E. Jean Carroll asks court to order Trump to pay the $5,779,783 he owes for Carroll II verdict for sex abuse & defamation: $5M plus interest. Trump’s atty wants time to weigh asking SCOTUS to “reconsider” its cert denial. She says fuhgeddaboudit. “This is the end of the line.”.… pic.twitter.com/YyNTtyEjwr
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) July 1, 2026
Because of the replies on Twitter, I thought I’d explain.Full motion to release funds is here:https://t.co/pXFvntxIBs
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) July 1, 2026
The 2023 stip is here:https://t.co/4beI80ebBi pic.twitter.com/fJmDzm2g5B
I’ve seen people avoid paying a judgment, but never like this.
Trump deposited the amount of the judgment with the court, so he could appeal the verdict. It’s a bond, to be sure the judgment is paid if, as now, appeals are exhausted. Trump is now asking for time to file a motion for rehearing, or more accurately, to get the Supremes to reconsider their denial of appeal (technically, of the writ of certiorari). Which they won’t; IIRC, they sat on this for months (13, I want to say). They’re done.
So the trial court will deny Trump’s motion. He’ll appeal, and the appellate court will tell him to pound sand. And he’ll appeal that.
Or so Trump probably hopes. Sooner or later, Carroll gets the money, with interest. Trump can’t stop that; I’m not even sure he can postpone it. Once a judgment is final (as this one now is), courts are usually only interested in seeing it collected. They don’t have a lot of sympathy with deadbeat defendants.
So it’s likely the trial court will just release the money and end the game. There’s really no reason not to. Trump may be hoping to postpone the inevitable. I don’t see why the courts should play along.
Our "justice" system is a bad joke. No small part of that is the kind of lawyers rich guys can hire in masses to take full advantage of schedules, judge's cowardice and everything else that is wrong with the courts. I think by law all access to lawyers should be leveled to make things equal, being rich should not enable you to hire more lawyers than someone who has everything from a lot less money to nothing. I'm sure the lawyers wouldn't like that, it would really cut into their earning potential but you can't even start to approach the lie over the Supreme Court door, "equality under law" under what we've got.
ReplyDelete