Liberal Forum

ConsRule » 22 Dec 2024, 8:06 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2024, 8:06 pm

That snip is from a ruling on the appeal of the award...it was NOT a ruling on the accusations made by Carroll.  The jury had already done that.  You also seem to ignore the following from page 3 of the filing.

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law

 

The jury ruled Trump did not rape Carroll under NY Law...the ONLY law that is applicable in the case.  Kaplan apparently searched until he found a definition he liked more than the law he swore to uphold as a judge.  You will need to ask him why he chose to ignore NY law when it had no bearing on the amount of the award.  Many feel his focus on an issue that was not part of the award (which was the reason for his filing) and going outside the applicable law while doing so, demonstrates a prejudicial bias that may be grounds for dismissal.

 

Many feel

Name 2

his focus

stop opining.

It was the argument made by Team Grifty in their petition.

on an issue that was not part of the award

Of course it was.

The award was calibrated to the alleged offense, specifically Digital Penetration. 

(which was the reason for his filing)

The reason for his filing was his obligation to respond to Team Grifty's petition. 

and going outside the applicable law while doing so,

it is a CIVIL MATTER. The only reason NY criminal code is referenced is to distinguish penile from digital penetration.

Kaplan apparently searched until he found a definition he liked more than the law he swore to uphold as a judge.

He didn't have to "search" further than the DoJ definition....in explaining why the jury awarded 2 million.

You will need to ask him why he chose to ignore NY law when it had no bearing on the amount of the award

Because the award was for Digital Penetration. It was much greater than the awards normally associated with cases of Sexual Assault, exactly because the jury wasn't bound by NY criminal code in determining the amount of the award for damages.

demonstrates a prejudicial bias that may be grounds for dismissal.

"Dismissal" of what?