#Roberta Kaplan

[hellochildrenoftheatom]

Queer Jews Project Day 30 - Roberta Kaplan

Roberta Kaplan was born and raised in Ohio. In college, she spent a summer abroad in Moscow and discovered her passion for activism by helping Soviet Jews. After graduating from Harvard Law School, she rose through the ranks at top law firm Paul Weiss – making partner in seven years.

Roberta’s had a long and prestigious career, but I’m going to highlight two cases of hers. First of all, she represented Edie Windsor and took down the Defense of Marriage Act. And more recently, Roberta represented E. Jean Caroll in her defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump. She won, forcing Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $88 million in damages.

Learn more about Roberta Kaplan here.

Queer Jews Project

[tomorrowusa]

That Trump lacks rudimentary maturity is not exactly news. But it's helpful to be reminded of his behavior because it seems to be acceptable to the people who support him.

Roberta Kaplan says Trump threw papers across table at Mar-a-Lago deposition because his legal team agreed to feed her lunch

Attorney Roberta Kaplan said former President Donald Trump threw papers across a table and stormed off during a deposition at Mar-a-Lago after learning that his legal team had agreed to provide her lunch. Kaplan, who has represented clients in high-profile cases against Trump, including E. Jean Carroll, said on an episode of the “George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell)” podcast recorded Thursday that she rejected the former president’s request that they work through a lunch break because he believed the deposition was “a waste of my time.” “And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. You could really almost see it,” Kaplan told Republican strategist Sarah Longwell and conservative attorney George Conway, a longtime Trump critic. “And he said, ‘Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch? Where are you going to get lunch?’” Kaplan said she told him that his attorneys had “graciously offered to provide” her team with lunch — a common civil practice between opposing legal teams. “At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. And stormed out of the room,” Kaplan shared, adding that Trump specifically yelled at his lawyer Alina Habba for providing them lunch. “He really yelled at Alina for that. He was so mad at Alina,” she said.

Most preschoolers would probably regard Trump's tantrums as inappropriate. He seems forever psychologically stuck in the "terrible twos".

Trump's behavior at the deposition was in character with him throwing ketchup and other food at the walls. In the words of George Conway, "He's a pig.".

When he's in prison I expect him to use his poop to write MAGA slogans on the wall of his cell.

[jezunya]

Robbie Kaplan: *swaggers out of the courthouse after winning their case against Trump, grabs E. Jean Carroll's hand, rocking that suit* Me:

[idroolinmysleep]

You wouldn’t be a choice of mine, either, to be honest. I wouldn’t in any circumstances have any interest in you.

Donald Trump somehow thinks it’s a good idea to rate his opponent’s lawyer on whether she’s fuckable or not. To her face. In a rape trial.

[filosofablogger]

And In The Case Of E. Jean Carroll vs Trump ...

I’ve been silent thus far on the trial taking place in New York to decide the lawsuit brought against Donald Trump by Ms. E. Jean Carroll on the charge that he raped her some years ago.  My silence is not for lack of an opinion, but merely because I preferred to wait until the jury renders an opinion before weighing in.  Personally, I believe Ms. Carroll.  One doesn’t put something this personal…

[mightyflamethrower]

25 reasons Trump won’t pay a dime to E. Jean Carroll

That eye-popping $83 million judgment will not survive an appeal. A proper settlement would subtract at least $82,972,000.

In 2019, a strange woman named E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of raping her in a changing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan. Trump called her crazy, and a jury found him liable for both sexually abusing her and defaming her with the “crazy” talk. Last week, a New York jury decided Carroll deserves $83 million for defamation.

Here are 25 reasons why that’s nuts.

1) Carroll has said rape is “sexy”

She backs up this insane statement with, “Think of the fantasies” (which my wife and I can’t stop saying to each other). For the record, having someone forcibly violate you against your will is the exact opposite of “sexy.”

2) She’s already bragging about shopping sprees

Remember in “Goodfellas” when that idiot shows up at the party with his wife wearing a $20,000 fur coat and De Niro tells him to “bring it back”? When you run a scam, you need to lay low for a while. Carroll, conversely, is making appearances on national television telling Rachel Maddow she’s going to buy her a “penthouse in Paris” as well as fishing gear and a motorcycle for her counsel (could she pick weirder presents?). Her lawyer awkwardly murmured, “Uh, that’s a joke.”

Yeah, this whole thing is a joke.

3) The scenario she described came from her favorite TV show

She is a self-described “Law & Order” fan, and there is an episode wherein a man muscles his way into a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman and sexually molests a woman. This is likely where she got the idea. She’s also a big fan of “The Apprentice.” Would you like to watch your rapist on TV?

4) She didn’t want to press criminal charges

Being on the cover of New York magazine is one thing, but taking your BS story into an actual courtroom is a whole other level of fraud. When Bill de Blasio said he would change the law to make the case admissible, Carroll kept awkwardly repeating, “The experts told me … the time has passed.”

5) They changed the law

The case had no merit because the statute of limitations on civil action had passed. So what happened? The New York State Legislature changed the law. Is there anything that screams “witch hunt” more than that? What are we, Zimbabwe?

6) The man who backed the lawsuit is a major DNC donor

Leftist activist billionaire Reid Hoffman is the money behind this operation. His motive is obviously to bankrupt Trump so he can’t run again. Carroll denied this at first because she’s a liar, but her lawyer was forced to come clean.

7) The whole thing was George Conway’s idea, apparently

Though she denies it, it’s clear this entire plan was concocted by “conservative lawyer” Conway at a radical leftist cocktail party in Manhattan.

8) Carroll’s lawyer is desperate to fix her reputation as a rape-enabler

Roberta Kaplan was supposed to champion victims of sexual assault with her #TimesUp movement, but she used it instead to run cover for perverts such as Andrew Cuomo. She got caught and she got fired. Her comeback included representing Ashley Biden (A Biden lawyer going after Trump? Is anyone surprised?), but this case could permanently rescue her Google results.

9) Carroll’s dress didn’t exist back then

Carroll said the rape happened in the early 1990s. We just learned the particular dress she said she was allegedly wearing did not exist at the time.

10) She cannot remember when the rape happened

We’re not talking about the exact date. She can’t tell us if it was 1993 or 1995.

11) She won’t let anyone test her coat for DNA

Carroll calls the dress her “bad luck dress” and told CNN she will never make a talisman out of it — as though the idea had occurred to anyone. Why did she keep it around? This could be the left’s Monica Lewinsky dress, but she refuses to let anyone analyze it.

12) She doesn’t know if Trump ejaculated

I don’t know if anyone reading this has engaged in sexual intercourse, but evidence of the male orgasm is almost impossible to hide.

13) She is a serial accuser

Despite being a 3.5, she has claimed men have sexually assaulted her at least a half-dozen times. This isn’t proof of Trump’s innocence in and of itself, but it becomes relevant when surrounded by 24 other points.

14) She said it wasn’t sexual

Carroll has said pretty much everything that you could say about this encounter, from “it was not sexual” to “it was the definition of rape.” She said she would not press charges, however, because it would trivialize the experience of illegal aliens who are being “raped around the clock.”

15) She’s not his type

Trump is into elegant Slavs. This woman is like that hysterical chicken lady from “The Kids in the Hall.”

16) The judge and Carroll’s lawyer are pals

We’re told Judge Lewis Kaplan was Roberta Kaplan’s (no relation) mentor back when they both worked at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Roberta Kaplan denies this, but it can’t be denied they worked at the same firm at the same time. That alone is a conflict of interest.

17) Carroll didn’t talk to anyone about the alleged assault, until she did

If a woman is sexually assaulted, she is morally obligated to report it immediately, so the rapist doesn’t do it again. Carroll did not do this. What’s more, she didn’t talk to any of her friends about it. At least not at first. This is peculiar behavior for a blabbermouth.

18) Even if it’s all true, the settlement would be tiny

Carroll alleged that Trump cost her a columnist job at Elle, but the magazine made it clear it ended her contract as an advice columnist based on nothing more than lack of interest. But let’s assume Elle fired her because Trump wrote a mean tweet. A good price for an advice column would be a couple of hundred bucks per piece. That’s $2,000 a year for Elle. Assuming Carroll lives as long as “Dear Abby” columnist Pauline Esther Friedman, who died at 94, that would be a whopping total of $28,000 (Carroll is 80).

So, we’re off by about $82,972,000.

19) She said women “love” being abducted

She told Charlie Rose (remember him?) in 1995 that women love the idea of a caveman knocking them unconscious with a club and then dragging them — by their hair — back to the cave. I’m no feminist, but I’m pretty sure the cerebral contusions from this kind of violence are not a turn-on.

20) She said it wasn’t a big deal

“I’m a mature woman,” she said. “I can handle it.” OK, then why does she need $83 million to recover? That’s four times the amount of money you get when your kid is decapitated.

21) She lives in a Mouse House

Anyone who doubts this lady’s mental state needs to check out her house. She calls it “The Mouse House” because it’s infested with rodents (to whom she has given individual names, such as “Terbrusky”). She has painted the trees blue. She has printed out 27 years of advice column questions and stacked them all over the place. Yes, writers can be weird. But it is impossible to look at her place and not think, “This is nuts.”

22) She is a hoarder

Hoarding is a mental disorder. You can’t sue someone for calling you “crazy” if you have a mental disorder.

23) Her cat is called “Vagina” — seriously

E. Jean Carroll is obsessed with sex and her vagina. She said she lives in the woods because if she lived in the city, she’d have 16 boyfriends. She’s 80, remember?

Her dog “Tits” has blue hair, and her cat is named “Vagina.” The left-wing media thinks this is irrelevant. “Among the stranger complaints made by the former president … was that the jury wasn’t informed about the name of his accuser’s cat: Vagina T. Fireball.” Uh, when the charge is “calling a sane woman crazy,” Vagina T. Fireball matters.

24) She writes notes to herself

Wait, doesn’t everyone do that? Not like this. “The Mouse House” is festooned with bizarre messages. Her microwave says, “Burn Baby Burn.” Her bookshelf says, “Always amused never angry.” And, in a moment of deranged honesty, she taped a note to a lamp that says, “Hold your nerve. Pursue your radical options to the bitter END!”

25) Carroll said she wanted to “rape” Trump

Apparently, she thought having rough sex with him in the changing room would make for a “funny story.” (Wait, I thought she didn’t tell anyone about what happened to her out of fear.) She also suggested she’d do it for $17,000 if he was unable to speak. Sounds awfully rapey, doesn’t it?

Anyone who takes this case seriously and doesn’t see E. Jean Carroll as a complete basket case is a complete basket case.

[mariacallous]

Former President Donald Trump once again attacked the writer E. Jean Carroll and suggested his political enemies could soon face jail time in a wide-ranging interview on Tuesday night.

Trump called in to the conservative network Newsmax, just days after a Manhattan jury found him guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial. Jurors agreed he had falsified business records to cover up allegations of an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11 and legal experts have wondered whether his repeated violations of a gag order in the case will weigh on the judge’s punishment. Trump appeared to violate the terms of that order — which bars him from making any public comments about the jury, and hasn’t yet been lifted — once more in the Newsmax interview.

He went on to address his recent, false claims that he never called for his onetime Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to be locked up.

“I said, ’Wouldn’t it really be bad? … wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and the former secretary of state … put the president’s wife into jail?” Trump said Newsmax.

“But they want to do it,” he went on, appearing to speak about his political opponents. “You know, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to. And it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them.”

Trump continued to lambast his recent verdict and spoke about the other cases currently filed against him before discussing the dual defamation verdicts levied against him by Carroll.

“I’ve never met this woman, I don’t know this woman,” Trump said Monday, statements that are similar to those at the center of the cases filed against him. “And I’m supposed to pay a ridiculous amount of money for a fictional story.”

Carroll sued Trump twice and won. A jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s and defaming her afterwards, awarding the writer $5 million in damages. Carroll sued again for defamation after his repeated attacks against her. The jury in that case awarded her $83.3 million in damages after her attorneys argued he needed to be penalized with an amount large enough to make him stop.

The former president has posted a mammoth bond while he appeals the second case.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has said Trump’s ongoing attacks could be the basis for yet another defamation suit in the future. She recently told the New York Times that “all options are on the table” moving forward.

[dertaglichedan]

EXCLUSIVE: DNC Sent Millions To Law Firms Behind ‘Unprecedented Lawfare’ Campaign Against Trump

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has sent millions of dollars to law firms that are intimately involved in an “unprecedented lawfare” campaign against former President Donald Trump, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reviewed by the Daily Caller.

The DNC has paid close to $2 million since August of 2021 to Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP for “legal services,” according to the DNC’s FEC filings. Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP founding partner Roberta A. Kaplan represented E. Jean Carroll in her sexual assault and defamation suits against Trump. The New York Times previously reported that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, helped pay for Carroll’s lawsuits.

The DNC did not pay the firm for any services from its founding in 2017 until August of 2021. Carroll initiated her first lawsuit against Trump in 2019.

[rapeculturerealities]

E. Jean Carroll seeks new damages after Trump called her a 'whack job'

Writer E. Jean Carroll on Monday asked a judge to update her still pending original defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to add a new claim after he trashed her as a "whack job" during his CNN town hall earlier this month.

In a court filing late Monday, Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan said her client will be seeking a "very substantial punitive damages award" for Trump's remarks.

[jgmail]

¿Weimerica? - Carl Schmitt sobre el Estado de Derecho

Por Tom Sunic

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Al Sistema Liberal le gusta ponerse la etiqueta de “Estado de Derecho”, con lo que sugiere implícitamente que otros sistemas de creencias u otros Estados no liberales o estatales que han existido a lo largo de la historia son entidades sin ley que violan la libertad de sus ciudadanos. Esto no es cierto. Desde tiempos inmemoriales los Estados de todo el mundo, incluso las peores tiranías, han utilizado sistemas legislativos a la hora de dictar sentencia contra sus oponentes políticos o delincuentes comunes. El problema no es si esos Estados o Estados antiliberales son o eran justos o injustos; el problema es más bien la elección correcta o incorrecta de tal concepto y la posterior interpretación de ese concepto por parte de los detractores o defensores de esos Estados.

Por ejemplo, la legislación de la Europa del Este comunista y de la Unión Soviética contenía elementos constitucionales detallados que abarcaban todos los aspectos de la vida de los ciudadanos. Lo mismo ocurre con el fascismo italiano y el nacionalsocialismo alemán (1922-1945), cuyos líderes consideraban que las leyes de su país defendían mejor la libertad que las leyes del Sistema Liberal.  En los Estados Unidos contemporáneos, y al amparo de la grandilocuente expresión “Estado de Derecho”, el poder judicial tiende cada vez más a deslizarse hacia un legalismo excesivo, hacia una guerra legal (lawfare) que podría llevar cualquier otro nombre, y que tarde o temprano conducirá a la desorganización administrativa y el desencadenamiento de disturbios civiles. Actualmente, este proceso de guerra legal lo podemos observar en el poder judicial de los EE.UU., tal y como lo ilustran las numerosas acusaciones contra el ex presidente Donald Trump, la cruzada de Letitia James contra VDARE, la demanda de Charlottesville y muchos otros casos más.  Además, los juicios casi al estilo soviético de miles de manifestantes del Capitolio del 6 de enero están en pleno apogeo, con los acusados convertidos en sujetos de nombres mal definidos y a menudo abstractos (¿alborotadores?, ¿intrusos?, ¿insurrectos?, ¿terroristas? ... ¿¡o luchadores por la libertad!?). Hay que señalar que, a pesar de las acusaciones mutuas, cargos por delitos graves y contraacusaciones del equipo legal de Trump contra los fiscales locales patrocinados por el gobierno estadounidense y los abogados activistas que odian a Trump como es el caso de Roberta Kaplan, no se trata de una característica inherente del sistema estadounidense. En absoluto. De hecho, el hiperlegalismo manifiesto en los EE.UU., que roza cada vez más la anarquía administrativa, representa la esencia misma de la dinámica histórica del Sistema Liberal [I].

Quis judicabit? - ¿quién toma la decisión legal final?

La sorprendente similitud entre el actual sistema judicial estadounidense y el poder judicial semianárquico de la Alemania de Weimar, que había dado lugar a incesantes disturbios civiles y asesinatos políticos en serie, fue descrito por Carl Schmitt en muchos artículos que fueron publicados entre 1933 y 1944 en revistas jurídicas de la Alemania nacionalsocialista. Sin embargo, al estudiar la obra jurídica de Schmitt hay que tener en cuenta varios aspectos. No existe en ingles un equivalente para el sustantivo compuesto alemán “Rechtsstaat” (Estado de derecho), un sustantivo que tiene un equivalente verbal y conceptual exacto en todas las lenguas europeas continentales (état de droit, pravna država, stato di diritto, právní stat, etc.). En cambio, los juristas estadounidenses/británicos recurren a una expresión mucho más general como “dominio de la ley” o “Estado constitucional”, términos que no tiene el mismo significado específico que el concepto alemán de “Rechtsstaat”. La expresión que voy a utilizar en mis traducciones de las citas de Schmitt, es decir, del concepto de Estado de Derecho (state ruled by law) es la palabra que que más se aproxime al sustantivo alemán original de “Rechtsstaat” (n.d.t, Sunic escribió este artículo originalmente en inglés por lo que no existe una traducción exacta a esa lengua, pero sí al español).

En segundo lugar, hay que tener en cuenta que Schmitt, a quien a menudo citan hoy decenas de académicos tradicionalistas contemporáneos tanto estadounidenses como europeos, al igual que intelectuales y activistas de la Alt-Right o de la Nueva Derecha, no sólo era un jurista experto y un reputado politólogo, sino también un erudito poliglota que indagaba constantemente en el significado de los conceptos políticos y sus distorsiones semánticas por parte de las diversas clases políticas dominantes en Europa y los Estados Unidos. La expresión “fake news” (noticias falsas) no existía en la época de Schmitt, aunque Schmitt era muy consciente de la falsa jerga jurídica usada por el sistema judicial liberal. A pesar de su abierta simpatía por el nacionalsocialismo y el fascismo, merece la pena examinar la relevancia de sus artículos, especialmente a la hora de evaluar los actuales sistemas jurídicos de los EE.UU. y la UE dentro del marco del derecho internacional. En uno de sus artículos que lleva el laudatorio título de “El Estado nacionalsocialista es un Estado justo” Schmitt escribe: “La existencia de un ‘Rechtsstaat’ [es decir, Estado de derecho] depende de la propiedad específica que uno atribuya a una palabra tan ambigua y también hasta qué punto un Rechtsstaat puede considerarse como un Estado justo. El liberalismo del siglo XIX atribuyó a este término un significado específico convirtiendo al Rechtsstaat en un arma política en su lucha contra el Estado. Quien utilice tal expresión debe explicar exactamente lo que entiende por ella y en qué se diferencia su Rechtsstaat del Rechsstaat liberal, así como en el qué es su Rechtsstaat nacionalsocialista o cualquier otro tipo de Rechtsstaat” [II].

Dado el uso excesivo y generalizado del término “Estado de derecho” no debe sorprendernos que este término hoy en día apenas si resulte creíble. “En este sentido”, escribe Schmitt, “el liberalismo se ha esforzado indiscriminadamente durante el último siglo por demostrar que todo Estado no liberal, ya sea una monarquía absoluta, un Estado fascista, un Estado nacional-socialista o bolchevique, es un Estado que no es regido por la ley (Nicht-Rechtsstaat), o como un Estado injusto o sin ley (Unrechtsstaat)” [III]. Además, el Sistema Liberal, como señalan incansablemente sus partidarios, establece una construcción social de dos niveles que promueve una división tajante entre el aparato estatal y la persona privada. El supuesto subyacente es que tal división puede prevenir mejor el surgimiento de un Estado poderoso y de un líder dictatorial. El Estado liberal, según los teóricos liberales, debe funcionar únicamente como un “vigilante nocturno” ocasional, sin interferir nunca en la esfera privada del individuo: “Esta naturaleza bifronte explica el típico marco constitucional del Rechtsstaat burgués. Los derechos y libertades fundamentales garantizados por el Estado liberal-democrático y su sistema constitucional son esencialmente los derechos de la persona privada. Sólo por esta razón [esos derechos] pueden considerarse ‘apolíticos’. El Estado liberal y el marco constitucional se basan en un contraste simple y directo entre el Estado y la persona privada. Sólo sobre la base de este contraste es natural y merece la pena esforzarse por crear todo el edificio de protecciones y facilidades legales con el fin de proteger a una persona privada que se encuentra indefensa, desvalida y aislada del poderoso Leviatán del ‘Estado’. Sólo para la protección de un individuo desvalido tiene sentido la mayoría de estas medidas de protección legal del llamado Recthsstaat. Se pueden justificar con el argumento de que la protección frente al Estado debe modelarse cada vez más por medio de procedimientos judiciales e incluso en líneas generales con la participación de una autoridad judicial independiente del Estado” [IV]. La cita anterior sobre la autopercepción romántica del sistema liberal es errónea. Cabría plantearse la siguiente pregunta: ¿es cierto, como afirman los teóricos liberales, que la división entre la sociedad civil y el Estado puede garantizar mejor las libertades individuales y proteger mejor a los ciudadanos particulares de las decisiones arbitrarias del Estado? Difícilmente. ¿Es cierto que los tan alabados controles y equilibrios liberales, incluida una separación tajante entre los poderes ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, pueden prevenir mejor las tentaciones totalitarias? Tampoco es cierto. La división tan alabada entre la esfera privada y la esfera pública es engañosa; más bien impide a los ciudadanos escapar del actual Estado de vigilancia liberal. Hay que subrayar una y otra vez que en el sistema liberal ya no es el Estado el que ejerce el control; en su lugar, este control es ahora ejercido por una infinidad de grupos de presión, ONGs, empresas de medios de comunicación y grupos de presión elitistas bien financiados que influyen en los ciudadanos a diario mientras utilizan a su antojo al Estado como cobertura legal. Schmitt analizó hace tiempo el impacto negativo de los grupos de presión no gubernamentales como contrapoder.

Sin embargo, todo esto se vuelve completamente absurdo cuando se aplica a asociaciones u organizaciones colectivas fuertes que conquistan esferas de libertad no gubernamentales, es decir, no políticas, y organizaciones no gubernamentales (pero que no son apolíticas) que quieren ejercer su autoridad sobre las personas privadas mientras que se enfrentan al Estado utilizando diversos títulos legales (pueblo, sociedad, burguesía libre, proletariado productivo, opinión pública, etc.). Estas asociaciones no gubernamentales que, como ya hemos dicho, son totalmente políticas, llegan a dominar a través de la legislatura tanto la voluntad del Estado (a través de la coerción social y del “derecho puramente privado”) como la voluntad del individuo al que convierten en sujeto mediático. “Son estos grupos los verdaderos responsables de la política y quienes manipulan los resortes del poder estatal” [V]. ¿Acaso todo esto no nos suena familiar? Lo que ahora se denomina sarcásticamente Estado profundo ya había sido anticipado por Schmitt, aunque este término no existía en su tiempo. En sus críticas a la Constitución liberal de Weimar, los nacionalistas alemanes introdujeron y popularizaron en toda Europa el término das System, un concepto que fácilmente podría designar al actual Estado profundo liberal. Sin duda, en un Sistema Liberal en el que el poder está descentralizado, denominado en el mundo académico como “reparto del poder”, un ciudadano disidente sólo puede fantasear con derrocar a su respectivo gobierno por la fuerza atacando al Estado. A primera vista esto puede parecer como un medio para proteger la libertad dentro del Sistema Liberal. No obstante, la naturaleza atomizada del poder y su dispersión al interior del Liberalismo, resultado de sus famosas políticas de controles y equilibrios, conduce inevitablemente a una desconfianza y odio mutuo entre los ciudadanos, causando que la línea que separa a la víctima del culpable desaparezca gradualmente. El difunto Claude Polin, que fue uno de los mejores observadores de las contradicciones liberales, plantea una pregunta inquietante: “¿Cómo es posible que se tema el ejercicio del poder de un único rey y no se tema aún más el ejercicio de poder de millones de pequeños reyes?” [VI].

Cientos de reyezuelos no gubernamentales y cientos de agencias privadas en los Estados Unidos y la UE, incluidos decenas de grupos de presión étnicos, cada uno de ellos haciendo gala a menudo de un extraño victimismo y cada uno de ellos controlando su propio territorio, tienen sus propios métodos de represión contra las voces disidentes. Sin duda, la mayoría de las ONGs de los Estados Unidos y la UE no ocultan su profunda aversión hacia un Estado fuerte y se apresuran a denunciar cualquier signo de populismo en la burocracia gubernamental.  No obstante, ninguna de ellas se priva del ejercicio de sus propias políticas represivas contra otros grupos marginados, al tiempo que piden al Estado generosas subvenciones. La ADL, SPLC en los EE.UU., docenas de fundaciones antifas y transgénero, incluyendo instituciones judías y cristianas financiadas por el gobierno de la UE, al igual que el Crif, LICRA o la Amadeu Antonio Stiftung operan de forma muy similar a los antiguos comisariados populares locales soviéticos. Todas ellas dan por sentado, sin embargo, que tienen derecho a un trozo del gobierno, es decir, del pastel de los contribuyentes. En nombre de la abstracta “tolerancia” y del “Estado de derecho” todos ellos consideran que su deber democrático y legal es espiar y denunciar a sus conciudadanos críticos con los dogmas judiciales del liberalismo. La democracia liberal posmoderna, aunque presume de ser el mejor de los mundos, recuerda cada vez más al surgimiento de los primeros Estados medievales. El Sistema Liberal, es decir, el Estado profundo que actualmente existe en los Estados Unidos y la UE, el cual es básicamente un sistema oligárquico, no cayó de la luna, ni está formado por bandas monolíticas de ladrones y conspiradores autodeclarados que están empeñados en subvertir el Estado. El sistema liberal de Occidente no es más que el resultado lógico de diferentes grupos, a menudo enfrentados entre sí, que voluntariamente – y a veces sin saberlo, como es el caso de los grupos religiosos cristianos que promueven políticas liberales para los refugiados – trabajan a favor de la descomposición social, racial y nacional del Estado y de su pueblo, un rasgo inherente a la propia dinámica del (mal) llamado Estado de derecho liberal.

Notas:

[I] T. Sunic, “Historical Dynamics of Liberalism: From Total Market to Total State? “, The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 13, no. 4, (Winter 1988), p. 455.

[II] C.  Schmitt, „Fünf Leitsätze für die Rechtspraxis“ en Deutsches Recht, 3, Nr. 7 (1933), S. 201–202, reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2021), p.56. (También: https://archive.org/details/carl-schmitt-gesammelte-schriften-1933-1936)

[III] C. Schmitt, Der Rechtsstaat, públicado por primera vez en Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935, S. 24–32) y reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.286-287.

[IV] C. Schmitt, „Die Verfassungslage Deutschlands“ en Preußische Justiz – Rechtspflege und Rechtspolitik, Nr. 42, 5. Oktober 1933, pp. 479–482, reimpreso en Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936, p.74.

[V] Ibid, p. 75-76.

[VI] Claude Polin, “Pluralisme ou Guerre civile?” Catholica (invierno, 2005–06), p. 16.

[warningsine]

NEW YORK, May 9 (Reuters) - Donald Trump sexually abused magazine writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her by branding her a liar, jurors decided on Tuesday and awarded her $5 million in damages.

The former U.S. president, campaigning to retake the White House in 2024, will appeal, said his spokesman Steven Cheung. Trump will not have to pay so long as the case is on appeal.

Carroll, 79, testified during the civil trial that Trump, 76, raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in either 1995 or 1996, then harmed her reputation by writing in an October 2022 post on his Truth Social platform that her claims were a "complete con job," "a hoax" and "a lie."

Carroll held hands with her lawyers as the verdict was read.

She left the courthouse with her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, smiling and wearing sunglasses, and entered a car without speaking to reporters.

The nine-member jury in Manhattan federal court awarded $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Although the finding of sexual abuse was enough to establish Trump's liability for battery, the jury did not find that he raped her.

The jury deliberated for just under three hours before rejecting Trump's denial that he assaulted Carroll. To find him liable, the jury of six men and three women was required to reach a unanimous verdict.

Trump was absent throughout the trial which began on April 25. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump called the verdict a "disgrace" and said, "I have absolutely no idea who this woman is."

'CORE PRO-TRUMP VOTERS ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE'

President from 2017 to 2021, Trump is the front-runner in opinion polls for the Republican presidential nomination and has shown an uncanny ability to weather controversies that might sink other politicians.

It seems unlikely in America's polarized political climate that the civil verdict will have an impact on Trump's core supporters, who view his legal woes as part of a concerted effort by opponents to undermine him.

"The folks that are anti-Trump are going to remain that way, the core pro-Trump voters are not going to change, and the ambivalent ones I just don’t think are going to be moved by this type of thing," said Charlie Gerow, a Republican strategist in Pennsylvania.

Any negative impact is likely to be small and limited to suburban women and moderate Republicans, Gerow said.

Trump has cited the Carroll trial in campaign fundraising emails as evidence of what he portrays as a Democratic plot to damage him politically.

His poll numbers improved after he was charged in New York in March with falsifying business records over a hush money payment to a porn star before his victory in the 2016 presidential election.

That indictment, filed in New York state court, made him the first U.S. president past or present to be criminally charged. Trump has pleaded not guilty and said the charges are politically motivated.

Lis Smith, a Democratic strategist, said it remained to be seen whether the verdict in Carroll's case would make Trump "unpalatable" to Republican voters beyond his base, prompting them to coalesce around another candidate.

Jurors were tasked with deciding whether Trump raped, sexually abused or forcibly touched Carroll, any one of which would satisfy her claim of battery. They were separately asked if Trump defamed Carroll.

Because this was a civil case, Trump faces no criminal consequences and, as such, there was never a threat of prison.

Trump's legal team opted not to present a defense, gambling that jurors would find that Carroll had failed to make a persuasive case.

Trump had said Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist and a registered Democrat, made up the allegations to try to increase sales of her 2019 memoir and to hurt him politically.

The trial featured testimony from two women who said Trump sexually assaulted them decades ago.

Former People magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff told jurors that Trump cornered her at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida in 2005 and forcibly kissed her for a “few minutes” until a butler interrupted the alleged assault. Another woman, Jessica Leeds, testified that Trump kissed her, groped her and put his hand up her skirt on a flight in 1979.

Jurors also heard excerpts from a 2005 "Access Hollywood" video in which Trump says women let him "grab 'em by the pussy."

"Historically, that's true, with stars ... if you look over the last million years," Trump said in an October 2022 video deposition played in court. He has repeatedly denied allegations of sexual misconduct.

Kaplan, Carroll's lawyer, told jurors during closing arguments on Monday that the 2005 video was proof that Trump had assaulted Carroll and other women.

JURORS ANONYMOUS AT JUDGE'S REQUEST

The federal trial, presided over by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll's lawyer, began on April 25. Citing the uniqueness of a civil case against a former president, the judge decided that the names, addresses and places of employment of the jurors would be kept secret.

Carroll testified that she bumped into Trump at Bergdorf's while he was shopping for a gift for another woman. Carroll said she agreed to help Trump pick out a gift and the two looked at lingerie before he coaxed her into a dressing room, slammed her head into a wall and raped her. Carroll testified she could not remember the precise date or year the alleged rape occurred.

Carroll faced questions from Trump's legal team attacking the plausibility of her account including why she had never reported the matter to police or screamed during the alleged incident.

Two of Carroll's friends said that she told them about the alleged rape at the time but swore them to secrecy because she feared that Trump would use his fame and wealth to retaliate against her if she came forward.

Carroll told jurors she decided to break her silence in 2017 after rape allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein prompted scores of women to come forward with accounts of sexual violence by powerful men. She went public with her account while Trump was still president.

She said Trump's public denials wrecked her career and instigated a campaign of vicious online harassment by his supporters including various threatening messages and social media posts.

While Trump did not testify at the trial, a video clip from the October 2022 deposition showed him mistaking Carroll for one of his former wives in a black-and-white photo among several people at an event.

"It's Marla," Trump said in the deposition, referring to his second wife Marla Maples. Previously Trump had said he could not have raped Carroll because she was "not my type."

[kcyars99]

From Tish James, Roberta Kaplan, and Fanni Willis....it seems women are the only ones capable of making orange juice out of this tangerine colored cat.....men should take notice and "grow a pair"🤔

[adventuresinclientservice]

What's better: convincing a publisher to issue your book, or going your own way?

I just exchanged messages with copywriter-turned-novelist friend-of- longstanding Kim about getting her novel published.  Her manuscript is 190,000 words long – mercifully shorter than War And Peace’s 587,000 words, but daunting nonetheless – making it problematic to find a commercial publisher willing to assume the expense of issuing her book, along with the attendant risk.

Kim knows just how difficult this will be, as do I, recently confirmed by Louis Menand in his New Yorker story “Remainders,” where he writes about just how challenging it is for publishers to offer books people actually want to buy, pointing out,

“two-thirds of the books released by the top-ten trade publishers sell fewer than a thousand copies, and less than four per cent sell more than twenty thousand.”

A couple of years back I wrote that The Art of Client Service passed the 20,000 copies-sold sales mark.  As of last month, make that 24,000-plus copies and counting, putting me in elite company, better than the 96% of authors, most of whom are nowhere close to achieving that number. 

How many published books are there?  Menand actually supplies the number:

“Today, something like three million books are published every year, including self-published e-books that are available only on digital platforms.”

Among this veritable publishing tsunami, Amazon serves as the dominant player, constituting, “more than half of all book purchases in the United States and offering, “something like thirty million different print titles.”

What this tells us is the vast majority of books are perishable; they have a sales-blip moment and then all but disappear.  In comparison, even after eight-plus years, Art endures and copies still sell; why is that?

Menand has a theory:  “Most books are used, not read.” 

That might be it.  With its short, fast-reading chapters and “How To” guidance, The Art of Client Service is designed to be a reference resource, something to turn to when advice on crafting a proposal, presentation, or Creative Brief is needed.   

In working first with Dearborn Press, then Kaplan, and now John Wiley & Sons, I’ve learned what is the hard truth about commercial publishers:  unless your name is Michael Lewis, Malcolm Gladwell, or Jennifer Egan, your publisher, no matter how committed to your book, will perform more like printers and distributors than publishers, expecting you, as author, to shoulder the heavy load of promoting and selling what you’ve written. 

Fiction is but a fraction of the total books published in the U.S. – estimates range from just 30% to 40% -- making Kim’s mission to find an agent then a publisher rife with potential failure.   Would it make sense, then, to simply self-publish, sidestepping the disappointment of one-too-many a rejection letter?

When Roberta and I self-published Brain Surgery for Suits almost 25 years ago, the task was complicated.  Find a book designer.  Find a printer.  Find a book distributor.  Register an ISBN number with the Library of Congress.  The list of tasks seemingly is endless.

These days, self-publishing is vastly easier, with several companies offering to do much of the work for you, Amazon, Xlibris, and iUniverse among dozens of other worthy candidates.  If the cost of printing is a barrier, then do an e-book and avoid that expense.

I’ve written a couple of times before about the challenge facing writers striving to find their way into print – first here, then here -- so I am a realist when it comes to what Kim and other writers confront.  This perhaps explains why so many people say they, “ want to write and publish a book,” when so few actually do.

Kim did an extraordinary job, just finishing what is a mammoth undertaking, but in truth -- assuming it finds its way onto print as a self-published effort or with a commercial publisher – an even bigger challenge awaits:  promoting it.

We’ll save that discussion for a later day.

[antonjesus]

Edith Windsor and Roberta Kaplan: From Overturning DOMA to Kim Davis | T...