E. Jean Carroll Smacks Back At Trump Over Payment Delay In Blistering Letter To Court

E. Jean Carroll and her attorney Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan smacked back at former President Donald Trump’s attempt to delay payment of his defamation judgment in a blistering letter to the court torpedoing Alina Habba’s legal argument.

Kaplan led the team that hit Trump with a bombshell $83.3 million judgment for defaming Carroll while he was president — while Habba represented the losing side.

Now, Habba and Trump are trying to have a stay placed on that judgment pending post-trial motions that include trying to reduce or eliminate that judgment.

One argument Habba made in her filing was to cite a case in which a court said “requirement of a bond would be inappropriate … where the defendant’s ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste of money.”

In a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan Monday, Carroll’s attorney shredded that argument and pointed out that “Trump offers no alternative means other than his own unsubstantiated say so that he will have $83.3 million available” to pay following his appeals:

Dear Judge Kaplan:

We write in brief response to Defendant Donald J. Trump’s reply memorandum in support of his motion to stay execution of the judgment, ECF 306, where he (incorrectly) claims that we mischaracterized Second Circuit law concerning Rule 62(b), id. at 1. Specifically, Trump points to In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, where the Second Circuit stayed enforcement of the judgment “without the posting of a bond or other condition.” 783 F.3d 414, 417 (2d Cir. 2015). But the Second Circuit did so only because the defendant Nassau County, a governmental entity, had affirmatively “demonstrated the existence of appropriated funds, available for the purpose of paying judgments without substantial delay or other difficulty.” Id. at 418 (citation omitted).

This is fully consistent with our position: “to secure relief from the normal requirement of posting a bond, the requesting party must offer some ‘alternative means,’ the whole point of which is to make sure the appellee will be made whole in the event she succeeds on appeal.” ECF 303 at 3. In Nassau, those alternative means consisted of a dedicated and readily collectible governmental appropriation; here, in stark contrast, Trump offers no alternative means other than his own unsubstantiated say so that he will have $83.3 million available when Carroll prevails on appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Roberta A. Kaplan

The judge issued an electronic order Monday noting, perhaps testily, that “A decision will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible. Without implying what that decision will be or when it will be made, however, it will not come today.”

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com