E Jean Carrol case stands! Appeal denied.

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

Congratulations on your part of the three ring circus.
Click to expand...
Trump tried to make it into a circus. You might be aware he refused to testify. However he was given a larger measure of justice and the ability to defend himself because he is wealthy. He had a staff of high priced lawyers. Trump walked out after every day in court and addressed the public. He lied like hell. You would have not been allowed to do that.
He was found guilty by a jury of peers.
 
Nordberg said:
You might be aware he refused to testify.
Click to expand...
Why in the fuck do you think any sane person would care about that?

"well if some stupid minutia had happened then we wouldn't have taken a giant shit on the constitution, rule of law, and liberal democracy".

Your excuses DISGUST me.


Nordberg said:
However he was given a larger measure of justice and the ability to defend himself because he is wealthy.
Click to expand...
Jews in 1933 Germany were wealthy too. Money doesn't beat hate and guns, and a proper civilization wouldn't let it come to that anyway.


Nordberg said:
Trump walked out after every day in court and addressed the public.
Click to expand...
Which contained sane people, a rational focus. What would have been even more rational would be to never attend the kabuki courts, tell them to "come and get me" and then declared New York in a state of insurrection for seizing his buildings without due process of law.


Nordberg said:
He lied like hell. You would have not been allowed to do that.
Click to expand...
Everyone who has ever been found guilty after pleading not guilty "lied like hell" in a much more substantial way, under greater scrutiny (higher standards of evidence), and not a single one has ever been found liable for defamation for saying they were innocent and their accusers were liars.

But that is the world as it existed under the rule of law. A world where the bill of rights meant something. A world where judges were not oathbreakers.


Nordberg said:
He was found guilty by a jury of peers.
Click to expand...
A fake civil court does not have the authority to find him delinquent on returning a library book.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Your strawmen are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Straw men? Here. Let me post your exact words.

This is your first question -
ADreamOfLiberty said:
So if a jury decided black people aren't people, is that a legal fact?
Click to expand...


Here you are claiming that the supreme court ruled that black people aren't people after I said no court would make that ruling.


ADreamOfLiberty said:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No appeals court would uphold that ruling.
Click to expand...
A supreme court issued that ruling.


Poor Richard Saunders said:
No judge would allow that to be a question of fact to be determined by a jury.
Click to expand...
A supreme court issued that ruling.
Click to expand...


You have provided no source that supports your idiotic claim.



Here you are making the other claim that a judge ruled that blacks were not eligible to be citizens after the 14th amendment was ratified
ADreamOfLiberty said:
It is no different from a judge which decided (while the 14th amendment was still present law) that black people were subhuman and not eligible to be citizens.
Click to expand...
Again - you have provided no source to support your idiotic claim

These are not straw men on my part. They are your words. Since we are relying on law and the weight of precedent provide your source or admit your claims were false.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump tried to make it into a circus. You might be aware he refused to testify. However he was given a larger measure of justice and the ability to defend himself because he is wealthy. He had a staff of high priced lawyers. Trump walked out after every day in court and addressed the public. He lied like hell. You would have not been allowed to do that.
He was found guilty by a jury of peers.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t found guilty of rape, he wasn’t even charged with rape.
 
Earl said:
He wasn’t found guilty of rape, he wasn’t even charged with rape.
Click to expand...
but he was accused of rape, they want to have their cake and eat it too; fail to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt but also call someone a rapist.

There is precedent for someone being held liable for alleged criminal behavior that they were not convicted of, and this example proves what we always should have known: that bullshit cannot stand.

If there is not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt than as far as the state is concerned you are innocent. Innocent people are not to be punished.

A judge doing his job could easily deduce them from "due process of law", all one needs to do is recognize that criminal behavior is not eligible to be a factual claim in any court unless it was proven in a criminal court.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You claimed a judge had already ruled that. I am waiting for your evidence in support of your claim.
Click to expand...
The supreme court did rule that black people aren't citizens due to their race.

Moving on:

...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?
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
The supreme court did rule that black people aren't citizens due to their race.

Moving on:
Click to expand...
Except that isn't what you claimed....
You claimed the court ruled they weren't persons.
Then you claimed it was ruled after the 14th amendment was ratified that they weren't citizens.

Still waiting for you to provide any support for either of those claims. Precedent is based on actual rulings, not your delusions. If your claims are not false the provide your evidence. If your claims were false then have the integrity to admit they were false.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
...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?
Click to expand...
You are guilty of moving the goalposts. I see no reason to deal with your goalpost move until we address your original claims.

Your original question before you started moving the goalposts -
ADreamOfLiberty said:
So if a jury decided black people aren't people, is that a legal fact?
Click to expand...
My response -
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No appeals court would uphold that ruling. No judge would allow that to be a question of fact to be determined by a jury.

The appeals court has upheld the ruling of sexual assault and defamation that Trump was found liable for.
Click to expand...
Your response claiming that the Supreme Court had already ruled that blacks weren't persons.

ADreamOfLiberty said:
A supreme court issued that ruling.



A supreme court issued that ruling.
Click to expand...

You have provided no source that supports your idiotic claim. Until you provide a source or admit your claim was false we can't move on to anything else.

Here you are making the other claim that a judge ruled that blacks were not eligible to be citizens after the 14th amendment was ratified

ADreamOfLiberty said:
It is no different from a judge which decided (while the 14th amendment was still present law) that black people were subhuman and not eligible to be citizens.
Click to expand...
Once again, you provided no support for your idiotic claim.

Two instances of you making false claims that you can't provide support for. Does precedence matter or are we to simply rely on all your lies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top