‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

First he had to pay E Jean Carroll for defaming her, and he was too stupid to shut up, so he kept having to pay her. And now he is going to have to pay for defaming these men.

[Anonymous]

Lawsuit is a good idea. I was annoyed with this when he said it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

He defamed them during the presidential debate which was a month ago.

Good. I hope they contact E. Jean Carrols lawyer who has been exponentially successful in suing Trump for defamation. I hope they get $1,000,000,000 verdict.

[Anonymous]

He will have Presidential immunity while in the office so they may have to wait a long time for a decision at the trial court level.

And then the appeals will take at least 5 to 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes. The black male internals must be dire.

This is so reckless. You know if the tables were turned you'd be all over it. The hypocrisy is staggering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

If only he had a racist history and had done something egregious in the past like taking out a full page ad in the New York Times… wait…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

[Anonymous]

Good. I hope they win bigly and defeat him so badly like never before, so that he goes down in defeat like a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Does not mater Trump is immune and above the law. He is king and his court will not abide him being held to the law.

His immunity only applies to official acts within scope of legitimate presidential duties while serving as president. There's a lot of stuff that he did while president that is NOT within scope of legitimate presidential duties (which Jack Smith is going after) and anything he did while NOT president (such as what he said about the Five a month ago) is also NOT covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

I’m not arguing the case with you. I’m arguing about how easy it will be to suggest it was done with reckless disregard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

It's not "in the fluster of a high powered debate" that he has said this. He has repeatedly said this in the past as well. He can't use it as cover, to say he mis-spoke, when he has repeatedly said they were guilty, the evidence is against them, the city shouldn't have settled with them, etc. He honestly believes that these men are guilty, although a serial rapist has confessed to the crime. The "East Side Rapist" was already serving 33 to life sentence for raping three women near Central Park, in addition to raping and killing a pregnant woman, when he confessed. His DNA matched what was found at the crime scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will have Presidential immunity while in the office so they may have to wait a long time for a decision at the trial court level.

And then the appeals will take at least 5 to 10 years.

This is civil case. SCOTUS is fine with civil cases proceeding against a sitting president.