Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Steve Ramirez (stephenramirez@universeodon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 09:52:05 JST Steve Ramirez

   It has been determined already that Mr. Trump did sexually assault Ms. Carroll, that he knew when he made the statements about Ms. Carroll that the statements were false, that he made them with reckless disregard to whether they were true or false — US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan #quotes #quote #Trump #DefamationTrial #TrumpSexualAssault #AwardDamages #TrumpTrial

   • BowserNoodle ☦️ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     FourOh-LLC (fouroh-llc@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 09:52:03 JST FourOh-LLC

     in reply to
     It has been determined that there are TOO MANY accusations against Mr. Trump.
     
     I am sorry, nobody accusing Mr. Trump has credibility. They should've brought their lawsuits a few decades sooner.
   • Embed this notice
     sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:32 JST sj_zero

     in reply to

     • antipode77
     There's a lot to unpack here...
     
     Civil trials are not criminal trials, they require only preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt so the question asked to the jury is fundamentally different than something you could lock someone up for.
     
     For defamation, this is a tort, not a crime. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to fine anyone (a fine would be paid to the government rather than the victim), it is to recover damage done by one party to another, and for the most part the thing courts can grant is money. The elements of defamation are 1. That a statement of fact is said by the person, 2. That statement is false, 3. If the individual is a public figure then the statement is known to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth, 4. That the false statement of fact caused damages.
     
     Typically, the purpose of suing someone is to make yourself whole, not to get the state to punish someone for you. Therefore, for a relative nobody who is claiming to have been lied about, there's going to be a limitation on the amount of damages that can be claimed, since 5 million dollars is already more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.
     
     There is some additional money you can ask for based on stuff like "pain and suffering", but again that's not punishment for the person you're suing, it's just that you want to be made whole and the court can't undo your pain and suffering so you pay money in recompense.
     
     There is also a thing known as punitive damages, which is more money given to the plaintiff who is suing to ensure the defendant doesn't commit the tort again. However, even this element starts to run up against constitutional constraints because excessive punitive damage awards can go beyond what's allowable under the law.
     
     Don't take the Alex Jones defamation case as representative of how the process works, most people aren't on trial for accusing a bunch of dead kids of lying about being dead on national television and so it ended up with an exceptional outcome.
     
     Regardless of the size of anyone's judgement against them in a civil case, it would be a massive injustice to jail anyone over it. That's not what the civil courts are for, that's not their job, that's not how they're set up, and if you jumped from a 51% preponderance of the evidence jury verdict to jailtime that would send a lot of innocent people to jail (and even the rich deserve to be free if you can't prove they did something beyond a reasonable doubt)
     
     As an example of the differences between criminal trials and civil trials, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the criminal act of murder, but was found to be liable to pay damages to the family in the wrongful death. There was enough found to pay a sum of money, but not enough to deprive O.J. of his rights by jailing him.
     
     Another good example of the difference between criminal and civil proceedings is that the person sued may never even have to pay for the judgement in a civil case -- Insurance may not pay a criminal fine, but it can pay a civil judgement, so it's entirely possible that despite losing the lawsuit, a person who was successfully sued may never personally pay a penny. In fact, a regular homeowner may have a million dollar judgement against them but be protected by the liability insurance portion of their home owners insurance. This really doubles down on the fact that the purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff whole, rather than to specifically punish the defendant.
     
     Your heart is in the right place with wanting to make sure punishments for millionaires and billionaires are calibrated such that they are actually painful in ways comparable to a poor person convicted of the same crime, but the facts in this matter are not aligned with that particular cause.
     
     Anyway, I'm sorry... I'm always with the walls of text....
     Sexy Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     antipode77 (antipode77@mastodon.nl)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:33 JST antipode77

     in reply to

     • sj_zero

     @sj_zero @StephenRamirez

     Not anymore this is about Trump's systemic and continuous defamation of E Jean Carroll.

     . He was deemed guilty by a jury.
     . He was ordered to pay a fine of 5 million.
     . He goes on defaming and naming her.

     5 million is chump change for a billionaire with $ 4,300 million.

     Now if he had to pay 10% of his assets or sit in jail for 12 months that would hurt.

     In the same vein as Alex Jones systemic and continuous lies concerning the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

   • Embed this notice
     sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:35 JST sj_zero

     in reply to

     • antipode77
     But this isn't an indictment, and it isn't a fine.
     
     It's a pair of civil cases. Anyone can sue anyone in America.
   • Embed this notice
     antipode77 (antipode77@mastodon.nl)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:36 JST antipode77

     in reply to

     • sj_zero

     @sj_zero @StephenRamirez

     It would only apply to anybody having assets > XX million on the date of indictment.

     I propose setting XX at 500.

     An alternative could be setting fines as a percentage of assets.

   • Embed this notice
     sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:37 JST sj_zero

     in reply to

     • antipode77
     Wasn't that a finding in a civil suit being referenced in another civil suit?
     
     Seems to me that we should definitely not make it allowable to lock up people who lose a civil lawsuit against you. That would immediately get abused badly to have the rich lock up the poor.
   • Embed this notice
     antipode77 (antipode77@mastodon.nl)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:32:39 JST antipode77

     in reply to

     @StephenRamirez

     Imprisonment is the ONLY effective punishment against billionaires.
     They have such an awful lot of money, that paying fines hardly hurts them.

   • Embed this notice
     sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:34:58 JST sj_zero

     in reply to

     • antipode77
     If it was you who was accused of something and a jury did find you civilly liable for requiring just 51% preponderance of the evidence, would you say it's wrong to continue to maintain your innocence?
     
     I'm not talking about Trump. I'm asking what the consequences of this standard are for someone who isn't Trump. What about someone who was found liable but didn't actually do the thing? Should they be forced to tell everyone the court approved version of the story?
     
     If that's the standard for civil cases, what about criminal cases? Should we make it illegal to maintain your innocence after you've been convicted of a crime? After all, we decided to a much higher standard that such a person definitely did it.
     
     Tread carefully because the same standard will cut both ways..
     
     Now I'd you just mean that he's a dishonest jerk, obviously. I mean, he can't even deny all the way before he starts veering off course because he needs to talk about how great he is lol.
     Sexy Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     antipode77 (antipode77@mastodon.nl)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:34:59 JST antipode77

     in reply to

     • sj_zero

     @sj_zero @StephenRamirez

     Well my expectation turned out to be correct
     He's at it again..

     Let's 'hang' Trump by his own despicable words.

     https://youtu.be/enzhQl19QYE?si=tZXBD9ODRN_9KBX6

   • Embed this notice
     antipode77 (antipode77@mastodon.nl)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 11:35:00 JST antipode77

     in reply to

     • sj_zero

     @sj_zero @StephenRamirez

     Thanks it is a difficult and multifaceted subject.
     The wall of text is elucidating and well written.

     Are there any remedies for when someone keeps going on and on ?
     It is somewhat similar to stalking what he is doing here.

     Trump can't let go of any slight to his ego.
     I predict he will keep attacking E Jean Carroll in public as well as those in the judicial system.