E Jean Carrol case stands! Appeal denied.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think that brings us to the point where all honest rational observers concede your dishonesty. I am satisfied.

Right where we always were. You are showing us your delusions.

If name calling = defamation, you owe me $100,000,000,000,000,000, lying enemy of the people.

You seem to miss the rest of the requirements for defamation. You have to show that you were financially harmed in some way. I doubt your real name is ADreamOfLiberty which would make it impossible for you to show harm.

Take your own advise, lying enemy of the people:

In October 2022, Trump’s defamatory claim that Carroll had “completely made up
a story"

Once again you seem to be unable to read complete sentences.
Here is the entire paragraph which reveals how disingenuous your cut off quote is.

In October 2022, Trump’s defamatory claim that Carroll had “completely made up
a story” and thus fabricated the rape accusation to promote her book rested on the express or
deliberately-implied premise that Carroll’s underlying accusation was false. Because Trump knew
that the accusation was true, he also knew that his claim about Carroll’s motive was false

It is difficult to keep lies consistent isn't it:

“Regarding the ‘story’ by E. Jean Carroll, claiming she once encountered me at
Bergdorf Goodman 23 years ago. I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying
to sell a new book—that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the
fiction section.

Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for
themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda—like Julie Swetnick who
falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It’s just as bad for people to believe it,
particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a dying publication to try
to prop itself up by peddling fake news—it’s an epidemic.

Ms. Carroll & New York Magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video? No
reports? No sales attendants around?? I would like to thank Bergdorf Goodman for
confirming they have no video footage of any such incident, because it never
happened.

False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false
accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.
If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or
New York Magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should know
what’s really going on. It is a disgrace and people should pay dearly for such false
accusations." - Trump, June 21st 2019

I didn't realize that June was October. But then I clearly don't live in the same world as you do. In this case Carroll sued for defamation for the statement made on Oct 12. This ruling has nothing to do with any statement made on June 21st, 2019.

It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?

You didn't quote the October statement that lead to the defamation claim which was upheld by the appeals court.

Your lie remains exposed, these absurd claims make it more likely that people will correctly see the poison you represent, please continue.



I would say educate yourself, but you are too far gone. This is for the interested reader: https://studicata.com/case-briefs/case/davis-v-alaska/

What does a criminal trial have to do with a civil trial? Yes. Criminal defendants have a sixth amendment right to confront their accuser in court. It's in the Constitution. This case (Davis) didn't result in a jury finding a black person wasn't a person. This case doesn't deal with defamation. In the case of Carroll v Trump she was questioned by Trump's lawyers for almost 3 days if I recall correctly.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Right where we always were. You are showing us your delusions.

Your lies have been exposed.

You seem to miss the rest of the requirements for defamation. You have to show that you were financially harmed in some way. I doubt your real name is ADreamOfLiberty which would make it impossible for you to show harm.

Suppose someone in real life knows my identity as ADOL and refuses to pay me back $1 and I claim it is because you name called me? Problem solved.

Once again you seem to be unable to read complete sentences.

Your lies have been exposed.

Here is the entire paragraph which reveals how disingenuous your cut off quote is.

Your lies have been exposed.

In October 2022, Trump’s defamatory claim that Carroll had “completely made up
a story” and thus fabricated the rape accusation to promote her book rested on the express or
deliberately-implied premise that Carroll’s underlying accusation was false. Because Trump knew
that the accusation was true, he also knew that his claim about Carroll’s motive was false

Yes that is what "completely made up a story" referred to.

She accused him of rape. He denied it, thereby implying she made it up, and then he asserted an opinion on her motivations for lying. Something he has an absolute right to do for two independent reasons.

Everyone honest and rational who has read the quotes given so far know that is what happened. All honest rational observers already know therefore that you lied when you said that Trump's so called 'defamation' was not denying a crime.

As, I have said, as I will continue to say: your lies have been exposed.

I didn't realize that June was October.

Once I realized how dishonest you were, it came as no shock that you would play dumb as your feeble and disgusting lies are dismantled.

You didn't quote the October statement that lead to the defamation claim which was upheld by the appeals court.

Your attempt at evasion is noted, derided, and dismissed. The question was:

It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?

What does a criminal trial have to do with a civil trial?

Your attempt at red herring is noted, derided, and dismissed.

Yes. Criminal defendants have a sixth amendment right to confront their accuser in court.

It is the right of the accused to defend themselves with any argument in any context. Attempts to hide unconstitutional acts behind a cloak of an alternate universe where those who are being sued civilly no longer have rights fail morally, rationally, and legally.

Your lies have been exposed.

This case (Davis) didn't result in a jury finding a black person wasn't a person.

Your strawman is noted, derided, and dismissed.

The question was:
...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, answering a question put to them by a judge, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

The Davis case continues to paint a portrait of your pretended ignorance, but was not a question posed to you, but rather for the convenience of the honest observer who may be interpreted in how strongly precedent supports the rights of the accused to impeach their accusers.

This case doesn't deal with defamation.

Your strawman is noted, derided, and dismissed.

In the case of Carroll v Trump she was questioned by Trump's lawyers for almost 3 days if I recall correctly.

Your red herring is noted, derided, and dismissed.

Your lies have been exposed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your lies have been exposed.



Suppose someone in real life knows my identity as ADOL and refuses to pay me back $1 and I claim it is because you name called me? Problem solved.

Let's see..
You will have to pay a $40-100 filing fee to file the lawsuit if you do it pro se. ($600-4000 if you can manage to hire a lawyer.)
You will have to serve me with a copy of the lawsuit. (That means you have to pay someone to physically find me and deliver that suit. $500-1000)
You will have to find out my real name before you can serve me. (That will cost you money and possibly cause criminal liability if you violate the CFAA.)
Then you will have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself from my SLAPP lawsuit. ($3,000-10,000)

Yeah, you solved your problem.

Your lies have been exposed.



Your lies have been exposed.

Your delusions continue. You cut off the quotation and then when I include the entire paragraph you accuse me of lying.

Yes that is what "completely made up a story" referred to.

She accused him of rape. He denied it, thereby implying she made it up, and then he asserted an opinion on her motivations for lying. Something he has an absolute right to do for two independent reasons.

No. He doesn't as evidenced by the fact that he lost the defamation lawsuit. Your denial of facts only speaks to your delusions.

Everyone honest and rational who has read the quotes given so far know that is what happened. All honest rational observers already know therefore that you lied when you said that Trump's so called 'defamation' was not denying a crime.

So far you seem to be the only one. Perhaps you are not actually honest and rational.

As, I have said, as I will continue to say: your lies have been exposed.

Your delusions continue.

Once I realized how dishonest you were, it came as no shock that you would play dumb as your feeble and disgusting lies are dismantled.

Wow. So you actually do think that June is October.

Your attempt at evasion is noted, derided, and dismissed. The question was:

It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?

The defamation in that case relied only on the statement from October 12, 2022. The statement of July was not considered to be defamatory by the jury since it was not part of the claim.

Your attempt at red herring is noted, derided, and dismissed.

You are the one with a red herring since you brought up a criminal case that has nothing to do with a civil case.

It is the right of the accused to defend themselves with any argument in any context. Attempts to hide unconstitutional acts behind a cloak of an alternate universe where those who are being sued civilly no longer have rights fail morally, rationally, and legally.

Your lies have been exposed.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial. The sixth amendment starts with these words:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused....

Trump was sued for defamation, not criminally charged by the government.

Your strawman is noted, derided, and dismissed.

You are the one that keeps bringing up a jury deciding a black man isn't a person. It isn't a straw man if you made the argument.

The question was:
...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, answering a question put to them by a judge, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

I see we can rely on you not being honest as you now claim that was your question. You have repeatedly lied and tried to weasel your way with this.
Your first question was this: "So if a jury decided black people aren't people, is that a legal fact?" You then tried to claim that the USSC had actually ruled that. When I pointed out that their ruling in Dred Scott did no such thing, you just ignored that fact. You then tried to claim that after the passage of the 14th amendment a court had ruled that blacks weren't citizens. I pointed out that Dred Scott was ruled on 9 years prior to the 14th amendment being ratified. You ignored that fact. You ignore the fact that juries can't make the decisions you keep trying to hypothetically propose.

If a jury bakes a cake, is that cake a legal fact? No.
If a jury decides a black person isn't a person is that a legal fact? No.

Juries can't decide that black people aren't citizens since juries can only rule on the case before them. A jury could rule that a single black person isn't a citizen based on the facts presented to them but the jury can't rule on more than that one person. A jury can also rule that a single white person isn't a citizen based on the facts presented to them. In both cases of the white person or the black person the jury's decision would be a legal fact. But that ruling could not extend to anyone else.

The Davis case continues to paint a portrait of your pretended ignorance, but was not a question posed to you, but rather for the convenience of the honest observer who may be interpreted in how strongly precedent supports the rights of the accused to impeach their accusers.



Your strawman is noted, derided, and dismissed.

A statement of fact isn't a straw man. The case you cited doesn't deal with defamation. It guarantees the 6th amendment right in a criminal trial. Trump wasn't charged with a crime.

Your red herring is noted, derided, and dismissed.

Your lies have been exposed.

So Trump's lawyers were wet fish when it came to questioning Carroll? They clearly had the opportunity to question Carroll.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Let's see..
You will have to pay a $40-100 filing fee to file the lawsuit if you do it pro se. ($600-4000 if you can manage to hire a lawyer.)
You will have to serve me with a copy of the lawsuit. (That means you have to pay someone to physically find me and deliver that suit. $500-1000)
You will have to find out my real name before you can serve me. (That will cost you money and possibly cause criminal liability if you violate the CFAA.)
Then you will have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself from my SLAPP lawsuit. ($3,000-10,000)

You distract.

Statements are found to be defamatory, in order for that to be the case they must have been defamatory before court proceedings.

I don't need to wait for a court to say that your absurd notion of defamation applied to your own statements make you liable for defamation.

Your double standards remain.

No. He doesn't as evidenced by the fact that he lost the defamation lawsuit.

The rantings of deranged oath breaking former officers of the court do not make rights disappear.

So far you seem to be the only one. Perhaps you are not actually honest and rational.

If I was the only one, and I am not, that would not mean that I am not honest and rational. It would mean that the combination of traits is rare.

The defamation in that case relied only on the statement from October 12, 2022. The statement of July was not considered to be defamatory by the jury since it was not part of the claim.

Your attempt at evasion is noted, derided, and dismissed. The question was:

It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?

Trump was sued for defamation, not criminally charged by the government.

He was publicly accused of wrongdoing. He has a right to defend himself. The 6th amendment is an expression of this moral principle, not the source.

What cannot be accomplished by a prosecutor shall not (morally) be accomplished without one. It is not permissible to impose punishments for crimes when no crime was proven and it is triply unacceptable to limit a person's right to defend themselves simply because of this subversive decision to not prosecute.

What Trump or any other defendant can say in a criminal court, they can say in the court of public opinion against the same accusations.

In fact the court of public opinion is far wider than a criminal court. Any accusation made publicly, even of something that isn't a crime, becomes both a matter of public interest and creates absolute immunity for the accused to defend him or herself by denial and any theory of the motivations of the accuser.

This is the sum of precedent, this is the only sane possibility, this is the only rule which would not see the majority of the left-tribe in chains over the way they have behaved. Your interpretation if universally applied would make tens of thousands of people including all commentators and political candidates in the left tribe liable for tens of millions of dollars each for multiple statements.

You do not care, because you are a dishonest hypocrite and you have no intention of applying your rules equally nor of respecting any jury who tried to use them against the left.

You are the one that keeps bringing up a jury deciding a black man isn't a person. It isn't a straw man if you made the argument.

You confused contexts on purpose to give a false impression of my lines of argument. That is a strawman.

I see we can rely on you not being honest as you now claim that was your question. You have repeatedly lied and tried to weasel your way with this.
Your first question was this: "So if a jury decided black people aren't people, is that a legal fact?" You then tried to claim that the USSC had actually ruled that. When I pointed out that their ruling in Dred Scott did no such thing, you just ignored that fact.

Persons vs citizens is an irrelevant difference, you and 290 million others would reject the verdict either way. I circumvented your nitpick by changing "person" to "citizen" and clarified the reason.

You then tried to claim that after the passage of the 14th amendment a court had ruled that blacks weren't citizens.

False

You ignore the fact that juries can't make the decisions you keep trying to hypothetically propose.

You ignore the fact that the word "can't" in that sentence means "I won't accept" not "the universe won't let them write it down".

The universe let the fake jury claim Trump defamed Carrol by calling her accusations of heinous crimes a profit-motivated lie. I won't accept it.

That fake jury can't legally (or morally or logically) give that verdict.

In the same sense of "can't" that fake judge couldn't ask them to. The fake appeals court can't confirm it.

It is not morally or legally binding, even asserting it under color of law is itself a criminal act.

You understood exactly what I was saying, but you foolishly thought you can take or hold the moral high ground by pretending you're a virtuous citizen who would never contradict a jury or a judge.

I have put your pretension to the test and exposed your lies.

If a jury decides a black person isn't a person is that a legal fact? No.

Correct.

Juries can't decide that black people aren't citizens since juries can only rule on the case before them.

...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, answering a question put to them by a judge, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You distract.

Statements are found to be defamatory, in order for that to be the case they must have been defamatory before court proceedings.

I don't need to wait for a court to say that your absurd notion of defamation applied to your own statements make you liable for defamation.

Your double standards remain.

You completely miss the point of owing you money for defamation. I owe you nothing until you sue and the jury finds I defamed you which makes the defamation a legal fact.

The rantings of deranged oath breaking former officers of the court do not make rights disappear.

The rantings of delusional posters on the internet doesn't make the legal findings of a court of law disappear.

If I was the only one, and I am not, that would not mean that I am not honest and rational. It would mean that the combination of traits is rare.

It could also mean you are delusional. Occam's razor applies. A judge, a jury and an appeals court have all found something to be true.

Your attempt at evasion is noted, derided, and dismissed. The question was:

It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?

No.

He was publicly accused of wrongdoing. He has a right to defend himself. The 6th amendment is an expression of this moral principle, not the source.

The 6th amendment is only applicable in criminal trials. It seems you can't read. Here is the start of the sixth amendment. It only applies to criminal trials.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall..

What cannot be accomplished by a prosecutor shall not (morally) be accomplished without one. It is not permissible to impose punishments for crimes when no crime was proven and it is triply unacceptable to limit a person's right to defend themselves simply because of this subversive decision to not prosecute.

Trump was not punished for a crime. Your argument ignores all facts in evidence. Trump was not prosecuted for a crime in this case. The sixth amendment only applies in criminal prosecutions. Your argument defeats itself.

What Trump or any other defendant can say in a criminal court, they can say in the court of public opinion against the same accusations.

In fact the court of public opinion is far wider than a criminal court. Any accusation made publicly, even of something that isn't a crime, becomes both a matter of public interest and creates absolute immunity for the accused to defend him or herself by denial and any theory of the motivations of the accuser.

Trump was free to provide evidence to prove she only did this to promote her book. He was not able to provide evidence to support his claim. Carroll was able to provide evidence that he attacked her. They jury can only rule based on evidence presented to them.

This is the sum of precedent, this is the only sane possibility, this is the only rule which would not see the majority of the left-tribe in chains over the way they have behaved. Your interpretation if universally applied would make tens of thousands of people including all commentators and political candidates in the left tribe liable for tens of millions of dollars each for multiple statements.

Delusions are not reality. The fact of the matter is that not only did Carroll have to show that Trump lied about her motives, she also had to show he did it with malice. Trump certainly made that easy for her by his actions. Then the harm also has to be shown. Tens of thousands can not show harm and certainly can't show harm of tens of millions dollars.

You do not care, because you are a dishonest hypocrite and you have no intention of applying your rules equally nor of respecting any jury who tried to use them against the left.

I do apply my rules equally. Civil cases are not criminal cases. The sixth amendment only applies to criminal cases. The fact that you try to apply criminal rules to civil cases shows it is you that is not applying the rules properly.

You confused contexts on purpose to give a false impression of my lines of argument. That is a strawman.

Are you arguing that you didn't claim that a court case ruled that black people are not persons? You clearly did that. I asked you to provide the case. This is the only case you have presented. I merely pointed out that this case did not show what you had claimed earlier. It seems you are confused about the fact that you have provided no evidence that the cases you claimed to exist actually exist.

Persons vs citizens is an irrelevant difference, you and 290 million others would reject the verdict either way. I circumvented your nitpick by changing "person" to "citizen" and clarified the reason.

nitpick? The Constitution makes a clear difference between citizens and persons. Some rights apply to all persons and some rights are only for citizens. You still have not provided the case you claimed said black persons were not citizens that occurred after the 14th amendment was ratified.

False



You ignore the fact that the word "can't" in that sentence means "I won't accept" not "the universe won't let them write it down".

The word can't means can't. Under the US legal system juries can only make decisions about facts not about questions of law.

The universe let the fake jury claim Trump defamed Carrol by calling her accusations of heinous crimes a profit-motivated lie. I won't accept it.


That fake jury can't legally (or morally or logically) give that verdict.

In the same sense of "can't" that fake judge couldn't ask them to. The fake appeals court can't confirm it.

The jury was not fake. The jury was selected with both Carroll's and Trump's lawyers allowed voir dire. There was nothing fake about the jury. The judge was no fake. The judge was confirmed by the Senate and holds his position for life. The appeals court is not fake. The judges on the appeals court were nominated by a President and approved by the Senate.

It is not morally or legally binding, even asserting it under color of law is itself a criminal act.

It is legally binding under NY and under US law.

You understood exactly what I was saying, but you foolishly thought you can take or hold the moral high ground by pretending you're a virtuous citizen who would never contradict a jury or a judge.

I have put your pretension to the test and exposed your lies.



Correct.



...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, answering a question put to them by a judge, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

No. Because that is not a question a judge can legally put to a jury since it is a question of law. Then it is a law that is clear when one reads the Constitution. Black people are persons. It isn't really a question of law since only one that is delusional or completely ignorant of the law would suggest it is a question.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

The 6th amendment is only applicable in criminal trials. It seems you can't read. Here is the start of the sixth amendment. It only applies to criminal trials.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall..

He was publicly accused of wrongdoing. He has a right to defend himself. The 6th amendment is an expression of this moral principle, not the source.

Trump was not punished for a crime.

I know, he was punished for being a threat to the money laundering scheme that is the US deep state.

Trump was free to provide evidence to prove she only did this to promote her book.

He needs present no evidence. Statements of opinion are not eligible to be defamation. Impeaching accusers is not eligible to be defamation. Commenting on matters of public interest is not eligible to be defamation.

Not only did Trump have no burden of proof, Carrol had no burden of proof either, it is simply a direct contradiction of law and order to call Trump's statements defamation.

Since threats of force were used with no lawful authority, the fake judge, fake courts, and fake plaintiff are guilty of a criminal conspiracy to commit extortion.

He was not able to provide evidence to support his claim. Carroll was able to provide evidence that he attacked her.

She was not, and even if she could, and even if it had been beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if Trump had been charged and even if he was convicted, Trump impeaching her character would not and could not be defamation because of his right to confront accusers and defend himself. Before the trial, during the trial, and after the trial.

I know you people have gotten away with a lot, but it is truly delusional to think that you wouldn't find anyone who would point at your horrendous civilization killing lies and call them what they are.

Here the insanity is that you think through all those conditions, you could remove levels of scrutiny and that reduces Trump's liberty rather than increasing it.

Tens of thousands can not show harm and certainly can't show harm of tens of millions dollars.

Are you claiming the claimed financial loss and the payment must be equal or even close?

I do apply my rules equally.

Your lies are transparent, and have been exposed.

Are you arguing that you didn't claim that a court case ruled that black people are not persons? You clearly did that. I asked you to provide the case. This is the only case you have presented.

I may have spoken too quickly, you are perhaps as clueless as you appear. I assumed it was an act.

The word can't means can't.

You are either autistic to the point of disability or a dirty liar. I don't particularly care which at the moment.

No. Because that is not a question a judge can legally put to a jury since it is a question of law.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He was publicly accused of wrongdoing. He has a right to defend himself. The 6th amendment is an expression of this moral principle, not the source.

No. The sixth amendment is an expression of the legal rights of the person accused of a crime in the United States. Trump did defend himself in court. He lost.

I know, he was punished for being a threat to the money laundering scheme that is the US deep state.

He lost because he defamed Carroll.

He needs present no evidence. Statements of opinion are not eligible to be defamation. Impeaching accusers is not eligible to be defamation. Commenting on matters of public interest is not eligible to be defamation.

Not only did Trump have no burden of proof, Carrol had no burden of proof either, it is simply a direct contradiction of law and order to call Trump's statements defamation.

In a civil trial there is a burden of proof. The burden is preponderance of evidence. If you present no evidence in defense of your position then the jury only sees evidence from one side. The jury can only rule based on the evidence it sees. You are proposing that someone can win by not presenting any evidence which is delusional.

Since threats of force were used with no lawful authority, the fake judge, fake courts, and fake plaintiff are guilty of a criminal conspiracy to commit extortion.

What threats of force? Your delusions are not reality

She was not, and even if she could, and even if it had been beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if Trump had been charged and even if he was convicted, Trump impeaching her character would not and could not be defamation because of his right to confront accusers and defend himself. Before the trial, during the trial, and after the trial.

I know you people have gotten away with a lot, but it is truly delusional to think that you wouldn't find anyone who would point at your horrendous civilization killing lies and call them what they are.

Here the insanity is that you think through all those conditions, you could remove levels of scrutiny and that reduces Trump's liberty rather than increasing it.

The insanity is thinking because you have not looked at any evidence you are more capable of deciding who is right than those that did look at all the evidence.

Are you claiming the claimed financial loss and the payment must be equal or even close?



Your lies are transparent, and have been exposed.



I may have spoken too quickly, you are perhaps as clueless as you appear. I assumed it was an act.



You are either autistic to the point of disability or a dirty liar. I don't particularly care which at the moment.

At this point we have exhausted all attempts by you to make a reasonable argument. We are left with your delusions.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

Hypothetical that completely ignores reality. We have been over this and you simply keep coming back to the same silly claim even when you have been shown it is an impossibility under US law.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

He lost because he defamed Carroll.

Can you explain how that works? She wrote a book and said he sexually abused her. He denied it and that defamed her?

What kind of jury do you believe would buy that shit?

The kind with TDS hand picked by TDS infected cockroach lawyers.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Can you explain how that works? She wrote a book and said he sexually abused her. He denied it and that defamed her?

What kind of jury do you believe would buy that shit?

The kind with TDS hand picked by TDS infected cockroach lawyers.

Do you know what Trump actually said? Until you know that there isn't much to talk about because you are arguing from ignorance.

Here is the complaint in Carroll II which cites the defamation.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/1/carroll-v-trump/

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

In a civil trial there is a burden of proof.

There can be no burden of proof when there is no crime and no possible liability.

Speech which is a well known right cannot bring liability. Thus there could be no burden of proof.

As a matter of law, the suit was null and void. Every stage beyond immediate dismissal is a conspiracy against rights and no burden of proof exists in a kangaroo court.

You are proposing that someone can win by not presenting any evidence which is delusional.

I am stating as a categorical fact that there was no case. Everything beyond initial filing and the only legal outcome of that filing: dismissal with prejudice for lack of cause, was as binding and substantial as a puppet show.

What threats of force?

A person pretending to be a judge makes threats of force by pretending to be a judge. It is no different from someone dressing up as a cop and then giving unlawful orders, the threat of force is behind every order given under color of law.

The insanity is thinking because you have not looked at any evidence you are more capable of deciding who is right than those that did look at all the evidence.

There was no evidence and even if there was video proof from 50 angles that Trump raped E Jean Carrol that does not make Trump denying that he raped E Jean Carrol defamatory. Such denials cannot be defamatory because any defense against any accusation is protected speech and that extends into any theory of impeachment the accused wishes to give.

It would be outrageous enough to attempt to make the victim of accusations guilty for denying them even if they were true, but in this case where there is no evidence supporting the accusations it is compounded to the nth degree.

By all rights, the only person who should have ever been in danger of being found liable for defamation was E Jean Carrol, accusing someone of sexual misconduct is defamation per say, the only defense is truth.

At this point we have exhausted all attempts by you to make a reasonable argument. We are left with your delusions.

Are you claiming the claimed financial loss and the payment must be equal or even close?

Hypothetical that completely ignores reality. We have been over this and you simply keep coming back to the same silly claim even when you have been shown it is an impossibility under US law.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

You say it is impossible, does that mean time freezes when a judge is about to do it?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Do you know what Trump actually said? Until you know that there isn't much to talk about because you are arguing from ignorance.

No he is exactly right, you may have forgotten: your lies have been exposed.

Here is the complaint in Carroll II which cites the defamation.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/1/carroll-v-trump/

Yea that's where it complains about Trump denying the accusation. Conflates insults with defamation. Conflates opinion on matters of public interest (like motivation for writing a book) with defamation.

 

[Nordberg]

No he is exactly right, you may have forgotten: your lies have been exposed.



Yea that's where it complains about Trump denying the accusation. Conflates insults with defamation. Conflates opinion on matters of public interest (like motivation for writing a book) with defamation.

My fav was when Trump used his often-used defense against women claiming he sexually attacked them. She is not my type? How ridiculous is that? Yet in court he was shown a photo of Carroll at the age he assaulted her and said it was his ex-wife Marla Maples.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

My fav was when Trump used his often-used defense against women claiming he sexually attacked them. She is not my type? How ridiculous is that?

"I wouldn't bang that" classic defamation. Endless precedent.

Congratulations on your part of the three ring circus.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There can be no burden of proof when there is no crime and no possible liability.

Speech which is a well known right cannot bring liability. Thus there could be no burden of proof.

As a matter of law, the suit was null and void. Every stage beyond immediate dismissal is a conspiracy against rights and no burden of proof exists in a kangaroo court.

As a matter of law you are wrong as evidenced by the court case and the appeal. Facts are facts. Reality is reality. Your delusions are not facts. Your delusions are not reality.

I am stating as a categorical fact that there was no case. Everything beyond initial filing and the only legal outcome of that filing: dismissal with prejudice for lack of cause, was as binding and substantial as a puppet show.

You are expressing your opinion and claiming your opinion is fact. Your opinion is not fact.

A person pretending to be a judge makes threats of force by pretending to be a judge. It is no different from someone dressing up as a cop and then giving unlawful orders, the threat of force is behind every order given under color of law.

A federal judge is not pretending to be a judge. They are a judge.

There was no evidence and even if there was video proof from 50 angles that Trump raped E Jean Carrol that does not make Trump denying that he raped E Jean Carrol defamatory. Such denials cannot be defamatory because any defense against any accusation is protected speech and that extends into any theory of impeachment the accused wishes to give.

It would be outrageous enough to attempt to make the victim of accusations guilty for denying them even if they were true, but in this case where there is no evidence supporting the accusations it is compounded to the nth degree.

By all rights, the only person who should have ever been in danger of being found liable for defamation was E Jean Carrol, accusing someone of sexual misconduct is defamation per say, the only defense is truth.

The truth is a defense against defamation and Trump did not have truth on his side which is why he lost.

Are you claiming the claimed financial loss and the payment must be equal or even close?



...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

You say it is impossible, does that mean time freezes when a judge is about to do it?

Repeating the same idiotic hypothetical that can never occur in reality of US law only makes you look insane since insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

As a matter of law you are wrong as evidenced by the court case and the appeal. Facts are facts. Reality is reality. Your delusions are not facts. Your delusions are not reality.

The law and the weight of precedent determine whether I am wrong or not. I am not wrong. That is reality. Your delusions are not facts. Your delusions are not reality.

You are expressing your opinion and claiming your opinion is fact. Your opinion is not fact.

Colloquially opinion is someone's perceived fact.

Legally fact means an objective observation unique to specific witnesses rather than a conclusion drawn from public information.

A federal judge is not pretending to be a judge. They are a judge.

A former federal judge who has crossed the line into open rebellion against the constitution and rule of law ceases to be a judge in that instant.

The authority is given under the social contract, those who break the social contract beyond all hope for compromise or correction cannot draw authority from it.

The truth is a defense against defamation and Trump did not have truth on his side which is why he lost.

Trump did not need a defense, his statements were protected speech.

Repeating the same idiotic hypothetical that can never occur in reality of US law only makes you look insane since insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I expect you to either give in or give up. I will not allow you to steer the conversation away from your fundamental errors.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

Do you know what Trump actually said? Until you know that there isn't much to talk about because you are arguing from ignorance.

Here is the complaint in Carroll II which cites the defamation.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/1/carroll-v-trump/

What a crock of speculative shit that was. Even worse than I imagined.

Couldn't even read it all it was so ridiculous.

Lying cunt should rot in hell with actual rapists for eternity. Getting her dried out cooch fingered forever.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

My fav was when Trump used his often-used defense against women claiming he sexually attacked them. She is not my type? How ridiculous is that? Yet in court he was shown a photo of Carroll at the age he assaulted her and said it was his ex-wife Marla Maples.

They're all your type aren't they?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The law and the weight of precedent determine whether I am wrong or not. I am not wrong. That is reality. Your delusions are not facts. Your delusions are not reality.

Let's see if the you have precedent or even veracity on your side.
You claimed the USSC ruled that blacks were not people. You have presented no evidence to support that.
You claimed that the courts ruled blacks were not citizens after the 14th amendment was ratified. You have presented no evidence to support that.
It would appear the law and weight of precedent has already determined you were wrong.

In the case of Trump, there is no precedent. He was found liable for defamation just like in thousands of other cases. The court ruling was upheld by an appeals court just like hundreds of other cases. Once again, law and precedent has determined you are wrong.

Colloquially opinion is someone's perceived fact.

Legally fact means an objective observation unique to specific witnesses rather than a conclusion drawn from public information.



A former federal judge who has crossed the line into open rebellion against the constitution and rule of law ceases to be a judge in that instant.

The authority is given under the social contract, those who break the social contract beyond all hope for compromise or correction cannot draw authority from it.

A judge is not a former federal judge until they leave the bench. The law says that. Precedent says that. Once again the law and the weight of precedent determine you to be wrong.
The social contract says we abide by court rulings even if we disagree with them. The social contract says federal judges are actual judges and not former judges until they leave the bench. In this case the social contact has determined you are wrong.

Trump did not need a defense, his statements were protected speech.

Congratulations on ignoring the law and legal precedent again. The law says everyone can present their case in civil court. Precedent says that someone that does not provide a defense in court during a civil case loses because the court can only decide on the evidence presented in court.

I expect you to either give in or give up. I will not allow you to steer the conversation away from your fundamental errors.

OK. Let's play this game. I will not give up until you address your fundamental errors which I cited at the beginning of the post. Provide evidence to support your claims about court cases.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?

Thanks for bringing up the law and legal precedent. Both say that your hypothetical is nonsense since no jury can decide that question and no judge will make that ruling without being promptly overturned by an appeals court because the Constitution states all people are people even black people.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What a crock of speculative shit that was. Even worse than I imagined.

Couldn't even read it all it was so ridiculous.

Lying cunt should rot in hell with actual rapists for eternity. Getting her dried out cooch fingered forever.

Thanks for admitting you are arguing from ignorance.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Let's see if the you have precedent or even veracity on your side.
You claimed the USSC ruled that blacks were not people. You have presented no evidence to support that.
You claimed that the courts ruled blacks were not citizens after the 14th amendment was ratified. You have presented no evidence to support that.

Your strawmen are irrelevant.

There is no precedent of denying criminal behavior of sexual misconduct being ruled defamation with or without speculation of motivation for lying.

In the case of Trump, there is no precedent.

I know.

He was found liable for defamation just like in thousands of other cases.

None of those cases were people denying a serious accusation made publicly.

The court ruling was upheld by an appeals court

Irrelevant.

A judge is not a former federal judge until they leave the bench.

It's between the whole social contract being null and void or that former judge instantly losing authority. A system that can be destroyed by the criminal insurrection of a few people would not be very stable, nor can they or you stop the sane factions from continuing with the American form of government uninterrupted after you are defeated on the battlefield.

Therefore, de facto, a former judge. Just like King George became a former king as far as the 13 colonies were concerned.

The law says that.

The law says that people have a right to defend themselves in the court of public opinion, even by giving theories of motivation and name calling.

The law does not provide for its own abrogation by lying oath-breakers, thus the unwritten rule of all rules is: Those who break these rules cannot draw authority from them.

The social contract says we abide by court rulings even if we disagree with them.

This isn't just disagreement, this is open war against the law. I signed no such contract, nor would I ever sign a contract that said "and people can change the rules at whim by pretending they don't exist, applying them unequally, or misinterpreting them".

OK. Let's play this game.

...So if a judge decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?