Yet the fact remains. Donald Trump doesn't owe $81 million for denying a crime. He owes $81 million for defamation for the things he said about Carroll that were false and defamatory.
E Jean Carrol case stands! Appeal denied.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
He owes nothing because denying a crime is his right even if somebody calls it defamation.
He owes $81 million plus interest.
The appeals court has upheld the first $2.8 million of that.
You don't seem to quite understand what defamation is.
Imagine you have claimed I physically assaulted you.
If I say I didn't attack you. That is denying the crime
If I say you are a nutcase that is only claiming I attacked you because you are trying to blackmail me and you are using your false claims to enrich yourself and you lose your job as a result of my statement that would be defamation unless I can show you are a nutcase trying to blackmail me and that the claims are false.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
RQAA
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
He doesn't owe anyone except those he pays at his properties.
What court??????
What defamation????
What crime????
Nope. It's just another one of your useless insults. Mantra 1d.
You do like to show off your ignorance.
There are no DA's involved in a civil case.
Like all cases there was one judge in this case. The judge oversaw the trial. The jury were the ones that found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation. The jury were the ones that decided what the financial penalty was that Trump was required to pay Carroll for his defamation and sexual assault. The judge ruled that Carroll didn't defame Trump when she said he raped her because the actions described in court and accepted by the jury meet the common definition of rape and the legal definition in many jurisdictions.
Judges are subject to appeal and their rulings are not illegal if found to be wanting. They are overturned by a higher court. In this case the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling. The appeals court denied the appeal for an en banc hearing because Trump has no substantial arguments.
Last edited:
Once it’s found to be a fact by a jury, it is a fact under the law.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
He owes nothing. He is owed much for defamation and threats against his person and property.
Irrelevant.
I understand perfectly.
Done.
Correct.
False.
By accusing you of a crime I have made the entire matter one of public interest. All crimes are matters of public interest, and all opinion on matters of public interest are protected by the 1st amendment.
You have full rights to advance any theory about my motivations whatsoever from two independents roots:
1.) The right to confront your accuser and use whatever argument in defense that you wish
2.) The right to comment on matters of public interests, even if under other circumstances it might be defamatory
So not only can you say that I am trying to blackmail you, EVERYONE can say I'm trying to blackmail you.
So if a jury decided black people aren't people, is that a legal fact?
It always amazes me how people can be so delusional and yet so convinced their delusions are reality.
Now that you have admitted someone accused of something has the right to confront their accuser, you have admitted that someone that falsely accuses someone can be sued for defamation.
If accused of a crime, you have the right to use whatever TRUTHFUL argument in defense you can make. You do not have the right to defend yourself with lies. In a court of law specifically, you can not defend yourself by lying. If the story you tell in court is different from the story your accuser tells then the fact finder can determine who is telling the truth.
False statements allow for defamation lawsuits. If you lose your job because of being falsely accused you have a right to sue.
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.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Pointless rhetoric ignored
Non-sequitur. Anyone can be sued for defamation, but amendment protected speech cannot be defamatory and thus all such suits which are based on protected speech are null and void.
Therefore a plea of "not guilty" is defamatory for every individual who was convicted.
Your assertion is defeated by ad absudrum.
Not if they are amendment protected speech.
If you lose your job because you accused someone, you have no right to compensation.
A supreme court issued that ruling.
A supreme court issued that ruling.
Irrelevant.
Perhaps you should go read the Constitution. You seem confused as to who is restricted from policing speech. Your first amendment rights don't extend to defamation of other people.
Once again. You seem to be not able to comprehend the difference between declaring yourself innocent and making false claims about another person. By law you are presumed innocent of a crime. You are not presumed to be able to tell lies about other persons.
Read the first amendment then tell us what Congress is.
If it is the result of defamation, you do have the right to sue the person that defamed you and injured you.
You seem confused. What USSC ruling do you think declared black persons to not be persons? Dred Scott certainly didn't make that ruling.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Defamation doesn't extend into 1st amendment rights.
Claiming innocence is calling accusers including prosecutors liars. The accused are not (legally or rationally) restricted to saying "must be an honest mistake".
By law and reason.
Authority is not given to the state to directly or indirectly impose punishment for supposed lies about matters of public interest. It is too dangerous to a free civilization to punish speech deemed 'lies', that power will be used to suppress opposition and justice, as it was here.
See the 1st amendment and the objective moral principle it expresses.
If you accuse someone of a crime, anything they say about you that could in any way whatsoever be interpreted as an attempt to discredit you and your accusation cannot by definition be defamatory because the person you accused has a right to defend himself from accusations.
Defamation is like murder, the moral quality is built in. If the killing is legal/moral it cannot be murder. If the speech is legally and morally protected, it cannot be defamation.
You seem dishonest.
Not a citizen, not a person, doesn't make a difference. You would not accept it, you do not accept it, it is absurd.
The truth matters, the law matters. When attackers are willing to abuse it to a sufficient degree that their bluff must be called, the truth and the law matter more than process and offices.
The government can't sue anyone for defamation. That doesn't extend to persons suing other persons.
You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between claiming innocence and falsely accusing someone.
When someone files and wins a civil lawsuit the state is not imposing any punishment on anyone.
I have looked a the first amendment. It restricts Congress and says nothing about what defamation is or whether persons can file defamation lawsuits.
False.
False
You seem ignorant.
What is absurd is arguing anyone that isn't a citizen is not a person. There are over 8 billion persons in the world and over 7 billion of them are not US citizens. They are still persons even if not US citizens. The Constitution itself says that slaves are persons.
We are left with the impression that you either are ignorant of what Dred actually ruled or you are knowingly lying. The court in Dred clearly refers to slaves and Dred as persons. At no point did the USSC rule that blacks were not persons.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
The government can't sue because it is a matter of public interest, every scrap and iota of it is. Every accusation against it, every criticism, everything.
Claiming innocence is accusing the accusers of defaming you, and the fact that accusers aren't made to pay more often is a bug, not a feature.
Delusional
What would stop an Alabama jury from finding every single person who has ever suggested abortion should be legal liable for $81 million dollars per abortion performed?
If the 1st amendment did not protect individuals from using civil suits as weapons then that would be perfectly legal.
It restricts law. What cannot be accomplished by writing a law shall not be accomplished by failing to write a law.
Playing stupid means you're either stupid or dishonest. I will ask a different question and I will keep asking questions until you have no more crevices to hide in.
So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, is that a legal fact?
You keep making the same ridiculous argument. Trump wasn't sued because he claimed he was innocent. He was sued because he made false accusations about her character that resulted in her being fired from her job.
Defamation requires two things - a provably false statement the person making the statement knew to be false about another person that causes financially harm because of the false statements.
The defamation laws which require that a PERSON be defamed and the PERSON defamed has suffered financial damage. Your example doesn't meet either requirement.
The defamation laws protect individuals from using civil suits as weapons. Try filing a defamation suit when there has been no defamation and you will not only lose in court but you will also probably have to pay all the lawyers fees of the person you sued.
Defamation laws are state laws. Congress can only write federal laws.
Your keep falling into a chasm that you can't seem to climb out of. A jury can't decide that since it is not a valid legal question. Let me repeat, no court would allow that question to be asked and no appeals court would uphold such an idiotic argument. I have already pointed out that the US Constitution calls them persons. Juries can't decide that something in the Constitution isn't in the Constitution.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
He was sued because he was Trump and millions of people have Trump Derangement Syndrome allowing a person to sue him for anything without a shred of evidence because the TDS mob will still side against him.
That was not the claim of the suit though. The claim of the suit was that he defamed her by calling her a liar. First that is an opinion, second that was a possible defense against an accusation. For both reasons the suit was fundamentally flawed. Any action besides immediate dismissal including appeals courts and jury actions constitute sedition against the united states constitution.
It doesn't matter if it resulted in her being hanged by a lynch mob. Her right to not be called a liar (if there ever was such a right) ended the instant she accused someone of a heinous crime.
They would make something up.
The murdered babies might have donated to Alabaman charities. There ya go.
Oh, there are defamation laws are there? Guess what the 1st amendment says. "no law"
Fine, Alabaman jury finds that when Kamala said that Trump was a predator who abused women:
Kamala Harris says she knows Trump's type: 'Predators who abused women'
"I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles I took on perpetrators of all kinds," she said in a speech in Delaware.
www.newsweek.com
She defamed Trump and award him $100,000,000,000,000.
Only if people follow the law, which these false judges and juries did not.
Already have an example of it working, the topic of this thread.
Whether I 'lose' or not would depend on the balance of prejudice vs integrity of the judge and jury. In this case the judge and jury crossed the line between "abominable miscarriage of justice" to "active insurrection against the rule of law", which is enough to absolve anyone from respecting or enforcing their decision since it dissolves any previous consent to the social contract that may have existed.
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.
I say in both cases: Rejected, arrest the judge if possible; civil war if necessary. It must not stand.
So states can violate the 1st amendment?
Projection.
Is that so?
They can decide any question put to them by a judge, and a judge can write anything on a piece of paper he wants. An appeals court can ignore any appeal they want.
The only thing that can't happen is for the objective meaning of the law to change. That's why laws are written instead of simply picking judges. So the people know when it is being violated regardless of what judges say.
You can repeat it 10,000 times but that does not change the fact that the thought experiment destroys your assertion. Indeed every repetition of "it wouldn't happen" is another confession of fear of the answer we both know you would have to give were you honest.
So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, is that a legal fact?