Donald Trump -- Case 1:16-CV-04642 US District Court Southern District of New York

[ancianita]

Donald Trump has a preliminary hearing on December 16, 2016 at 10 am in front of judge Ronnie Abrams at Manhattan Federal Court House. This is the second time he's been charged with rape -- this time against a 13 year-old child. Child Rape...Case 1:16-CV-04642 US District Court Southern District of New York.

This is not a Halloween hoax. http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/11/status-conference-in-trump-lawsuit/


Hillary Clinton has never been charged for ANY. THING. She is a Christian, grandmother, mother, wife, First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, a leader known and respected by at least half the planet.

[COLGATE4]

1. That would only be the case if Trump had been served

by the Plaintiffs. According to the docket, he has not yet even been served.

[ancianita]

5. Isn't the filing for a ruling of probable cause, and then he's served? Asking because I don't know.

Court dates are set for reasons other than the formal trial, and so I thought that's all this is, and I have no idea if it requires that Trump be served.

A probable cause ruling solidifies the complaint, I assume, or if there's no probable cause it's thrown out.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of Trump threatening to sue if it's thrown out.

[COLGATE4]

7. No ruling of probable cause. That issue (if it exists)

will be addressed by a Motion to Dismiss. If you look at the very bottom of the document you will see that it orders Plaintiff to serve the Defendants.

[ancianita]

9. Only saw the first page that requests a jury trial. Didn't see what you pointed out from the court.

Thanks for clearing my misunderstanding up.

[onenote]

3. Not a "preliminary hearing." Not "charged"

Preliminary hearings are typically held in criminal cases. And the term "charged" is typically used in criminal cases.

This isn't a criminal case. It's a civil case. Trump has been sued, not charged. And the event on December 16 is status conference for the lawyers, not a "preliminary hearing."

And while there may have been some other rape accusation leveled against Trump, the reference to this being the second time seems to be a reference that this same plaintiff previously filed a civil suit against Trump in a California court and had it thrown out for being procedurally defective.


I despise Trump and wouldn't be at all surprised if the plaintiff's allegations in this lawsuit are true. But it's not a criminal case and it's misleading to use criminal law terminology when discussing it.

[ancianita]

4. Thank you for the legal info. My intent wasn't to mislead; I assumed it was civil, and copied with

no attribute two lines from a tweet, thinking I'd check its context later.

I was posting to remind people that this is still a court case, as a response to the relentless amping up of Hillary's emails. Now I realize that every filing does not a case make.

I'd not done much research on this filing, but then as I ran across it, I didn't intend to be the expert; I was just hoping that others would add what they know. So thanks.

When I post discussions, I'm hoping to be corrected and challenged, and not control the course of the thread.

I'm curious about the procedural problem, wondering if it had to do with being filed in the wrong jurisdiction and maybe had to be transferred to New York. Another question: is a preliminary hearing the same as a probable cause hearing. I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure much of its context is confidential.

But I'm also not above wanting to see Trump squirm from any attention given to this case; yes, even if everyone is 'innocent until proven guilty.' The preponderance of circumstantial evidence seems ridiculous, particularly when the man cares not what kind of attention he gets over his prurient behavior.

[lovemydog]

6. Yes, this is a good place to learn a bit more.

A probable cause hearing is also used in criminal cases. To determine whether the State has proven a minimum threshold of probable cause that a crime actually occurred and the defendant committed the crime that is being charged. At a criminal trial there's a higher threshold for the State to prove guilt because you're talking about the State potentially taking away someone's liberty. There are different terms used because most criminal cases derive from State law. As in The People of _________ (that particular State) vs. the defendant. In criminal cases the burden in on the State (or federal government) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases are disputes between two parties. They usually involve money. First, damages must be proved. Generally the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the one suing, usually for monetary damages) to prove its case with a preponderance of evidence (think of it as 51% or more). Burdens can shift though, based on things like an affirmative defense (like a credible alibi or things of that nature).

What's going on in this case now involves procedural matters. They may involve jurisdiction, not sure because I haven't been following it. It's also possible, as you say, that it's not public information at this time. The case is not being tried or adjudicated. It appears that it's a lawyer's conference, a very early stage of civil litigation. The lawyers want to see some evidence but not tip their hands too much. They often first argue over procedural and jurisdictional questions that have nothing to with the heart of the case but everything to do with where it can be tried and whether it can proceed.

It's in the public's interest to try and get cases settled out of court because taxpayers pay for the courts. In most jurisdictions even after procedural issues are resolved judges can appoint someone to help settle the case out of court. In all likelihood if there's a settlement, both parties agree that the terms of the settlement cannot be publicly disclosed. Trump's lawyers would be fools to not try and get this case to go away either via getting it tossed on procedural or substantive grounds or settling it.

I hope this helps a bit.

[ancianita]

8. It does. Thank you.

[Jim Lane]

10. This December event is even more limited than you say.

You write:

The lawyers want to see some evidence but not tip their hands too much. They often first argue over procedural and jurisdictional questions that have nothing to with the heart of the case but everything to do with where it can be tried and whether it can proceed.

Typically, a preliminary conference in a civil case doesn't involve disclosing any evidence or even arguing jurisdiction. A defendant might make a "special appearance" to say "I'm here (in person or through my lawyer) to contest jurisdiction but I don't want you to get jurisdiction over me just because I'm in this state for that purpose." The judge would probably get an idea of what the jurisdictional issue is and either direct the defendant to make a formal motion to dismiss, or order any discovery (obtaining evidence) that might be relevant to the jurisdictional question. None of this will happen in Trump's case because, as a resident of New York, he's clearly subject to this court's jurisdiction.

A defendant's lawyers might also show up to say that the case is barred by the statute of limitations, but the judge wouldn't decide that at the preliminary conference, either. The defendant would have to make a motion, on papers, and the plaintiff would have the chance to respond.

What most commonly occurs at the preliminary conference is nothing substantive -- just the setting of a schedule for moving the case forward.

What's unusual about this case is that, last I heard, the plaintiff hadn't served Trump with the summons, which is a necessary step for the case to go forward. As of now, neither Trump nor his lawyer is obligated even to show up.