| DOJ Lawyer
Couldn't Enter SDNY Courthouse In Jean
Carroll Case Now Wants Stay
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Dec 10 – In case of E. Jean
Carroll, argument on making
the US a defendant seemed set
to begin, back on October 21.
DOJ lawyer Stephen Terrell,
who asked to adjourn it since
he was barred from U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
courthouse due to Virginia
being on quarantine list,
called in. Inner City Press
live tweeted it, below.
On October
27, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
ruled, "the allegations have
no relationship to the
official business of the
United States. To conclude
otherwise would require the
Court to adopt a view that
virtually everything the
president does is within the
public interest by virtue of
his office. The government has
provided no support for that
theory, and the Court rejects
it as too
expansive. The
President of the United States
is not an "employee of the
Government" within the meaning
of the relevant statutes....
Accordingly, the motion to
substitute the United States
in place of President Trump
[Dkt. 3] is denied."
Now on December
10, Marc Kasowitz for Trump
has asked for a stay of all
proceedings, arguing that the
District Court is divested of
jurisdiction during the
appeals to the Second Circuit.
"Moreover, the district court
is divested of jurisdiction
even '[w]hen qualified
immunity is in issue' on
appeal," citing Garcia v.
Bloomberg, 11-cv-6957
(Rakoff).
Back on October
21, Judge Kaplan denied any
postponement, and noted he "is
not authorized to vary the
existing restrictions on entry
into the courtroom."
Judge Kaplan
begins: I had an application
to adjourn and I denied it.
What do you want to do?
US: We elect to
submit on the briefs, with no
argument.
Ms. Kaplan: Jean
drove some distance to be in
court today. This is
essentially a dispositive
motion....
Ms Kaplan:
There is no exception to
sovereign immunity for
intentional torts. We'd like a
chance to further brief.
Judge Kaplan: I
invoke the principle that new
arguments in a reply brief
will not be considered. Does
the US agree? US: Yes.
Judge Kaplan:
Matter is taken under
submission. I'm sorry so many
people were inconvenienced.
Adjourned.
The case is
(still) named Carroll
v. Trump, 20-cv-7311
(Kaplan).
Then:
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
