Posted on 03/08/2024 8:38:59 AM PST by thegagline
Former president Donald Trump posted a $91.63 million bond on Friday as he appeals a Manhattan jury’s judgment against him for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll.
The posting of the bond is expected to allow Trump to stop the penalty from being enforced while he challenges January’s verdict at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The bond is guaranteed by the Federal Insurance Company, which has offices in Virginia and New Jersey, according to Trump’s filing.
Trump was ordered to pay the massive sum at a trial to determine damages after a federal judge found Trump liable repeatedly defaming Carroll — whom a prior jury found that Trump sexually assaulted inside a department store fitting room — by claiming that she’d made up her allegation to get publicity for her book and calling her a “whack job” who should “pay dearly.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
He will get the money back and the judgment will be reversed.
The left has worse things to throw in Trump’s path as we approach the election.
She is the biggest sexual fantasizer in the world. President Trump wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot pole.
Or maybe that's just my belief in Romans 8:28 kicking in.
Can you sue judges for their findings?
Not if she spends it all first.
Isa.54 - Bible, King James Version
No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord.
This is the bible passage I reflect on for Donald Trump.
“He will get the money back and the judgment will be reversed.”
He will get some of the money back, but they will keep at least 10% but I would not be surprised if it is quite a bit more than that.
I believe she does not have access u til the appeals are done. The $ are in bond.
Judges have absolute immunity in civil cases.
I figured. Special people…
The most powerful have the least accountability.
“The left has worse things to throw in Trump’s path as we approach the election.”
*************
The vicious Left. They never stop their lying, conniving and scheming.
One reason they are the way they are is because there is no resistance form the other side. They never face any real push back or consequences. And so there’s no reason for them to ever back off.
“Can you sue judges for their findings?”
Carroll’s lawyer and her financial backer would have lots of money.
A person should be able to proclaim innocence.
Our legal system needs to know when it might be making mistakes.
The money doesn't go to her.
Since judges make the law on this subject, what do you guess the answer is?
We’ll see. I read a story that the judgement was out of line for actual damages; and thus the punitive damages would also be reduced proportionately. So he may lose the case, but get closer to $70 million of it back if the money damages are reduced to something closer to reality.
There may also be a federal ex post facto law challenge. The state retroactively changed the statute of limitations on these suits. It’s pretty obvious they did that specifically to allow her case to go forward. Her case was previously dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired, so the state expanded it just for a 1 year period. That change also ensnared a lot of their people into civil suits. Some rappers/hip hop moguls in particular. Seems wildly unfair to pass a law 20 years after the fact to allow 20 year old accusations to go to court.
No.
Who keeps 10%?
It goes to her, her lawyers (costs- see NRS 18.005 for example, fees)and lien holders.
If judges didn’t have immunity from civil suits, the entire court system would collapse. There are however numerous actions an aggrieved litigant could take following an adverse judgment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.