Doesn’t this violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution? A person cannot be tried for something that was not a crime when the act was committed. And, even if it was a crime, aren’t they subject to the laws at the time the crime was allegedly committed?
Edit: This “look back” law is a thinly veiled extension of the statute of limitations. Changes to statute of limitations are subject to the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution. But, to my knowledge President Trump’s team never argued this.
I think they were going for a much larger objective; demonstrating we no longer have properly functioning civilian courts.
An old Supreme Court case from 1798 (Calder v. Bull) held that the Ex Post Facto Clause only apply to criminal, not civil cases. While we may think the outcome was outrageously criminal, the issue was a civil lawsuit.
Thank you, I wasn’t aware of that. The problem here is the State is clearly using the civil courts as a criminal court proxy. The Letitia James case is in civil court because she knows it would never make it through criminal court.
The Carrol case is similar in nature, look at the first trial where the jury actually issued a verdict regarding if a rape took place.
I’m in no way a legal scholar, but it seems to me when civil courts are meting out punishment in the way of punitive damages they are acting as a de facto criminal proceeding.
Doesn’t this violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution? A person cannot be tried for something that was not a crime when the act was committed. And, even if it was a crime, aren’t they subject to the laws at the time the crime was allegedly committed?
Edit: This “look back” law is a thinly veiled extension of the statute of limitations. Changes to statute of limitations are subject to the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution. But, to my knowledge President Trump’s team never argued this.
I think they were going for a much larger objective; demonstrating we no longer have properly functioning civilian courts.
An old Supreme Court case from 1798 (Calder v. Bull) held that the Ex Post Facto Clause only apply to criminal, not civil cases. While we may think the outcome was outrageously criminal, the issue was a civil lawsuit.
Thank you, I wasn’t aware of that. The problem here is the State is clearly using the civil courts as a criminal court proxy. The Letitia James case is in civil court because she knows it would never make it through criminal court.
The Carrol case is similar in nature, look at the first trial where the jury actually issued a verdict regarding if a rape took place.
I’m in no way a legal scholar, but it seems to me when civil courts are meting out punishment in the way of punitive damages they are acting as a de facto criminal proceeding.
i ALWAYS love the replies that some bring to the table concerning the Law of OUR Land and you have elucidated quite well what I have been thinking...
Thank you for such a succinct reply and Case...
This was about her sueing him because he "defamed" her.... Not about the "rape"... That she fantasized about...
But, if the original event never happened and it was past the statute of limitations anyway, how can there be defamation?
Bingo.
She defamed him
Yes. It's the old inversion game.