Chief Judge Altonaga handed President Trump a victory yesterday in his lawsuit against ABC and George Stephanopoulos.
During a March 10, 2024 interview of US Representative Nancy Mace, Stephanopoulos asked Mace about her endorsement of Trump despite the fact that he was "found liable for rape." Trump sued, alleging that the defendants defamed him in light of a jury's verdict expressly finding that he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law. ABC and Stephanopoulos moved to dismiss on the grounds of "substantial truth" and the "fair report privilege."
Judge Altonaga rejected both, pointing to the reporter's reference to specific jury verdicts ("Stephanopoulos was not reporting on statements by Carroll or other commentators; rather, he was discussing the outcome of a legal proceeding in which the jury expressly rejected a charge of rape as defined by New York Penal Law").
The case marches on.
Opinion excerpted below.
[34] Order Denying Motion to Dismiss on Scribd
15 comments:
There's a typo on the first page.
That will be a fun trial.
Although just an Order on a Motion to Dismiss, there are repeated references to a jury/factfinder. It seems like summary judgment is out of the question on this one.
It will survive summary judgment but I hear echoses of USFL v. NFL. Or as the book called it, Football For A Buck which was the the amount of damages that the jury awarded the USFL for the NFL's antitrust violation. And Trump should know this. He owned the New Jersey Generals and bankrolled the lawsuit. Trump desperately wanted to own an NFL team and thought he could leverage a $$$$$$$ judgment into a free ticket an NFL franchise. It was not to be and the rest is history.
This is why I don’t like civil law. We have created a Byzantine construct of rules such that we don’t see the simple facts. It’s why the public has lost faith in the courts.
Where is the common sense ? It’s lost in a mountain of words talking about 12b6 motions to dismiss and the boundries of substantial truth.
How about:
The plaintiff was sued for raping a woman and the jury returned a verdict against him. The defendant, who isn’t a lawyer used inexact phraseology in describing the complex verdict. There aren’t any damages here and there was no malice. Case dismissed.
That’s going to be the result after another ten Millon or so written words.
Civil law sucks.
So sue me.
RE Rumpole @4:22 AM
Agreed, that was my view while reading the order; part way through I just flipped through to the end. Yes, it’s one of the many reasons the public (like me) have lost faith in the courts. Time will tell if "That’s going to be the result after another ten Million or so written words." But don’t miss the forest for the trees: The court system exists largely for the benefit of the legal profession itself, and for the rich minority who can extract a perversion of "justice" by making litigation so expensive that one side either goes broke or decides to stop the bleeding of cash. Thus, twenty million words to the end this case might be better. More legal fees, more lawyer bonuses, more work for court reporters, bailiffs, and other such. With all this work, the courts will need a few more judges too.
In part we can thank the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, and the billionaire class who help certain poor justices stay on the US Supreme Court for the poverty level annual salary of $274,200. Poverty by big law standards, mind you. See Above The Law, No. 2 Biglaw Firm In America Announces New Salary Scale For Associates.
https://abovethelaw.com/2024/01/latham-salary-2023/
Hang in there Rumpole.
What are the damages to his reputation "caused" by the alleged defamation. For "Always Trumpers" liability for non-consensual penetration with his penis ("Rape" under NY law) rather than his finger (not rape under NY law but rape under Florida law) would not change their view. For "never Trump" Republicans and 99.9% of Democrats their poor view of his reputation did not get worse because of the kind of sexual assault. The depo questions would make DJT confirm or deny his deeds and statements probative of reputation (example, DJT did you say "grab them by the ..."? DJT are you a convicted felon? DJT did your first wife accuse you of sexual misconduct in the divorce?). The MSJ filed would then attach the transcript.
no motion to correct the caption?
The caption is absurd.
Rape, as commonly known, is not digital penetration.
Fact: Each of the verdicts in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump are currently on appeal.
Fact: The accusation by Ms. Carroll against DJT was alleged to have occurred in "late 1995 or early 1996". (Reasonable doubt issue).
Fact: DJT’s own unfiltered, extrajudicial comments are a problem for him
Opinion: DJT had ineffective counsel, and was denied an impartial jury. (Sixth Amendment)
To those who hate DJT, fine, beat him at the polls. Do not weaponize the legal system.
Fun Fact: LBJ allegedly called President Ford's economics "the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking". Source: "Inside the Oval Office: The White House Tapes from FDR to Clinton" by William Doyle
@4:22, where to begin?
"The plaintiff was sued for raping a woman and the jury returned a verdict against him." Yes, the plaintiff was sued for raping a woman, and yes, the jury returned a verdict against him. However, the jury's verdict was that he was not liable for rape. Kind of an important point.
"The defendant, who isn’t a lawyer used inexact phraseology in describing the complex verdict." "Used inexact phraseology" is, I suppose, one way of saying "was completely wrong." Additionally, the defendant, though not a lawyer, is a journalist who has chosen to report on a legal matter, and we should expect journalists to conduct basic levels of research to accurately report on such matters. Not to mention these comments were made while he was confronting a rape victim.
"There aren’t any damages here." Seeing as the Court has no evidence before it, I'm unsure of how it would draw that opinion. Justice should mean you get your day in court--to present evidence and refute it. A judge, based on nothing more than a pleading, should not make a decision on whether you win or lose.
"and there was no malice." See comment above.
12:02's comment is, frankly, stupid. I'm not sure if this comment will be posted based on the sometimes arbitrary nature of comment censorship on this blog (I'm not complaining. The blog is DOM's and he can post or not post whatever he wants. But it would be nice to know where the fences are).
For starter, who made 12:02 the arbiter of whether rape is "commonly known" as digital penetration. I wonder if he would still feel that way if it was his wife, daughter, or his own sphincter that was forcibly penetrated with an unwanted finger.
Second, 1202 talks about "reasonable doubt" But DJT was tried in civil court where the standard is preponderance of the evidence. Reasonable doubt doesn't apply to anything at issue in this conversation.
Next, who cares if the verdicts are on appeal. Unless and until they are reversed, they stand.
He says that "DJT had ineffective counsel, and was denied an impartial jury. (Sixth Amendment)", but again, this was civil court. There is no defense of ineffective counsel in civil court.
Last, and probably dumbest, is the drumbeat of "To those who hate DJT, fine, beat him at the polls. Do not weaponize the legal system." Stop taking the Fox News stupid pills. Running for office is not a shield against criminal or civil liability. That's the stuff of third world autocrats who think that they are above the law. Do you think that Sen. Bob Menendez's prosecution was "weaponizing the legal system"? Of course not. Was the prosecution of John Edwards "weaponizing the legal system"? Of course not. How about the prosecution of Rob Blagojevich? Of course not.
When people are believed to have broken the law, the civil and criminal courts create mechanisms for resolving those issues. Grand juries in New York and Georgia state courts believe that it is likely that DJT broke the law. A petit jury in New York state found him guilty of 34(?) felony counts. That's not weaponizing anything. That's lawful process - just like it was process for Judge Cannon to dismiss the indictment against DJT in S.D.Fla when she concluded that the Special Counsel was unlawfully appointed. And in all of those cases, let the appeal process play out how it will.
As Michael Cohen figured out, setting Trump for deposition should lead to dismissal. He will dodge and weave, but will never show up. As usual, the lawsuit was filed for show and is going nowhere.
@317
"12:02's comment is, frankly, stupid. I'm not sure if this comment will be posted based on the sometimes arbitrary nature of comment censorship on this blog"
Well apparently you read the comment on the blog, so your comment appears stupid.
I do not like DJT, but he is entitled to due process. I do not follow Fox News at all. But without a criminal conviction for rape, no reasonable person could conclude liability for rape. Only a corrupt legal system could do so. Yes, "reasonable doubt" is why a civil verdict of liability for rape is nonsense because the civil standard is preponderance of the evidence. Perhaps DJT ought to be criminally prosecuted for rape now. After all, a jury "found [DJT] liable for rape". This was the point Stephanopoulos was making: DJT is a rapist.
An accusation of rape is a very serious felony. This case is nothing but a naked accusation made in 2019 by a Trump hater about an event alleged to have occurred in "late 1995 or early 1996" - 24 or 25 years earlier. Reasonable doubt. If this is the law, the law is an ass. Cite to Charles Dickens.
I do not like VP Harris either. Just another corrupt prosecutor who benefited from an affair with Willie Brown in 1994 and 1995. In his capacity as State Assembly Speaker, Brown appointed Harris to two political posts: the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, and then to the Medical Assistance Commission.
A headline in USA Today stated several days ago: "Prosecutor vs. convicted felon: How Democrats believe Harris’ background changes the election" Perhaps the Democrats failed to consider her tough on crime position that locked-up their brown and black family members.
If DOM does censor @12:02 would have been a good one to omit. The “fun fact” at the end is gross, and in the context of discussing a sexual assault.
Post a Comment