Passage rate control is baked into the NV grading scheme. I haven't looked at CA, but there's no way they don't have similar control. The bar is curved even though they pussy foot around that fact!
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2023 7:20 pm
Some jury in New York just convicted some guy of sexual assault and defamation and awarded almost $5M in total damages (including punitives)
"The jury awarded Carroll about $2 million in damages for her civil battery claim and nearly $3 million for successfully proving her defamation claim against Trump.
Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging his conduct qualified as a sexual offense because it was rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching. While the jury did not find that she had proven rape, they did find she proved Trump committed sexual abuse, allowing her to receive damages for her battery claim."
I hope beyond all hope that this year at least one of the Courts convicts Trump of something that would legally bar him from being able to run for president.
All of this just plays into his "I'm a victim of the woke mob" nonsense that his supporters seem to lap up. There will be no accountability until he's behind bars.
It is a complete travesty of justice and a testament to just how bad our legal system has become where a woman can file a civil claim against a man for an alleged rape that occurred over 27 years ago, have zero evidence that it occurred (i.e. video, dna, witnesses, police report, anything) and get a jury verdict for $5 million. #BananaRepublic
The Creamsicle did not mount a defense at all. I think if he actually issued some form of challenge things might have turned out differently. But don't bitch that it's a travesty when the dude did nothing. Politically it's an advantage that he lost, he gets to play the victim, and most people don't actually read so they can get on the moral soapbox and cry. But the dude did absolutely nothing, nada. He deserved to lose.
It's a civil case, preponderance of the evidence standard, so she just has to prove it's more likely than not.
She claims it happened. Trump claims… nothing, actually. No defense. Based on the evidence presented at trial, seems pretty easy to conclude that it's more likely than not that Trump did it when he doesn't present any evidence in his defense.
4:36 what evidence could he have possibly presented? Do you know exactly where you were 27 years ago on a specific date and time? It was nothing more than a he said she said. He said it didn't happen. She said it did. It's in Manhattan which is 99.999999999999% liberal anti-Trump democrats (much like this blog), so he was never going to get a fair trial. Hence his appealing the verdict.
@4:46 is not a lawyer. He's under no obligation to testify. Plus, we've all seen the women Trump has been with. He only dates 10's. E. Jean Carroll is at best a 2 on a good day.
No, you misread. I'm not saying not testifying is admitting. But when the jury goes to weigh the evidence, they have the evidence she presented (and whatever weight or credibility the jury assigns to it) and the evidence he presented (nothing).
I was just pointing out that it's not hard to see how a jury believes a Plaintiff when the Defendant isn't willing to go under oath and contradict the Plaintiff (in a civil suit), or even present any defense *at all*. I'm also not saying that it's conclusive, just that it's not an unreasonable conclusion by the jury.
Also, 4:50, I think the correct defense to a rape accusation is "I don't rape", not "I don't rape women who aren't my type"
"He only dates 10's. E. Jean Carroll is at best a 2 on a good day." So that's why he misidentified the Plaintiff as Marla Maples, a woman he cheated on his wife with, had a child with got married to, and divorced 6 years later? (In that order! Much Family Values! Wow.) Seems like he definitely dated viewed the Plaintiff as someone he would date.
This is why they need a firm statute of limitations on cases. The case was a battery not a rape but treated like a rape with no statute of limitations apparently. Smacks of Brett Kavanaugh. How do you defend yourself on something so old. Outrageous.
Donald Trump is a horrific human being, a threat to the Republic. Yet, this statement is still true. If Donald Trump is a threat to democratic institutions (he is), then we don't protect those institutions by eroding them with lawsuits like this. The law should not make a Defendant of anyone, including Donald Trump, this many years later when it is functionally impossible to defend oneself. It is hard to overstate what a horrible person Donald Trump is, but that isn't justification for lawsuits like this.
Note, I'm not saying he didn't assault E. Jean Carroll. He probably did assault her and many other women. I'm only saying that we can't allow lawsuits to be brought this many years later. You can't do that and preserve any modicum of due process.
Trump shoots his mouth off, but his in office performance, the things he got done, not what he said on his twitter feed, were beneficial to the country.
That said, his ego lost him the civil trial. Not testifying, not sitting through the trial, and consequentially resulting in his video deposition to come in.
A nightmare for all of us who have had clients ignore our depo prep.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2023 7:49 pm
Man I love Judge Nakagawa and his veiled references to events that he knows occurred but has to play like he is in the dark.
Bar Exam Stuff: California just released their results. 32 per cent pass rate. Nevada was 53 by comparison. Here is the link. I took and passed Cali bar. Did not think it was harder or much different that any others including Nevada.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-of-california-releases-results-of-february-2023-bar-exam
What accounts for the reduced passage rates? Easier law school admissions leading to a tougher time passing the bar?
Passage rate control is baked into the NV grading scheme. I haven't looked at CA, but there's no way they don't have similar control. The bar is curved even though they pussy foot around that fact!
Some jury in New York just convicted some guy of sexual assault and defamation and awarded almost $5M in total damages (including punitives)
Yeah, you might want to read it again and revise your statement, knucklehead.
Get it right and drop your glee where it belongs.
"The jury awarded Carroll about $2 million in damages for her civil battery claim and nearly $3 million for successfully proving her defamation claim against Trump.
Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging his conduct qualified as a sexual offense because it was rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching. While the jury did not find that she had proven rape, they did find she proved Trump committed sexual abuse, allowing her to receive damages for her battery claim."
I got your glee right here wooo hoo grab 'em by the ]<@@_.
I hope beyond all hope that this year at least one of the Courts convicts Trump of something that would legally bar him from being able to run for president.
Any criminal conviction will be a pyrrhic victory that empowers Trump as a martyr.
Many of us hope beyond all hope that 119 is wrong. Legally.
All of this just plays into his "I'm a victim of the woke mob" nonsense that his supporters seem to lap up. There will be no accountability until he's behind bars.
It is a complete travesty of justice and a testament to just how bad our legal system has become where a woman can file a civil claim against a man for an alleged rape that occurred over 27 years ago, have zero evidence that it occurred (i.e. video, dna, witnesses, police report, anything) and get a jury verdict for $5 million. #BananaRepublic
Shows exactly how big a loser the Orange One really is, couldn't even beat those long odds
Yeah, cause the judicial deck wasn't stacked 100% against him in MANHATTAN.
I'll take the Orange One over the Dementia Patient any day of the week.
Countdown to Thwackitude in 3..2..1..
Wow! So many Trump lovers! The man is a coward and a doddering fool. Why is that so hard for you people to see the obvious?
. . . . .Said the guy / gal that voted for the Dementia Patient.
The Creamsicle did not mount a defense at all. I think if he actually issued some form of challenge things might have turned out differently. But don't bitch that it's a travesty when the dude did nothing. Politically it's an advantage that he lost, he gets to play the victim, and most people don't actually read so they can get on the moral soapbox and cry. But the dude did absolutely nothing, nada. He deserved to lose.
Born losers attract born losers.
I think I'm going to file a civil suit against Ben Nadig for assaulting me in a changing room at Woolworths in 1976.
Big talk for an anonymous poster on a blog. At least Ben puts his name on what he writes.
Ben Nadig is a creampuff. All bark and no bite. He has preferred pronouns in his bio, so you know he's a snowflake.
LMAOOOO imagine being so triggered by pronouns
Back to the issue –
It's a civil case, preponderance of the evidence standard, so she just has to prove it's more likely than not.
She claims it happened. Trump claims… nothing, actually. No defense. Based on the evidence presented at trial, seems pretty easy to conclude that it's more likely than not that Trump did it when he doesn't present any evidence in his defense.
4:33 wears a mask while driving alone in his car
4:36 what evidence could he have possibly presented? Do you know exactly where you were 27 years ago on a specific date and time? It was nothing more than a he said she said. He said it didn't happen. She said it did. It's in Manhattan which is 99.999999999999% liberal anti-Trump democrats (much like this blog), so he was never going to get a fair trial. Hence his appealing the verdict.
@4:46 is not a lawyer. He's under no obligation to testify. Plus, we've all seen the women Trump has been with. He only dates 10's. E. Jean Carroll is at best a 2 on a good day.
You guys literally scare me. You think that (to reword your argument) not testifying is admitting – wtf? Are you really lawyers?
No, you misread. I'm not saying not testifying is admitting. But when the jury goes to weigh the evidence, they have the evidence she presented (and whatever weight or credibility the jury assigns to it) and the evidence he presented (nothing).
I was just pointing out that it's not hard to see how a jury believes a Plaintiff when the Defendant isn't willing to go under oath and contradict the Plaintiff (in a civil suit), or even present any defense *at all*. I'm also not saying that it's conclusive, just that it's not an unreasonable conclusion by the jury.
Also, 4:50, I think the correct defense to a rape accusation is "I don't rape", not "I don't rape women who aren't my type"
"He only dates 10's. E. Jean Carroll is at best a 2 on a good day." So that's why he misidentified the Plaintiff as Marla Maples, a woman he cheated on his wife with, had a child with got married to, and divorced 6 years later? (In that order! Much Family Values! Wow.) Seems like he definitely dated viewed the Plaintiff as someone he would date.
This is why they need a firm statute of limitations on cases. The case was a battery not a rape but treated like a rape with no statute of limitations apparently. Smacks of Brett Kavanaugh. How do you defend yourself on something so old. Outrageous.
Its fairly easy in a civil case. You go on the stand and tell your side of the story.
"How do you defend yourself on something so old."
Donald Trump is a horrific human being, a threat to the Republic. Yet, this statement is still true. If Donald Trump is a threat to democratic institutions (he is), then we don't protect those institutions by eroding them with lawsuits like this. The law should not make a Defendant of anyone, including Donald Trump, this many years later when it is functionally impossible to defend oneself. It is hard to overstate what a horrible person Donald Trump is, but that isn't justification for lawsuits like this.
Note, I'm not saying he didn't assault E. Jean Carroll. He probably did assault her and many other women. I'm only saying that we can't allow lawsuits to be brought this many years later. You can't do that and preserve any modicum of due process.
6:54,
Now do the Boy Scouts.
Vote for Ben!!!
Trump shoots his mouth off, but his in office performance, the things he got done, not what he said on his twitter feed, were beneficial to the country.
That said, his ego lost him the civil trial. Not testifying, not sitting through the trial, and consequentially resulting in his video deposition to come in.
A nightmare for all of us who have had clients ignore our depo prep.
Man I love Judge Nakagawa and his veiled references to events that he knows occurred but has to play like he is in the dark.
https://www.nvb.uscourts.gov/downloads/opinions/mkn-22-14310-douglas-clinton-crawford-order-on-trustees-objection-to-claim-of-homestead-exemption.pdf
"While the Debtor apparently had a variety of reasons for voluntarily commencing his Chapter 7 proceeding on December 7, 2022. . . "
😂