- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Carroll's lawyer R Kaplan and the Manhattan Fedral Judge L Kaplan are related.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:43 am to oogabooga68
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:43 am to oogabooga68
You Trumpsters are incredible ninnies when it comes to HIS incompetence and his counsel's incompetence. All of this was known or should have been known by his counsel.....all you had to do was contact the New York State Bar Association or the Manhattan Bar....on both the lawyer and judge. If there was a serious conflict like they were at the same firm as partners then he would recuse himself, because other judges would have told him to do so.
Judges HATE 2 things......being overturned on appeal and ethics charges.
Judges HATE 2 things......being overturned on appeal and ethics charges.
2
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
You are right that it is basically impossible, especially in smaller jurisdictions, that every relationship is avoided or even disclosed. Every instance doesn't need to be because simply because having a relationship with another attorney/judge is not grounds for recusal. We all work with attorneys who become judges etc., and many of those people end up being harsher than if they had no relationship to show there is no impropriety.
I don't think a relationship between the Kaplans would have been grounds for recusal either. HOWEVER, this is the trial of a US president. Pretty much any and all potential improprieties should have been disclosed, and if they were not that is an issue. I know judges who won't touch certain high-profile cases if they had any prior relationship, personal or professional, with the parties. Hell - I worked for a justice on the supreme court one summer and he recuses himself from any of my cases before him which has been quite a few. It's just good practice. A federal judge in this situation shouldn't be so ignorant as to not disclose whether he believed it mattered or not.
I don't think a relationship between the Kaplans would have been grounds for recusal either. HOWEVER, this is the trial of a US president. Pretty much any and all potential improprieties should have been disclosed, and if they were not that is an issue. I know judges who won't touch certain high-profile cases if they had any prior relationship, personal or professional, with the parties. Hell - I worked for a justice on the supreme court one summer and he recuses himself from any of my cases before him which has been quite a few. It's just good practice. A federal judge in this situation shouldn't be so ignorant as to not disclose whether he believed it mattered or not.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then you wasted 10 seconds. The formal Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison association was detailed in the NYPost link in this thread. Subsequent correspondence, social relationships, assistance, recommendations, etc were not addressed either there or by you. So all we know is there was a definitive Kaplan-Kaplan relationship which the judge chose not to divulge. Was there more? You say "no." But you make that claim without evidence. At least w/o any evidence you've offered here.
It took me 10 seconds of Googling
quote:How many defamation cases have been brought against Presidents? Run that numerator against the total case denominator. What number do you come up with?
but 30 years should do it in 99.999999999999% of cases.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:56 am to KiwiHead
I totally agree it is his counsel's incompetence which is why I think she knew, otherwise its basically malpractice to not at least bring it up to your client and/or file a motion if you believed it could be an issue. It seems to me the only reason is incompetence, or she is acting like she didn't know something that is common knowledge, so she has an issue for appeal. Anyone who has ever worked for an insurance company or corporate client knows step one is researching the judge, opposing counsel, and venue to report back to the client to assess risk, likelihood of winning, etc.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:56 am to CecildaDiesel
I just read more of the article and
I think people are buzzing about the unsubstantiated "mentor" comment. If it was truly just her being a junior associate at the firm, this gets a lot sillier. I am not an expert of big law in NYC in the early 90s, but I doubt that junior associates even got "mentors" until a few years in.
ETA: just so people know, Paul Weiss currently has 1,020 attorneys employed
quote:
They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him,” said Sawyer, who declined to provide further comment.
I think people are buzzing about the unsubstantiated "mentor" comment. If it was truly just her being a junior associate at the firm, this gets a lot sillier. I am not an expert of big law in NYC in the early 90s, but I doubt that junior associates even got "mentors" until a few years in.
ETA: just so people know, Paul Weiss currently has 1,020 attorneys employed
This post was edited on 1/28/24 at 8:58 am
Posted on 1/28/24 at 8:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How many defamation cases have been brought against Presidents?
Lost in all this is the very human aspect of it all.
Does anyone REALLY think that a partisan Judge would risk not being "the one that got Trump" by doing anything that might get him/her/it removed from this case?
Judges and Lawyers suffer from Narcissism at a higher rate than the general public.
Tho' the moral onus is on the JUDGE to admit and recuse, there's no way in Hell that would happen because they are less concerned about Justice than they are crusading.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ETA: just so people know, Paul Weiss currently has 1,020 attorneys employed
CEO of Major Corporation: "Your honor, I employ over a thousand people, you can't hold me responsible for their actions".
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:01 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Does anyone REALLY think that a partisan Judge would risk not being "the one that got Trump" by doing anything that might get him/her/it removed from this case?
This is exactly why the meltdown in this thread is so funny.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:02 am to KiwiHead
quote:Why? It's been like ... you know ... 29.7 yrs. The question here is not recusal. The question here is failure to divulge in a case against a POTUS.
like they were at the same firm as partners then he would recuse himself,
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:02 am to oogabooga68
There are judges of all shapes and sizes. I have seen some who didn't need to recuse who have done so sua sponte and some who absolutely should recuse that fight it every step of the way just to prove they aren't biased. The latter has always seemed odd to me because if I was a judge why would I want more work on my plate. Especially, in this case, the trial of a former president.
In high profile cases you have to dot all your i's and cross all your t's, and disclosure should have happened here on the record to avoid the optics at the very least.
In high profile cases you have to dot all your i's and cross all your t's, and disclosure should have happened here on the record to avoid the optics at the very least.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The question here is failure to divulge in a case against a POTUS.
Why do y'all keep bringing this up as if it matters in this case?
These allegations occurred from around the time that Trump was making appearances in Home Alone 2. Decades before he was President.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Interesting categorization.
meltdown
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:04 am to Barstools
quote:
Title is wrong. They aren't related, they worked together and one was the others mentor.
but you don't see that there may be a problem!!
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Will it be brought up on appeal?
Why do y'all keep bringing this up as if it matters in this case?
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Interesting categorization.
It's SOP on this board. Emotional priming is part of the ethos of being a Patriot. They love a good meltdown.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do y'all keep bringing this up as if it matters in this case?
That's not a serious question, right?
Why do y'all keep bringing this up as if it matters in this case?
That's not a serious question, right?
This post was edited on 1/28/24 at 9:07 am
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Will it be brought up on appeal?
The fact that Trump won the Presidential election in 2016, decades after the alleged incident? I doubt it.
What ruling or factual finding even involved that issue?
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:07 am to CecildaDiesel
This was not a federal case.....because I would agree.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:09 am to CecildaDiesel
quote:
That's not a serious question, right?
The case is centered around an alleged incident from the 90s.
If their appeal is based around allegations of partisan bias/impropriety, then you and I both know that sanctions are much more likely than any relief.
The biggest partisan variable in this case isn't even part of the case. The legislature changing the SOL is that variable. Did they litigate the impropriety/illegality of this issue at trial? I don't remember it coming up. I doubt they can even litigate it on appeal if they didn't try during the case.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:09 am to oogabooga68
quote:N ot necessarily. But it certainly is to divulge, and clear the issue. If he had done that, this would be a nonissue. He didn't.
Tho' the moral onus is on the JUDGE to admit and recuse
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News