Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Punitive Damages VERDICT WATCH
We will have updates during the day and the verdict when it comes down
Oberlin College hit with maximum PUNITIVE DAMAGES (capped at $22 million by law) in Gibson’s Bakery case
Update 11:40 a.m. – Closing statements and jury instructions over. Jury starts deliberations.
In closing argument, Gibson’s lawyer Lee Plakas argued
“Why is the country watching you. Because the country agrees that what happened to the Gibsons should not happen to anyone, but could happen to everyone.”
” Colleges are watching us and you. Because they all know the way colleges are run will be affected, and by your decisions, they will be”
Plakas ended by reading to the jury the poem “For Whom the Bell Tolls” by John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Defense attorney Rachelle Kuznicki argued:
“We cannot change the past, we can learn from it.”
“This will impact people who had nothing to do with the protest …, it also means less students who are not able to afford a college education will be able to do so.”
EARLIER
When we get the punitive damages verdict later today, that’s all anyone is going to want to talk about.
So I wanted to slip in a couple of radio interviews I had with Lars Larson and Howie Carr about the case and the compensatory verdict.
[David Gibson and Allyn W. Gibson at trial][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
[Allyn W. Gibson at trial][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
[Meredith Raimondo at trial][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
[Attorney Lee Plakas at trial][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
Lars Larson
(You can listen here if player doesn’t load)
“The administrators at a lot of colleges are scared to death of the students. That if the administration had tried to argue, let’s take a wait and see, we don’t know all the fact yet, that the police are investigating, let’s not rush to judgment, guess what, they would have been accused of being racist, they would have been accused of being white supremacists and working within the white supremacist system, etc., etc., etc. So I think it’s a bad combination of factors, but they should have been the adults in the room… Instead, the Dean of Students according to witnesses was there with a bullhorn, and was there passing out flyers and helping students pass out flyers…. If all they had done is step back from it and let the students do what the students do, I don’t think there would have been any claim against them. But it was that active participation, or at least they alleged active participation, and the jury obviously believed that, that led to the liability.”
Howie Carr
You can listen here or below.
We will update this post if there are any developments during this morning or afternoon. And will have a separate Verdict post as soon as it happens.
—————–
NOTE: Our trial coverage is a project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation. Your support helps make this type of coverage possible.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Professor, when we flip the script and it’s one or two kids bringing their Bible to school or saying a silent prayer before lunch, the schools claim they are not separate enough from “religion” and makes them liable. How is it that the school could not be held liable for simply staying out of it and letting the students do “what they are gonna do”?
I’m confused. Are you equating saying a prayer at lunch with shoplifting from and assaulting a shop owner? If not, I don’t see any parallel with this case. Ditto for allowing peaceful exercise of 1st amendment rights vs encouraging and participating in the assault (and there is really no other word) on Gibson’s.
I think the parallel with this case would be if the students peacefully praying were attacked by the other students and the school cheered them on.
Hopefully that’s not what you are saying, but it’s not clear to me what your argument is. What would the school be held liable for?
Prof. J has pointed out repeatedly here and in interviews the law suit did not start by the actions by the students in of itself. The origin of their boycott was legally litigated prior to lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed by the actions of the college administration by their ACTS and STATEMENTS via “aiding and abetting” students by administrators towards the Gibson owners and their business as being racists. Gibson’s lawsuit also focused on administration actions of extorting an agreement to not prosecute students found robbing in their store in exchange for re-establishing a business relationship. Gibson’s refused this offer requesting only a public statement from the college stating the Gibson business and owners were not racists, were never racists contrary to actions by them and direct support of the students of which they made the error in early judgement to support racists allegations.
This is the case which has been presented to the court by the lawyers for Gibson Bakery and the Gibson’s as individuals.
I’m pretty sure what he’s saying is that when it comes to a student exercising their 1A rights related to religion, a complainant will often make it as if the student simply exercising their own rights in, say, the school library is an ‘entanglement’. That’s enough to make the school responsible for “forcing” religion on the rest of the school. (While sanity prevails, this is mostly unsuccessful.)
Then he’s comparing it to this, where the school has made as if they had absolutely no impact on (no ‘entanglement’ with) the students, whatsoever. And he’s saying that’s a double standard.
I think it’s perfectly human behavior (we love double standards for ourselves).
I’ll again defer to Prof. J.
Herein is posted his interview with Lars Larson.
Listen at least to the last 4 min. of Dr. J. explaining why this point you are attempting to pull into the Oberlin case is not relevant.
https://oberlinreview.org/13751/opinions/college-should-prioritize-healthy-working-environment-over-free-speech/ In terms of “flipping the script” this struck me as hilarious. This is their newspaper justifying not allowing speakers on campus because words trigger students. Now they are justifying literally shutting down a “working environment” as free speech.
I have a question.
Obviously, regardless of the outcome on punitive damages, Oberlin College will file an appeal. Yesterday, the submission of the College appears to have been based upon the poor financial state of their institution. Basically, they “cried poor”.
Fine.
My question is, given that, is there a provision in Ohio Civil Procedure allowing the Respondents on Appeal to move for “Security for Costs”? In other words, if Oberlin is soooo poor, there is a good chance they might not be able to pay the Respondents’ costs of the appeal if they (Oberlin) lose. In such situations, in some jurisdictions the Appellant can be required to post security for costs before being allowed to pursue the appeal. I know Oberlin has a large endowment, but if they are going to cry poor, it would be “schadenfreudish” to see those words be applied back on them.
If Oberlin is as “Poor” as they claim, shouldn’t the judge be notifying the Educational Accreditation board of Oberlin’s status?
Should someone else be demanding an Accreditation review based on Oberlin’s open court admitted dire financial situation?
As far as “Security for Costs” goes, I think Gibson’s could slap a lien on the Central Administration Building if they had to. Maybe sell it at public auction.
“Gibsons is still intact. That man is delusional. Take him to the infirmary.” Chernobyl could have not arrived on the screen at a better time. “It’s for the bambinos” OK, that reference was a bit more obscure, but I either kill time on the keyboard or have that third cup of coffee at the mochahut, and that never ends well.
Its been reported that the endowment has $1b – However, the endowment may not be reachable in judgment since it was not sued and since it is not owned by the school. As with most endowments, it is a separate legal entity.
Really!? Then if it can’t pay its judgment, close the school and fire all those Jacobins running it, and sell off the campus and restart it with some decent people running it.
I’m hoping for a $22M salvo across the bow. Go Gibson’s!
Prof. Jacobson, have you reviewed Oberlin’s Student Conduct and Community Standards, “The Oberlin College Code of Conduct is designed to create an environment that is conducive to excellence within and outside of the classroom”? [https://www.oberlin.edu/dean-of-students/student-conduct]
All Oberlin had to do was follow the protocol and hold students accountable–free speech does not permit slander or libel.
Excellence is now a diversity buzzword, typically paired with Equity. “Equity and Excellence”. As usual with these captured buzzwords (“gay” for example), it now means closer to the opposite of its original meaning.
President Carmen Twillie Ambar took the stand on Wednesday and claimed, “We’ve created deficits…that (course) is unsustainable…” “Only 10% of students pay the full $70K tuition per year,” the rest all get handouts. A punitive finding of $22 m — she suggests — would harm those students who get a handout. Well, too bad. maybe if they were PAYING for their education, they would not have so much free time to harass old bakery owners and engage in SJW nonsense. PUNITIVE means punishing. That’s what they deserve.
My question regarding the students getting the handouts: how many are taking real majors?
out of 60+ majors, there are only 7-8 majors that would lend themselves to any job skills.
Oberlin’s “engineering ” major is actually a pre-engineering major – essentially equivilant to a junior college
The students can transfer to another college or university. They are not stuck there. There is the problem of whether any sane school would take them, but insane ones still abound.
OC still feels they are so special.
$70,000? According to the college, you could buy the entire value of Gibson’s for a semester’s worth of tuition.
We need to see Admissions fixed, before we should have an interest in continuing to subsidize their admits.
They should admit decent, intelligent human beings. Maybe some farm kids from Ohio and Indiana. Embrace kids who’ve done 4-H rather than counting it against them. Bring kids to campus who will respect and even like the community.
Punitive damages may help them see the need to do this. They surely don’t want to, so they have to be induced.
So I got in despite being in 4-H! Can’t remember if I listed being a graduate of the OARDC sheep shearing school on my application. Dang, I was diverse even before I knew what it was.
Isn’t it telling that President Ambar related how the students would be effected and not that she might be forced to let go of the 3rd
Assistant to the Regional Vice Chairman of the Department of Diversity Redundancy Department. All of the students graduating with degrees in Gender Fluidity studies know that they will always be able to find a job in the insular world of academics rather than face reality. Perhaps the true ideal college would be one with only staff and support personnel and none of those pesky students which brought on all this trouble to begin with.
Hopefully $22 million and a Gibson’s pie in the face to all the perps.
No. I am led to understand that Gibson’s offers up really nice baked goods. That would be wasteful and a sin. A face full of Little Debbie snack cakes, or, ‘Bama snack pies, maybe, but not a perfectly good pie!
Last week, I was in Northern Ohio and stopped in to patronize their establishment. While not a statistically large sample size, I can say that their work product is too good to waste on University administrators.
I figured as much. I plan on a little getaway road trip this summer, and if I am anywhere near there, I plan to stop in. That is, unless the troublemakers decide to burn the place to the ground.
I was so happy to see your piece in WSJ as you are the only one who has kept us informed.
Thanks
When I attended in the late 70’s I think the total costs were in the 6-7000 range. In 40 years it has gone up 10-fold, hence Krislov’s inability to provide a suitable answer as to “why.” It was always such a joy to go ask my depression era/WWII vet dad for a check. 😉 I lived in a temporary triple at first and both of my roommates were from families who paid in full. I am surprised to hear that only 10% are paying the full price. That tells me that their charges are totally out of bounds, or that someone else has stepped in to pick up the tab (temporarily) which, like health care, always leads to higher costs for those that pay for stuff themselves. When the consumer is insulated from the true cost, then the market readjusts to a higher amount that is still palatable to the consumer. As my old mentor at Hopkins put it, “if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free.” I bet their tuition and fees just skyrocketed during the Obummer years. They knew that an era of financial responsibility was going to arrive with Trump.
college costs in general began their rapid escalation when student loans became widely available, when tuition credits were added to the tax code, etc. those events happened in the late 80’s early 90’s .
You are correct that when the purchaser was isolated from the actual costs, then the seller was able to jack up the price without the normal constraintss associated with supply and demand.
In the latter half of the sixties, my TOTAL COST for a four year engineering degree from a California state college was around $10,000, including tuition, housing, books, and food. That was for all four years! Tuition was $20 per year. The huge stack of books for my first quarter of engineering cost $110 total. As a bonus, when I graduated, I actually had marketable skills! It’s a crime what the left has done to higher education.
$10K 1965 dollars are $80,000.00 2019 dollars. For 80K I can get an engineering education at a state school in NC.
Really not that much different.
In the early 60’s I was active in student government at a good sized public university in Southern California. As such I had a lot of involvement and interaction with the Dean of Students and an Assistant Dean of Students. I still think of them fondly. They were goodhearted and sensible people. Upright and honorable are two good words to describe them. I look at Meredith Raimondo and what she did and wonder how far standards have fallen.
She is incredibly ugly, inside and out.
Same here. I also was in student and student/faculty government. The Dean was in charge of discipline both on and off campus and was a sensible person who ensured a civil environment, and that did not include pampering shoplifters. Quite the opposite.
I have been privileged to join with many other commenters on this site who have followed this story for months. We have implored Heaven to guide, protect, and bless Plaintiffs and their defenders in and out of Court. Last Friday, we saw Heaven’s answer to our petitions in a glorious award fully justified by the law and facts.
Today, I urge you, my unseen friends and fellow patriots, to pray that the jury’s decision will follow the law and achieve JUSTICE.
Punitive damages, the jury will be instructed, have multiple salutary purposes, including:
1. Punishing a wrongdoer for malicious and unconscionable misbehavior.
2. Assuring that the wrongdoer, OBERLIN, not repeat its grievous misbehavior.
3. Making a public example of the wrongdoer so that future instances of malice and intentional disobedience to law by others will be curbed.
OBERLIN HAS NOT YET EVEN BEGUN TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS GUILT.
Thus, I urge all who read to ask God, a supreme being who is not only filled with love but WITH JUSTICE, to inspire the jury to AWARD THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES–not out of passion, hatred, or spite, but to ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF OHIO LAW.
FWIW – below is Th Witches bio at oberlin and rate my professor
https://www.oberlin.edu/meredith-raimondo
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=390667
She has really high ratings – which is reflection of both her and the student body that places such a high emphasis on worthless studies of diversity/gay/social justice.
Creating zero job skills bu great greivance skills
It’s pretty easy to get real good ratings if all you do is tell the little darlings how wonderful they are and how everything they want to believe will be true if only they wish hard enough. Oh, and everyone gets an “A+” as long as they chant in unison, and anyone who doesn’t gets kicked out of school.
I listened to the good Prof. on Lars Larson and I am wondering how much are the College Administrators acquiescing out of fear of the students as opposed to Activist Administrators and Activist Faculty playing the role of Pied Piper?
It seems that the student SJWs are indoctrinated and lead although sometimes running off leash of the Faculty and Administrators. In Fact, Meredith Raimondo said something to the effect of that if it would not be more damaging to Oberlin it would be her desire to let the students off leash.
Raimondo was the one that tried to blackmail Gibson’s Bakery into dropping the shoplifting charges, wasn’t She?
It would be great to hear another $22 million added onto the verdict along with a lengthy rebuke from the bench!
I think the basic idea was Raimondo was keeping things “under control” by participating in the protests and lending them full college support on the ground. By being seen to back the protests, the college made itself a smaller target, and sought to direct all of that negative energy outward (at the bakery).
Why this should mitigate damages is beyond me, mind you. Maximizing damage to the bakery minimized damage to the college from the student protests.
If you read the comments on her teaching, it appears that she didn’t maintain a proper professional relationship with the students–one of them said she was like a mother; another talked about how helpful she was outside the classroom. It looks to me like this is someone who forgot what her role was and decided being friends with the students was more appropriate.
Given that, I have no doubt that she had the ability to unleash the students, if she chose to do so.
The role seems to be the same as it ever was. Institutes of Education are there to provide countless high paying jobs to DNC elites & activists, faculty are to ensure constant income through Union Dues for DNC slush funds, teachers are to indoctrinate and utilize students for DNC & left-wing activist causes(protests, actions, etc).
Seems same ol’ same ol’ to me. I have been told there are exceptions.
She has her friends, and she has her enemies.
Gibson’s were her enemies.
Oberlin admitted every single one of those students. And under holistic admissions we’re assured that they assess character. Also such schools generally like to see activism.
Oberlin owns this through and through. If it were a straight-arrow trade school or an engineering college, we know this would not have happened.
Hey MajorWood, what year did you graduate? I was there 1979-1982.
75-79, 8 straight!
I received an out-of-office email from Meredith Raimondo …. and it was signed Meredith Raimondo (she/her/hers). WTF? What kind of politically correct CRAP is that? Seriously!
I am retired, was a VP of Operations for a high-tech company, and NEVER signed my letters (he/his/him). Oberlin claims to teach their students “life’s lessons”. Well here’s a lesson for any SJW snowflakes that make it out to the “real world” … do NOT sign your letters she/her/hers or he/his/him.
“What kind of politically correct CRAP is that?
The kind that hit the fan!
(it/its/it)
Not an “all campus” email, an “all alumni” (well, I was included 40 years later, so I am assuming all here) email.
At the rate they are going, they will lose the alumni over this as well.
Meredith the Monster has poisoned Oberlin… no doubt other universities will be clamoring for an opportunity to hire her as an inspirational speaker and lecturer.
Oberlin was already poisoned, without her efforts. Rather, Meredith Raimondo reflects the poisoned SJW culture at Oberlin. While Meredith Raimondo didn’t create the SJW culture at Oberlin, she definitely encouraged it.
During my junior year at Oberlin a camous-wide announcement was sent out stating that the following year’s tuition was being raised by about $2000. I think it was in the $4000 range and was going up to over $6000 because, and this is soooo ridiculous, Oberlin College needed to achieve parity with what the administration termed “Eastern selective schools” like Swarthmore. In other words, they charge more than us so if we charge the same amount we, too, can be an Eastern selective school. We students, witnesses to a lot of malarkey of the 60s and 70s, that it was cockamamie B’s.
Regarding Plakas’ closing statement where he reads John Donne’s epic poem, I would be interested in hearing what those here who are triggered by “feelings” feel about that. A great example of how the beauty of poetry is its ability to cut right through the verbage and get at “the truth” with the fewest words possible. Legal language may be written to convey a precisely legal meaning that takes a lawyer to understand and still have to argue in court over what it means.
Great poets are great because they can take all of us to the same place where we all agree. We don’t marvel at the precision of the language in a legal sense but because it evokes an obvious truth that gets wrapped in emotion knowing the truth was captured. The “ring of truth”.
So then, do “feelings” belong in a court process?
Not in initial judgement, but in the punitive phase.. somewhat for me. The college did inflict intentional pain and suffering. The goal was to bring Gibsons to heel with the agenda of the school and tolerate and absorb continued theft and loss of property to keep a business relationship with OC. That meant enduring illegal activity by students. Punishment is also emotional … so the poem does ring true especially when pointed at an academic institution that should know prose. Et tu Brute?
The Donne Assault strikes me as an very strong negative. Yuuge, even. If I’d been stuck in a jury box for days, forced to endure this entire ridiculous show, I’d be furious with anybody who’d drag it out even further with such lightweight dross. (This does not mean I’d take it out on his client; but it certainly doesn’t help anybody’s case.)
I want to see arguments and conclusions made with math. Can’t do the math? Fine, I’m resigned to never seeing such precision in court. So try plain English, and try to make it worthwhile.
Assaulting me with old verse means somebody has nothing better. Not good. With me it ain’t about the feelz, the vague implications, the allusions; it’s about the facts and the logic. I’ll make my best attempt at those, and I expect the attorneys to do the same.
““This will impact people who had nothing to do with the protest ,” says Oberlin defense attorny Rachel Kuznicki. WHERE ARE THEY? I never saw any news reports of students standing up for the Gibsons Not one. If they care so deeply about their free college stuff, they should care about justice. I don’t care if they lose their ticket on the gravy train.
The school is responsible for who its students are. It chooses them in the Admissions Office. If more checking is required to make sure the students have some minimum level of civility, then it’s the job of the Admissions Office to do that checking. The school is responsible for the character of the people it brings into Oberlin, as well as how it molds them once they are on campus.
Being afraid of one’s students is no excuse. They brought that on themselves and, worse, they let those students loose in the wider Oberlin, Ohio community.
It’s astounding to me that the Defense Attorney’s didn’t even try to argue that Punitive Damages weren’t justified here, because it was an honest mistake or something. Rather, their entire argument appears to have been “yeah, we know we deserve it but THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN????”
I have never seen – or even imagined – such a brain dead, pathetic argument made by supposedly intelligent, professional people.
Especially since looking out for the welfare of the college and its students is their job! They are saying “We endangered our own college and students, and we aren’t at all apologetic. But don’t punish us because it would hurt the students!” What gall!
When educators cry “It’s for/about the kids/children”, you know it’s for/about anything BUT the kids/children.
It’s the most self-serving and overused phrase when there are dollars on the table which will be taken out of or put into their pocket.
“This will impact people who had nothing to do with the protest …, it also means less students who are not able to afford a college education will be able to do so.”
How so? Does Oberlin know the financial status of POTENTIAL applicants?
Defense: “It also means less students who are not able to afford a college education will be able to do so.”
That is pure chutzpah for Oberlin’s attorney to claim that an applicant has only two choices- Oberlin or no post-secondary education. Instead, less financial support from Oberlin it means that some students will attend a less expensive college, most likely a public school, such as Ohio State or CCNY.
I suspect many of the jurors, after listening to the school’s administration, would think that result would be the best possible outcome for ‘the students’.
Note to super smart Defense attorney Rachelle Kuznicki: number of students is not expressed as “less students”. Students can only be enumerated by integers, their measurement is not continuous. Therefore you say, “fewer student”. Less is used when something can be measured continuously, like distance, water in a glass, etc.
Defense has had a difficult time getting much of what they have to present correct. Well matched with those who they represent.
Exactly! I noticed this, too. It really grates on me that a lawyer, of all people, representing what’s supposed to be one of America’s finest liberal arts colleges would not have a command of very basic high school grammar. It’s astounding. Four years of high school, four years of college, then three years of law school, and she doesn’t know the difference between “less” and “fewer.” This reflects very poorly on her, and on Oberlin.
“This will impact people who had nothing to do with the protest …, it also means less students who are not able to afford a college education will be able to do so.”
Not “a” college education, “your” college education. Plus I assess this “impact” as positive. The sooner students get out of your cesspool of insanity the better off they will be.
So defense attorney Kuznicki doesn’t know the difference between “less” and “fewer.” She deserves to lose.
Perhaps she was projecting. By admitting fewer students, they will need to admit lesser students. She just got ahead of herself a bit. Should I go ahead and apologize now if “herself” wasn’t the correct pronoun?
I know…it drives me crazy when people confuse the two.
Similar to further/farther.
It especially irks me when meteorologists say “further north”, how can they not know the difference?
From her law firm’s website:
Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. -Aristotle
Her grammar is certainly not excellent. In fact, it’s downright embarrassing.
Looks like Oberlin’s endowment has been benefiting from a little MAGA.
“Like most private liberal arts schools, the endowment is the financial cornerstone of the College. Nearly all of Oberlin’s 1,700 endowed funds are invested within the General Investment Pool. The College’s General Investment Pool was $887.0 million at June 30, 2018, versus $819.9 million at June 30, 2017, a $67.1 million increase.”
https://www.oberlin.edu/investment/assets
Whatever the rules and restrictions may be on accessing endowment funds, crying poverty probably won’t go over very well in Lorain County.
WORD SALAD FROM MS. RAIMANDO IN 2010….
‘ In highlighting the temporal and spatial intimacies underpinning individual, collective, and cultural processes of memory-making, and their supposed geographic xity, a growing interdisciplinary literature amongst queer and poststructural theory oers imaginative insights for the aective re-framing of collective memory (e.g., Ahmed 2004;Cvetkovich 2003;Halberstam 2005;Huyssen 2003;Sedgwick 2003;Gordon 1997;Muñoz 2009;Gilroy 2005;Stoler 2009;Freeman 2010;Raimondo 2010’
for this alone, add another mil
Defense attorney Rachelle Kuznicki argued:
“This will impact people who had nothing to do with the protest …, it also means less students who are not able to afford a college education will be able to do so.”
The proper adjective is FEWER (as they are countable) students, not LESS (amount) . . . Any Oberlin kid who with a 650+ on their English SAT’s would know that.
More importantly, now Oberlin (and other school administrators) know when it is/not appropriate to libel people and businesses for racism just because a few of their students cry for “social justice”. Lessons learned, one can hope.
If you had a grant to attend a $70,000/year college, and a group of your fellow students put that grant in jeopardy by staging a protest based on false accusations of racism, wouldn’t you be out in front of the cameras, defending the falsely accused? Where were the uninvolved little victims to whom Ms. Kuznicki is referring? I did not hear a peep out of them.
I use more few and less few for the comparatives.
Yee haw. The full monty. Thank you, jurors!
How’s this for a stellar job of reporting? http://www.chroniclet.com/cops-and-courts/2019/06/13/Gib.html
I am not sure of the law in Ohio. Here in Washington (the state, not the swamp) the loser in a civil case can file an appeal without posting a bond. If a judgment was awarded against the appellant the other party can proceed to enforce the judgment while the appeal is pending. The appellant can ask for an order staying enforcement of judgment by posting a bond in an amount covering the judgment, plus interest that will accrue during the appeal, plus attorney fees likely to be incurred. Denying the right to appeal is probably an unconstitutional violation of due process.