- 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 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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?
The trial is happening now, not then. One of the most polarizing figures of our time and it doesn't matter? Come on. If there was an actual mentor relationship it calls every decision into question just because it wasn't disclosed.
1
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:12 am to CecildaDiesel
quote:
The trial is happening now, not then.
But the record is a recreation of then, not now. The appeal will be based on that record.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:13 am to KiwiHead
quote:Cases brought up in United States District Court are federal cases.
This was not a federal case.....because I would agree.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If it was 30-ish years ago, unlikely.
Yet the "rape" was how many years ago?
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
The defamation occurred last year. Now, if the other case is being linked to initial one, then we have an issue with the $83M vs. $5M original claim.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:15 am to Cobbvol
quote:
The defamation occurred last year.
You're right. Fair point.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:17 am to Cobbvol
quote:No. The defamation claim arose several years ago when the liar lost her job.
The defamation occurred last year
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The trial is happening now, not then.
But the record is a recreation of then, not now. The appeal will be based on that record.
My one question would be is there grounds on appeal since it wasn't raised at trial. I haven't worked on a recusal motion in a long time, but I assume there is a remedy upon discovery.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:19 am to CecildaDiesel
quote:
My one question would be is there grounds on appeal since it wasn't raised at trial. I haven't worked on a recusal motion in a long time, but I assume there is a remedy upon discovery.
I can only speak for LA, but it would be grounds to file a motion for new trial, assuming it's within the time frame to file one.
quote:
Art. 1972. Peremptory grounds
A new trial shall be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party, in the following cases:
(1) When the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence.
(2) When the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before or during the trial.
(3) When the jury was bribed or has behaved improperly so that impartial justice has not been done.
The problem would be the diligence, but this isn't an LA case so it's irrelevant.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Tho' the moral onus is on the JUDGE to admit and recuse
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.
THANK YOU. This has been my point whether I am getting it across or not
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You assume the information about an alleged mentor relationship was public knowledge
When the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before or during the trial.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These allegations occurred from around the time that Trump was making appearances in Home Alone 2. Decades before he was President.
Carroll first made the accusation in 2019.
Home Alone 2 filmed in 1997.
Therefore, the allegations OCCURRED in 2019.
If you mean these allegations occurred about events that supposedly happened in 1997, you would still be wrong.
Carroll has yet to pinpoint the supposed year this "horrific" event occurred.
This is why your melts are so entertaining.
You know dick about anything, yet speak so passionately about these things.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:25 am to CecildaDiesel
quote:
she 1000% knew and wanted the issue for appeal. for a regular joe this likely wouldn't warrant recusal but would warrant disclosure. For a president, it warrants both. Great strategy honestly
Except that if she knew, and sat on it, she’s waived it.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:26 am to NC_Tigah
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.
Notice I said moral not legal.
I one hundred percent stand by my assertion that the Judge wouldn't do ANYTHING to jeopardize his position of being "the one that got Trump".
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:27 am to TBoy
quote:
Except that if she knew, and sat on it, she’s waived it.
True - but how do you prove she knew?
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:27 am to Riverside
quote:
The judge should have disclosed this personal and professional relationship
I agree that disclosure is always better. Most of the NY ethics cases on prior firms deal with disqualification. For prior associates of a judge’s [prior] firm, there is generally a 2 year requirement of disqualification on the firm and firm’s former associates. Example 1 Exsmple 2. Nevertheless, if there was a mentor or mentee relationship, that seems to imply a greater professional connection. The judge may not get sanctioned, but that level of relationship would seem to be an item that would influence a council’s opinion on propriety.
Regardless, there isn’t a primary duty of counsel to initiate the question. Such duty would be tertiary, and comes into play when there may be a relationship the judge does not know Judicial Disclosure and the need for more guidance
As others have pointed out, this does illustrate a huge problem in the existing system. Home court bias is huge. First, you will get these type of situations, namelywhere there are all types of relationships outside the court, and regardless of what a judge may aver, does effect decision making. Second, in the rare event there are no such outside relationships, thete will be relationships develop because the same council tend to appear in front of the same judges. Thus, you almost always need representation by one of a small pools of lawyers in any court.
This post was edited on 1/28/24 at 9:45 am
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:29 am to oogabooga68
quote:
I one hundred percent stand by my assertion that the Judge wouldn't do ANYTHING to jeopardize his position of being "the one that got Trump".
I agree that the judge would not risk being recused. This argues for his non-disclosure being unlikely to create any issues.
If he was worried that his non-disclosure would affect his ability to get Trump, he would have disclosed.
There is about a 0.000001% chance his former relationship with the plaintiff's attorney would result in recusal, so the only risk he took was the non-disclosure. I believe he wanted to be the one to "get Trump", so clearly he didn't see it as a risk/issue.
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:31 am to dukkbill
quote:
As others have pointed out, thus does illustrate a huge problem in the existing system. Home court bias is huge. First, you will get these situations where there are all types of relationships outside the court, and regardless of what a judge may aver, does effect decision making. Second, in the rare event there are no such outside relationships ,
There will be relationships develop because the same council tend to appear in front of the same judges. Thus, you almost always need representation by one of a small pools of lawyers in any court
True dat. Go to a smaller parish in LA and you'll see it reaaaal quick
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:33 am to CecildaDiesel
quote:
True - but how do you prove she knew?
I’m addressing someone else’s comment that if she knew and sat on it to manufacture an appeal issue, that would be “a great strategy.” My comment is that it would not be a great strategy.
This post was edited on 1/28/24 at 9:34 am
Posted on 1/28/24 at 9:33 am to CecildaDiesel
I have been told not to come back, for the most part, in 2 parishes. One had 1 judge, and the other had 2 judges.
It took a few years until I could go back without worry of retribution.
It took a few years until I could go back without worry of retribution.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News