Thursday, June 01, 2023

Jury Out in Carollo Trial

 By John R. Byrne

A few weeks back, the blog covered courtroom photograph-gate from the Joe Carollo trial. It's now in the jury's hands. The plaintiffs, businessmen William "Bill" Fuller and Martin Pinilla, allege that Carollo used City machinery to target their businesses because they supported his political opponent. Plaintiffs are seeking $100 million. According to records obtained by the Herald, before trial began, the City had already paid $2 million in attorneys' fees to Carollo's lawyers.

There were some unusual happenings during the trial and the Herald covers some of the highlights here

UPDATE: Jury found Carollo liable. Owes $60M in compensatory and punitive damages.

Go Heat.


Anonymous said...

63.5 million. Ouch.

Anonymous said...

This fat bastard has gotten away with a lot of crap over many years. Good to see the roosters coming home.

Anonymous said...

Pop goes the weasel.

Anonymous said...

Is the City liable for this clown?

Anonymous said...

Next year there will be a blog post that the case has been reversed.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the City is liable (yet). There is a related case against the City before Judge Altman. 1:21-cv-23485-RKA

Anonymous said...

Let from Rehnquis to O'Connor. In 1993. Your welcome.

“Dear Sandra,” he wrote, in a memo dated June 7, 1993, “I agree with the substance of your second draft, and will join it if you will deal with two non-substantive concerns of mine.” He then laid out his two quibbles as follows:

First, on page 7 you say that the Civil War was fought in part to secure the elective franchise to black Americans. One can certainly say that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but I don’t think it is an accurate statement to say that it was fought to secure the elective franchise for blacks. This view gained majority support only during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War was over.

Second, on page 23, you say that the Fourteenth Amendment embodies “the goal of a fully integrated society.” The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination; it does not require integration, and I think it is a mistake to intimate that it does even as a “goal.”

Anonymous said...

To 9:47. Rehnquist is correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates integration or prohibits racial segregation. We have historically black colleges; black studen unions; black fraternities, b;acl veterans organizations, and all sorts of social groups that are for black Americans. No one obejcts to this on legal grounds and many are underwritten by government grants. The Brown decision was not one of the finer moements in American constitutional jurisprudence. Discrimination was outlawed in schools not becasue it was inherently wrong but because the effects of it were grossly disparate. Teh irony is that after almost 75 years, the quality of public eduction in black shcools across America is almost non-existent and segretation is even more prounounced than it was in 1954. And Rehnquis is correct about voting rights. If that had been the reason for the Civil War, there would have been no Civil War. It was fought to end the spreadof slavery into the new territories which threatened the North's economic expansion as opposed to the spread of a cotton based mercantile caste system.