Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Lawsuit - Jeffery Epstein Donald Trump V Jane Doe




Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym, brings this action against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, and alleges that:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in and a citizen of the State of California.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein each reside in this District and are citizens of the State of New York.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4. Defendants are citizens of the State of New York for purposes of diversity  jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
5. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

6. Defendants are each subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as both defendants are residents of and/or are domiciled in this district and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
7. Plaintiff was subject to acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and threats of death and/or serious bodily injury by the Defendants that took place at several parties during the summer months of 1994. The parties were held by Defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Epstein at 9 E. 71st St. in Manhattan. During this period, Plaintiff was a minor of age 13 and was legally incapable under New York law of consenting to sexual intercourse and the other sexual contacts detailed herein. NY Penal L § 130.05(3)(a). The rapes in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual misconduct; criminal sexual acts in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual abuse in the first, second, and third degrees; and forcible touching (and, on information and belief, predatory sexual assault) detailed herein are unlawful under New York law, e.g., NY Penal L § 130.20-130.52, and 130.55-130.65 (and, on information and belief, 130.95) and constitute the torts of, inter alia, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, including threats of force and serious bodily harm, under New York law. Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Doe, Exhibit A hereto; Declaration of Tiffany Doe, Exhibit B hereto. Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe are each pseudonyms as each woman wishes anonymity. Tiffany Doe, a witness, was an employee of Defendant Epstein. Exh. B.
8. Courts have discretion to allow proceeding anonymously where the need for
privacy outweighs the public’s interest in knowing their identity and any prejudice to the
defendants.
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). This litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature, and identification of Plaintiff would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others. Exh. A. All of the ten factors that the Second Circuit articulated as relevant to this analysis favor anonymity, especially factors 1-4, 7, and 10 (e.g., factors one and two: “whether the litigation involves matters that are ‘highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature,’” and “’whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the ... party [seeking to proceed anonymously] or even more critically, to innocent non-parties’”.), or are neutral with respect to anonymity. Protecting Plaintiff’s anonymity is also appropriate as she is a rape victim.
New York, (10/28/02), and knew that Plaintiff was then just 13 years old. Exhs. A and B.
10. Defendant Trump initiated sexual contact with Plaintiff at four different parties. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied Plaintiff to a bed, exposed himself to Plaintiff, and then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but with no effect. Defendant Trump responded to
Plaintiff’s pleas by violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted. Exhs. A and B.

11. Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened Plaintiff that, were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse of her by Defendant Trump, Plaintiff and her family would be physically harmed if not killed. Exhs. A and B.

12. Defendant Epstein had sexual contact with Plaintiff at two of the parties. The second sexual encounter with Defendant Epstein took place after Plaintiff had been raped by Defendant Trump. Defendant Epstein forced himself upon Plaintiff and proceeded to rape her anally and vaginally despite her loud pleas to stop. Defendant Epstein then attempted to strike Plaintiff about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff that he, Defendant Epstein, rather than Defendant Trump, should have been the one who took Plaintiff’s virginity, before Plaintiff finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein. Exhs. A and B.
9. Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of parties, with other similarly situated minor females, held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At least four of the parties were attended by Defendant Trump. Exhs. A and B. On information and belief, by this time in 1994, Defendant Trump had known Defendant Epstein for seven years (
13. The threats of violence against Plaintiff and her family continued, this time from Defendant Epstein, who again reiterated that Plaintiff was not to reveal any of the details of his sexual and physical abuse of her or else, specifically, Plaintiff and her family would be seriously  physically harmed, if not killed. Exhs. A and B.
14. While still under threats of physical harm by coming forward and having no reason to believe that the threats have ever been lifted or would ever be lifted, Plaintiff, who has suffered from stress, emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, among other problems, ever since the assaults, was subjected to daily painful reminders of the horrific acts of one of the  perpetrators, Defendant Trump, via mass media coverage of him starting on or about June 16, 2015 that, over a short period of time, became continuous and unavoidable. Exh. A.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by Defendants upon her, Plaintiff has suffered stress, emotional distress, and mental pain and suffering, as well as adverse physical consequences.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by Defendants upon her, Plaintiff has suffered physical pain and suffering.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by Defendants upon her, Plaintiff has been subjected to public scorn, hatred, and ridicule and has suffered threats against her life and physical safety.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by Defendants upon her, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medical and legal expenses.

19.The sexual assaults and rapes perpetrated by Defendants upon Plaintiff were intentional acts.
20.
The conduct of Defendants demonstrates willful, reckless and intentional conduct that raises a conscious indifference to consequences.

21. At the appropriate time in this litigation, Plaintiff shall amend her complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages against Defendants in order to punish Defendants for their actions and to deter Defendants from repeating their conduct.
TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

22. Any statute of limitations applicable to rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment of a minor, if any, is tolled owing to the continuous and active duress imposed upon Plaintiff by Defendants that effectively robbed Plaintiff of her free will to commence legal action until the present time.
Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 722 (2nd Cir.1987);
 Ross v. United States, 574 F. Supp. 536, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). More  particularly, Plaintiff was unrelentingly threatened by each Defendant that, were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse caused to her by Defendants, Plaintiff and her family would be physically harmed if not killed. The duress has not terminated and the fear has not subsided. The duress is an element of or inherent in the underlying causes of action complained of herein. The duress and coercion exerted by Defendants has been such as to have actually deprived Plaintiff of her freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time, and it rose to such a level that a person of reasonable firmness in Plaintiff's situation would have been unable to resist. Exhs. A and B.

23. Both Defendants let Plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats. Indeed, Defendant Trump stated that Plaintiff
shouldn’t ever say anything if she didn’t want to disappear like Maria, a 12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with Defendant Trump and that Plaintiff had not seen since that third incident, and that he was capable of having her whole family killed. Exhs. A and B.

24. The duress had prevented Plaintiff from starting litigation before this year. However, as soon as she surfaced, she received threats. More specifically, shortly after her first complaint was filed in California on April 26, 2016, she started receiving threatening phone calls on her cell phone. Exh. A.

25. Defendants are equitably estopped from arguing that any statute of limitations has not been tolled as Defendants wrongfully forced Plaintiff to refrain from timely commencing this action by threats, duress, and other misconduct.

Exhs. A and B.

26. Moreover, this action has been brought before the facts giving rise to the estoppel have ceased to be operational (i.e., while still under threats of physical harm by coming forward and having no reason to believe that the threats have ever been lifted or would ever be lifted) and since Plaintiff has decided to seek redress at this time, Plaintiff seeks an order of protection in favor of Plaintiff and all associated with her so as to protect them from harm and harassment from Defendants and their agents and associates. Exh. A.
DEFAMATION
27. On information and belief, on or about April 28, 2016, Defendant Trump  provided the following statement to American Media, Inc. and/or Radar Online LLC for
 publication on at least their website RadarOnline.com regarding Plaintiff’s complaint
ED CV 16-797-DMG (KSx) filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California:
“The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly
framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There is
absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

 The statement provided for publication by Defendant Trump was published by said website and has been republished elsewhere in whole or in part numerous times (and similar statements of an attorney for Defendant Trump were also  published). The statement provided for publication by Defendant Trump and that was published  by said websites is false as it pertains to Plaintiff.

28. The published statement is libelous on its face, and clearly exposes Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy.

29. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, Plaintiff has suffered loss of her reputation, shame, mortification, and injury to her feelings, all to her damage in an amount to be established by proof at trial.

30. The above-described publication was not privileged because it was published by Defendant Trump with malice, hatred and ill will toward Plaintiff and the desire to injure her.

31. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendant Trump’s defamation of Plaintiff , Plaintiff has been subjected to public scorn, hatred, and ridicule and has suffered other injury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE
Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and for the following  relief:

A. That judgment be entered against Defendants for special damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages in an amount which shall be shown to be reasonable and just by the evidence and in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs;
B. That all costs of this action be assessed against Defendants, including all

reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses of this action
C. That an order of protection in favor of Plaintiff and all associated with her be issued so as to protect them from harm and harassment from Defendants and their agents and associates; and

D. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues properly triable by jury in this action. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 20, 2016 By: /

 s/ Thomas Francis Meagher

 Thomas Francis Meagher SDNY Bar Code TM6707 One Palmer Square Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Telephone: (609) 558-1500 tmeagher@thomasfmeagheresq.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF



Monday, July 8, 2019

#AD - Filthy Rich: The Billionaire's Sex Scandal - The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein

 
Filthy Rich: The Billionaire's Sex Scandal - The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein
 

2017

Review

About the Author



News - "Jeffrey Epstein: How Donald Trump is Linked to Financier Arrested for Sex Trafficking Minors"

Newsweek
07/08/2019

A multimillionaire with political connections that run deep and reach back several decades was charged Monday in New York with sex trafficking charges involving minors, according to an unsealed indictment.

Jeffrey Epstein, a 66-year-old registered sex offender, was arrested over the weekend for sex trafficking crimes—which involved "dozens of minor girls," according to the indictment—from 2002 to 2005 in New York and Florida.

"In order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, Epstein also paid certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by Epstein," the indictment continued. "In this way, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit."

The new criminal charges against Epstein, which include offering "hundreds of dollars in cash" to women and minors in exchange for massages and sexual acts, now have the potential to expose damning information about high-profile political figures from both parties with whom Epstein once reportedly had ties to.

In recent months, Epstein and the Trump administration have come under scrutiny after the Miami Herald revealed he received a controversial and secret plea deal from federal prosecutors in 2007 involving similar sexual crimes with minors. Trump's current Labor Department Secretary, Alex Acosta, at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and was reportedly involved in negotiating the deal.

But his accrual of wealth throughout the past decades has led Epstein to interact with the likes of public and political figures such as President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Harvard professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. They have been alleged to be connected to either Epstein or his victims in some fashion.

"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump told New York magazine in 2002. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

According to court documents that were part of lawsuits, Epstein was once a member of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida—but was later barred by Trump for allegedly sexually assaulting an underage girl at the exclusive club. The two men ate dinner at one another's homes and Trump flew on Epstein's private airplane.

Despite the praise of Epstein by Trump and the social interactions, a Trump attorney has denied the two men were friends or had a relationship. He told reporters over the weekend that he did not "know anything about" Epstein's alleged arrest.

Federal prosecutors reportedly shelved a 53-page indictment against Epstein and the deal offered under Acosta's leadership resulted in him avoiding federal charges. Epstein instead pleaded guilty to the state charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution. He served 13 months in a Florida prison with reportedly wide-ranging discretion to come and go for work each day.

It was a non-prosecution deal that Geoffrey Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said on Monday does not apply to the federal charges that his office has brought against Epstein. He described the new allegations against Epstein as conduct that "shocks the conscience."

"While the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, it is still profoundly important to the many alleged victims now young women," Berman said during a news conference. "They deserve their day in court."

The Justice Department in February told Republican Senator Ben Sasse in a letter that it had opened an investigation into "allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved" in Florida.

Jeffrey Epstein's close ties to Political figures 


From left, American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife) Melania Trump, former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000. (Photo by Davidoff Studios/Getty Images) Photo by Davidoff Studios/Getty

News - "Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein accused of paying girls as young as 14 for sex"

**Editor's Note - Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were both named in a Jane Joe rape case concerning an underage girl."






























Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Lawsuit - Katie Johnson V Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein

**Note from Editor: In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in "custody with work release." The decision in the case has remained a controversial one due to it's leniency.

Snopes and Scribd









Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

  • Published 23 June 2016

In late April 2016, rumors began to circulate online holding that Republican presidential Donald Trump had either been sued over, or arrested for, raping a teenaged girl. One of the earliest versions of the rumor was published on 2 May 2016 by the Winning Democrats web site, which reported that woman using the name Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump back in 1994 (when Johnson was just 13 years old):
The first major scandal to hit the Trump campaign besides the typical “what a racist, such a sexist, yada yada yada,” came from a lawsuit stemming from the infamous sex parties held by billionaire and known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The woman named in the suit is Katie Johnson, who says Trump took her virginity in 1994 when she was only 13 and being held by Epstein as a slave. 
Johnson says in the complaint that Trump and Epstein threatened her and her family with bodily harm if she didn’t comply with all of their disgusting demands. The Trump campaign has been on this immediately, calling it absolute nonsense and not even remotely true or possible.
Many aggregated reports cited a 28 April 2016 article that described the circumstances under which the lawsuit had been filed:
Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is fighting what could be the biggest election season bombshell yet — explosive court claims that he raped a woman when she was a teen.
The woman — identified as Katie Johnson — filed documents in a California court on April 26, accusing Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein of “sexual abuse under threat of harm” and “conspiracy to deprive civil rights,” RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.
She filed the lawsuit herself — without legal representation — and is suing for $100 million.
A copy of the California lawsuit (filed on 26 April 2016) shared via the Scribd web site outlined the allegations, which included the accusation that Trump and Epstein had (over 20 years earlier) “sexually and physically” abused the then 13-year-old plaintiff and forced her “to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts” — including being “forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump’s erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm,” and being “forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe, age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump” — after luring her to a “series of underage sex parties” by promising her “money and a modeling career”:

According to RadarOnline’s initial reporting, the lawsuit filed in California on 26 April 2016 was dismissed over technical filing errors (the address listed in court documents was a foreclosed home that has been vacant since its owner died), with the plaintiff failing in her attempt to avoid incurring the cost of the litigation:
A judge recommended on April 29 that “Katie Johnson” should have to pay her own attorneys’ fees and court costs related to the $100 million lawsuit she brought against Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein over alleged sexual assault charges. Then on May 2, a U.S. District judge ordered the entire lawsuit thrown out. 
“Johnson” had previously filed forms asking to be let off the hook for the costs of the lawsuit, claiming she had only $300 to her name … such an allowance — known as in forma paupers — is only given in civil rights cases in California, and the judge ruled that she “failed to state a claim for relief” on a civil rights basis, even though she “utilized the form provided by the Central District of California for civil actions.” 
“Even construing the … pleading liberally, Plaintiff has not alleged any race-based or class-based animus against her, and consequently, her … allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the judge wrote … the address listed on the paperwork leads to an abandoned property, and the phone number goes straight to voicemail.
For his part, Trump asserted that the charges were “not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” adding that “There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

On 20 June 2016, New York City-based blog Gothamist reported that the plaintiff had refiled a similar complaint in a New York State federal court:
A federal lawsuit filed in New York accuses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl more than 20 years ago, at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein. 
The suit, first reported by the Real Deal, accuses Trump and Epstein of luring the anonymous plaintiff and other young women to four parties at Epstein’s so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Epstein allegedly lured the plaintiff, identified in the suit only as Jane Doe, with promises of a modeling career and cash. 
Another anonymous woman, identified in additional testimony as Tiffany Doe, corroborates Jane’s allegations, testifying that she met Epstein at Port Authority, where he hired her to recruit other young girls for his parties. Trump had known Epstein for seven years in 1994 when he attended the parties at Wexner, according to the suit. He also allegedly knew that the plaintiff was 13 years old. 
Jane Doe filed a similar suit in California in April, under the name Katie Johnson, also accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. That suit was dismissed on the grounds of improper paperwork — the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned. Today’s suit confirms that the plaintiffs are one and the same.
The online outlet that first reported the second filing in New York explained that the lawsuit might be allowed to proceed even though the statute of limitations for bringing suit has expired, because (according to plaintiff’s lawyer) the plaintiff lacked the “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time” due to her having been threatened by Trump:
It should be noted that anyone can file a civil complaint in federal court. The statute of limitations in New York for civil rape cases is five years, but [the] complaint argues that the time limit should be waived, noting that the plaintiff was too frightened to report the abuse because Trump had threatened that if she did “her family would be physically harmed if not killed.” 
“Both defendants let plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats,” the complaint claims.
A copy of the New York-based suit was also uploaded to Scribd, and in the second filing (which asked for no specific amount of monetary damages) the plaintiff was represented by Thomas Francis Meagher, a New Jersey patent lawyer who learned of her allegations via an article published on the GossipExtra web site advertising that she was “shopping for an attorney.” In a statement attached to her filing, the plaintiff (aka “Jane Doe”) asserted:
I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending. 
The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old. 
Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,
Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.

The filing also included a statement from “Tiffany Doe” (i.e., the woman referenced in plaintiff’s statement above who brought her to the parties) attesting that:
I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.
I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.
It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.
A video reportedly featuring “Katie Johnson” (her identity hidden through the use of facial pixillation, a long blonde wig, and an electronic voice distorter) appeared online, in which she graphically described giving Donald Trump a hand job and being raped by him:




 
There is little doubt that Donald Trump knows Jeffrey Epstein, as Trump acknowledged in a 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein:
Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
Epstein has been named in multiple similar lawsuits over the last several years, served 13 months in jail, and is registered as a sex offender for life:
Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has paid another accuser.
The 56-year-old money manager has quietly settled with Jane Doe 102, an unnamed woman who alleged in federal court in Florida that Epstein had induced her to “serve his every sexual whim” from the time she was 15 until she was 19. The woman also claimed Epstein had flown her around the world, paying her “to be sexually exploited by [his friends] … including royalty, politicians, academicians [and] businessmen.” 
Epstein flatly denied those charges. But a source close to the financier confirms “the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.” The woman’s lawyer, Robert Josefsberg, wouldn’t say how much she’s getting. Epstein had in the past offered accusers a minimum of $150,000. 
Epstein has settled at least two other civil suits but still faces more than a dozen from women who claim he sexually abused them as minors at his Palm Beach mansion.
As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her. She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn’t show up, claiming that threats to her life kept her away. She reportedly dropped the lawsuit again on 4 November 2016 for the same reason.
A status conference for the lawsuit was scheduled to be held on 16 December 2016.

Opinion - "Why advice columnist E. Jean Carroll refuses to say Donald Trump raped her"

KCRW
Hosted by



E. Jean Carroll.Photo courtesy of E. Jean Carroll.
 
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is the latest woman to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct. She is among at least 22 other women to do so. She is accusing him of raping her in the mid-90s in a department store dressing room, although she does not use the word “rape.”

Trump has denied these allegations. He even denies that he’s ever met her, although there is a photograph of them together.

He’s also accused her of fabricating the story to sell her new book “What do we need men for? A modest proposal.” 

For her book, Carroll compiled a list of 21 hideous men in her life who have abused her in some way --  the list goes back to when she was five years old. 

I think a lot of women from my era, I'm a member of the silent generation, have experienced far worse than me. First of all I'm talking about it. Many women don't remember that far back. They don't remember when they're five. You know men have been preying on little girls since probably the beginning of time. And it's one of the reasons why I want to get rid of men. Really.” 

Carroll was married to television personality John Johnson in the ‘80s and he is also on the list. In her book she describes him as physically abusive, saying he repeatedly strangled her. However, she does not consider herself a victim of domestic abuse.

“I can't see it because my whole philosophy is chin up, move on. If I had to sit down and think seriously for 30 seconds about what was done to me I would never ever leave the house. I don't see myself as a victim, I see myself as a fighter.” 

That’s why, she says, she does not see what happened with Donald Trump as rape.

She says they ran into each other in Bergdorf Goodman and he asked her to give him advice on what to buy for a girl. They headed to the lingerie department and ended up in a dressing room. He pushed her against the wall, pulled down her stockings, unzipped his pants and inserted himself into her. 

Well it was a fight. He definitely hurt me. It was definitely against my will. But I saw it as me contending with him. And I ended it. I got up very fast.”

She also says she thinks it was partly her fault. 

I don't think a woman should go into a closed room with a man she really doesn't know. I mean you know it was an adventure for me. I was gonna have a great story that I could dine out on. I understand why I did it but it was just not smart.” 

In her book, Carroll writes that she was not traumatized by this event. But she also says that she has never had sex after that. 

“There is a chance that my desire for desire has been killed. But there is a stronger chance because of my age, I was 52 at the time and now I'm 76, I just haven't met anybody, that's a stronger possibility.

I have met lots of great guys and I have had flings, which is you know dating with nothing really serious and no sexual desire. But you know what, maybe I’ll meet somebody his week the old flame will burst out again. Who knows?”
---Written and produced by Alex Tryggvadottir


Cover art for "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal. Courtesy of E. Jean Carroll. 

Opinion - "New Rape Claim Proves That Women Are Worthless in Trump’s America"

Daily Beast
06/25/2019

This is not a media criticism issue. It’s about the public officials we vest with great power who aren’t doing anything more than issuing statements, if that.
 
 
opinion
Eva Deitch for The Washington Post via Getty

Temple Taggart McDowell. Cassandra Searles. Jennifer Murphy. Natasha Stoynoff. Mindy McGillivray. Jessica Leeds. Rachel Crooks. Lisa Boyne. Kristin Anderson. Cathy Heller. Karena Virginia. Jessica Drake. Ninni Laaksonen. Juliet Huddy. Tasha Dixon. Jane Does 1, 2, 3, and so on.
A steadfast belief in white people’s right to be innocent until proven guilty in this country has resulted in a system in which rape is a nearly consequence-free offense, particularly for anyone rich enough to throw money at their problems. The nature of sexual crimes means they are almost always witnessed exclusively by the perpetrator and the victim. Even in cases where there is evidence, it is easy enough to claim that a woman who is anything less than a nun in a full habit “asked for it.”

A credibly accused rapist has sat in the White House, flexing a controlling, if often incompetent, hand over the country for 28 months. Most of those accusations surfaced before he won election. They continued to come out after he stepped into the Oval Office, claiming that space as his own with the same derision and spite with which he entered the dressing rooms of naked teenage beauty pageant contestants. He has stood on the White House lawn in ill-fitting suits, sneering and slouching and defending the reputations of men in his employ who were accused of violently abusing women.

There are no content warnings on stories about the United States President. No italicized editor’s note at the top, warning readers that they’ll have to read the name of a credibly accused sexual predator over and over. TV and radio hosts provide no warning before they play clips of his grating, oily voice. There is no concern for the woman whose vision might blur when she hears that voice as she’s driving to work, who will suddenly feel short of breath, who will reach wildly for the dial, desperate to get away from that reminder of this country’s most fundamental truth: Women are worthless in America.

Too dramatic? I disagree. How else should we interpret the fact that this nation elected to its highest office a man who has been accused of rape by this many women? What else should we take away from the inaction in response to these allegations by the entities supposedly meant to check and balance government powers? Why is it OK for members of Congress to simply carry on?

This is not a media criticism issue. What is the media supposed to write this week? Another Woman Details Rape By U.S. President. You’re mad that the New York Times didn’t find an A1 space to follow a book excerpt run in another outlet, or that executive editor Dean Baquet eventually conceded that the paper of record underplayed the story?

I’m mad that the people whose salaries we pay don’t have to answer a single fucking question about what the fuck they’re doing about it. If Congress does not have the power to launch an investigation, to hold hearings for these women, then tell us that. Tell us that you are impotent by design, instead of by choice.

Don’t tap dance around the truth. Don’t call it “those actions” (Julian Castro), “the charges” (Bill de Blasio), “all of this” (Eric Swalwell), “these allegations” (John Delaney), “it” (Andrew Yang), or even “serious allegations” (Kamala Harris) or “very serious charges” (Tim Ryan). It’s not enough. It’s not enough to say there “aren’t any real surprises” (Elizabeth Warren). Calling what Trump is—again—charged with doing “sexual misconduct” (Cory Booker) or even “sexual assault” (Joe Biden) is not enough.

Call it what it is: rape.

Out of respect for the bravery of these traumatized women, and all of the women in this country who are re-traumatized every day that they have to hear his name after the word “president” or hear his voice on their morning commute or the nightly news while they’re making dinner, call it what it fucking is. And tell us what the fuck you’re going to do about it.

You are working with an accused rapist—many times accused. What are you doing about it?
You are not as powerless as we are. You have platforms that we, the people, have given you. Even if you don’t have the legal authority to take action against this person, you can at the very least tell us that you see and share our pain and frustration, and not be silent about it. And if you don’t, all you’re doing is showing us that you’re not fit for the office you hold.