Apparently in the CNN show last Wednesday night May 10 trump repeated
most or all of the things that he was found liable for as defamation of
EJ Carroll and now he's subject to another lawsuit for the very same
thing.

I wonder if, in such a suit, the plaintiff would be allowed to point out
that he's been found liable once already for the same statements.

On one hand, it's prejudicial and not part of the evidence of this new
case, but on the other, it's evidence of malice. Could they
divide the trial, as they do some places, into liability and damages,
and if he's found liable, they could tell the jury about the earlier
verdict for them to decide on damages. If 5 million wasn't enough to
dissuede him, 40 million seems like the next step.

Even if it's not the normal statutory procedure, might a judge have the
power to separate a liability phase from a damages phase?

(Of course she has to want to sue, and she's made her point already.
Plus, right now she's batting 1000 and may not want to risk lowering her average.)

And her first suit is still pending, for statements he made while
president and then claimed insulting her was part of his duties as
president and therefore protected. I gather he lost on that and the
case is back at the trial court level, same judge I think. But I think
this third case is better if they will be able to get the second case
in, because it shows malice, or extra malice, which should make the
punitive damages higher, right?

OTOH, I wonder if she can get compenstory damages since whatever damage
he did to her reputation, he did the first two times and she's been
compensated for the second time. How much added harm could the third
time do?

I've read that there is a general rule that punitive damages should be
no more than 4x compensatory, and certainly no more than 10 times. How
does that square with concept of punitive, if the defendant is a
billionaire. In this third case, if filed, the additional real damages
can't be much, not as much as before, but even 5 million in damages was
not enough to stop him. Doesn't he deserve much higher punitive, like 40 milllion and the next time, again 8 times as much, 320 million. :-)

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

micky <[email protected]> wrote:

Apparently in the CNN show last Wednesday night May 10 trump
repeated most or all of the things that he was found liable for as
defamation of EJ Carroll and now he's subject to another lawsuit
for the very same thing.

I wonder if, in such a suit, the plaintiff would be allowed to
point out that he's been found liable once already for the same
statements.

Not exactly. But facts found by the court will be binding in a new
trial. Since it was found that Trump did sexually assault her, a new
court would have to accept that as already proven. It's called "res
judicata" - the fact has alrady been adjudicated.

On one hand, it's prejudicial and not part of the evidence of this
new case, but on the other, it's evidence of malice. Could they
divide the trial, as they do some places, into liability and
damages, and if he's found liable, they could tell the jury about
the earlier verdict for them to decide on damages. If 5 million
wasn't enough to dissuede him, 40 million seems like the next
step.

Even if it's not the normal statutory procedure, might a judge
have the power to separate a liability phase from a damages phase?

(Of course she has to want to sue, and she's made her point
already. Plus, right now she's batting 1000 and may not want to
risk lowering her average.)

And her first suit is still pending, for statements he made while
president and then claimed insulting her was part of his duties as
president and therefore protected. I gather he lost on that and
the case is back at the trial court level, same judge I think.
But I think this third case is better if they will be able to get
the second case in, because it shows malice, or extra malice,
which should make the punitive damages higher, right?

OTOH, I wonder if she can get compenstory damages since whatever
damage he did to her reputation, he did the first two times and
she's been compensated for the second time. How much added harm
could the third time do?

I've read that there is a general rule that punitive damages
should be no more than 4x compensatory, and certainly no more than
10 times. How does that square with concept of punitive, if the
defendant is a billionaire. In this third case, if filed, the
additional real damages can't be much, not as much as before, but
even 5 million in damages was not enough to stop him. Doesn't he
deserve much higher punitive, like 40 milllion and the next time,
again 8 times as much, 320 million. :-)

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 15 May 2023 15:07:02 -0700 (PDT), micky <[email protected]> wrote:

OTOH, I wonder if she can get compenstory damages since whatever damage
he did to her reputation, he did the first two times and she's been >compensated for the second time. How much added harm could the third
time do?

If she can't prove sufficient additional damage to her reputation, how
about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

She has talked about how much his words hurt, she said it before the
trial and in the trial. He knows (or has constructive knowledge?)or
should know**, and he said almost verbatim words that caused her pain
earlier. That makes it intentional. He had people laughing at what he
did to her. Should be worth 40 million, afaic.

**Maybe his knowledge or not doesn't matter. I see in the link below
that knowledge that the target will feel distress isn't even one of the
4 elements of the tort, although I tend to think it should be,
especially if the statements made aren't 100% certainly hurtful. Hmmm??


https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/courses/tortsf01/iiem.htm
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four
elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2)
the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the
conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Hyatt, 943
S.W. 2d at 297.

In the google search page, the question that Google created out of the
webpage is "What are the federal elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress?"

Although the question google makes up sometimes is unsupported by the
url, it usually is supported. And a couple of the citations are to
federal courts if I recall that format correctly, as 732 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo.App.1987). That implies to me that it's a *federal* tort, but if
not, there must be a state court she can sue in. NYS?



Rachel Maddow didn't give me the idea above, but she did give me this
question, not her words: Was the purpose of the judgment against trump
only for reimbursement and punishment, or was it also to restrain him.

It seems like this would have come up before in slander suits unless
trump is the only one in American history who is so recalcitrant. But
there are other kinds of suits like negligence, drunken driving, where I
know some poeple don't learn.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Not exactly. But facts found by the court will be binding in a new
trial. Since it was found that Trump did sexually assault her, a new
court would have to accept that as already proven. It's called "res >judicata" - the fact has alrady been adjudicated.

Technically, the court did not find that he sexually assaulted her. The
court found that he sexually abused her.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 15 May 2023 20:16:41 -0700 (PDT),
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <[email protected]> wrote:

micky <[email protected]> wrote:

Apparently in the CNN show last Wednesday night May 10 trump
repeated most or all of the things that he was found liable for as
defamation of EJ Carroll and now he's subject to another lawsuit
for the very same thing.

I wonder if, in such a suit, the plaintiff would be allowed to
point out that he's been found liable once already for the same
statements.

Not exactly. But facts found by the court will be binding in a new
trial. Since it was found that Trump did sexually assault her, a new
court would have to accept that as already proven. It's called "res >judicata" - the fact has alrady been adjudicated.

Assaulted or abused, that's good enough. She and her lawyer were on
Rachel Maddow last night and one said that her first case may be allowed
to go forward soon, and she said that the money involved in that would
be more because she lost her job that she'd had for 26 years at Elle
because of trump. Wikipedia says "Carroll was fired from Elle in
February 2020; she wrote on Twitter that she was dismissed "because
Trump ridiculed my reputation, laughed at my looks, & dragged me through
the mud."[22] Elle maintained that the decision to fire Carroll was a
business decision unrelated to Trump.[18]" By coincidence I guess,
after 26 years. But Elle was not under oath when they said that and
maybe they would agree with her now. (Not just because they'd be under
oath, but because the context of the question is different.) And
I'm almost sure she said that what you said above works retroactively
too, to that first suit that was filed before the second suit's verdict,
so that the only thing to be decided was the amount of damages.

Footnote 18 goes to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/style/ejean-carroll-fired-elle.html
which I have not read yet.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)