument about why he should get unemployment. Since he didn’t answer the question about why he missed the first hearing, it remained closed and he didn’t get his UI.
(This is a shortened version of the “Joey is a hillbilly pothead that lies” story from a few years ago. Me being a hillbilly pothead was part of his reasoning. He literally wrote that out on the form).
In this particular case, it’s possible Habba and Turmp’s other lawyers are in hot water for knowingly allowing Weisselberg to perjur himself during testimony. So, yeah, their law licenses might be at risk, but I don’t think the risk would come from filing an appeal. I expect such an appeal on the grounds that Trump had the right to say whatever he wanted to on the stand will be rejected. However, in the interest of justice, maybe there’s some kernal of truth to Habba’s complaint that Trump wasn’t allowed to defend himself effectively. I have my doubts, but I’m not a lawyer and I’m happy to rely on judges to make that decision.
I don’t know if this applies in this case, but as I read it, it says that if the appeal is frivolous and only being used to delay payment of damages, then Trump could be on the on the hook for paying up to double Carroll’s legal fees as well as any damages the delay cost her. But doesn’t make any mention of sanctioning the attourneys.
It’s pretty rare that a case that went through trial won’t have some non-frivolous argument to make on appeal. Not that it’s a winner, but that it can be made with a straight face. I haven’t seen Trump’s actual appellate brief. Chances are there’s something non-frivolous there.
Could Kaplan retroactively charge him with contempt for whatever contemptuous things he did during the trial? I have to assume the number of contemptuous things he did during the trial is more than zero.
There might be some validity to the argument if this was somehow unusual, but no, it’s standard procedure. Trump is asking for an exception and the burden is on the defense to justify it, not the other way around.
Or to put it another way, they don’t have to think he’s poor to not trust him. They won their case in large part by proving he’s a liar. Why would they trust him on anything?
I know what he’s going for here. He really believes in the “all I need is one” juror theory. But that isn’t going to work out for him because he clearly did the things he is accused of. Nothing he could possibly say on the stand will make a difference.
Plus, as mentioned upthread, Trump’s balance sheet has worsened dramatically since the $83 million dollar Carroll judgment.
He’s now got the $400 million judgment owing to the state of New York.
Even if he was as rich as he said in the deposition, that’s no longer the case. I can see the argument that she has a need for a greater security because of his increased liability, and lower equity.
Trump demands a new trial.
I would say that that isn’t a thing, but the way Trump has twisted every other institution to benefit himself, I will not laugh at the ridiculous request. Next thing you know, he’ll get one.
There’s also such favorites as ‘I was held up at work’ and ‘I think one of my employee’s is living in my snow plow’. I’m not sure if I’ve told the ‘my employee’s psycho ex keeps showing up’ story yet.
He says he needs to be able to explainwhy he made those defamatory statements. Because, I guess, in his world, excuses pay the rent. She was defamed, it caused her problems, is there some reasonable way for him to justify that?
I realize that DJT is an idiot who thinks his wealth exempts him from being held responsible for his illegal behavior but where does he keep finding attorneys who are equally idiotic. It’s amazing.
Responding to the link in the quote and not specifically asking eschereal:
Is this true? Were the limits “severe”? Would another defendant be allowed to testify as Trump wanted to?
Does defamation law require that harming the plaintiff be the only motive? Is a desire to “defend his reputation, protect his family, and defend his Presidency” in any way exculpatory? Why?
The report just seems to be echoing the claims from Trump’s lawyers. IIRC, what Judge Kaplan “limited” Trump to was addressing the facts, rather than his usual bloviating and grandstanding.
Why? Because he lost the case, and in Trump’s tiny orange mind, the correct outcome of any conflict or contest in which he’s involved is that he must win. If he didn’t win, then by definition it was “unfair”, just as in the 2020 election.
