‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation

[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.

He displayed similar wording in the full page ad he took out years ago which was also defamation and not a mistake in a stressful situation.

[Anonymous]

We now know the true facts of the case, that they were falsely convicted and incarcerated, and that years later they were exonerated given DNA evidence match to the REAL criminal.

Trump has access to those facts and has zero reason to lie and defame. But he lied and defamed them. I hope they crush him in their suit.

[Anonymous]

They did plead guilty. That is not a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They did plead guilty. That is not a lie.

Retracting this one pled guilty to a different crime and the others were found guilty in a court of law.

[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.

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.

People are allowed to think people are guilty. Look at the entire OJ media circus. This is about the actual false statements and whether the court can prove those were maliciously said rather than mistakes on stage (for example, one pled guilty but not to this specific charge etc). Defamation cases are historically difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They did plead guilty. That is not a lie.

No they did not. Yes it is.

[Anonymous]

The Central Park Five were exonerated. They are not felons.

But Trump is.

[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.

This. He misspoke. He meant they admitted to their crime, which involved a woman being raped and beaten nearly to death. He misspoke and said they pled guilty and someone was killed.

[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.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

[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.

This. He misspoke. He meant they admitted to their crime, which involved a woman being raped and beaten nearly to death. He misspoke and said they pled guilty and someone was killed.

You can’t call it misspeaking in the moment when he’s been lying about this for decades.

[Anonymous]

They will need to prove material harm. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

"I just held her arms down."

[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.

This. He misspoke. He meant they admitted to their crime, which involved a woman being raped and beaten nearly to death. He misspoke and said they pled guilty and someone was killed.

One of them confessed before the cops even knew about the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. He misspoke. He meant they admitted to their crime, which involved a woman being raped and beaten nearly to death. He misspoke and said they pled guilty and someone was killed.

One of them confessed before the cops even knew about the crime.

Who? And what did he confess to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

Their "confessions" were coerced through hours and hours of aggressive police questioning, during which they were denied access to legal counsel - but even then their confessions made no sense, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, were inconsistent from each others' "confessions," were inconsistent with the victims' statements. They were railroaded.