2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe December Trump Rape Trial Hearing....
Last edited Sun Oct 16, 2016, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)
ON EDIT....WAS GOING TO SELF-DELETE - BUT LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION
PROVIDED IN RESPONSE.
Lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of raping 13-year-old girl gets December hearing
What? Was October 14th (remembered since it was my birthday) now December.
Wonder what Trump has on.....
Manhattan Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 16.
The woman has alleged the GOP presidential candidate and billionaire perv Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her at a series of sex parties that Epstein threw in 1994.
Sound familiar? Trump's lawyer
“It is wholly without merit. It is a completely manufactured claim. The entire thing is a hoax designed to discredit my client and interfere with the election.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lawsuit-accusing-trump-raping-girl-13-december-hearing-article-1.2828413
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512450945
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)Judge Abrams (who also happens to be the sister of LawNewz.com founder Dan Abrams) has called for a status conference hearing on December 16, 2016 (well after the election) at 11:30 am at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She’s asked for both sides to provide information that could assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial.
Her order is embedded below.
http://bit.ly/2ekYW6B
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the conference to be pushed back, according to the federal court docket:
An initial pretrial conference is presently scheduled for September 9, 2016 in this action. Plaintiff, however, has not yet filed affidavits of service confirming that Defendants have been served with copies of the summons and complaint. In order to allow Plaintiff the full amount of time authorized by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to serve Defendants and to allow Defendants the full amount of time authorized by Rule 12(a) to respond to the complaint in advance of the initial pretrial conference, the conference shall be adjourned until October 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Initial Conference set for 10/14/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ronnie Abrams.
The conference is scheduled to take place in Courtroom 1506 at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York City.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/donald-trump-child-rape-sex-assault-federal-lawsuit-next-court-date-october-14-new-york-victim-judge/
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)The second lawsuit filing wasn't ever served. Then it was withdrawn, with permission of the court, and later refiled for a 3rd time -- with an additional witness affidavit. So it got a new date after the lawsuit was filed for the third time.
(The first time she filed it by herself in California and it got tossed out on technicalities.)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The first complaint was fine.
You don't need to state whether or not there are corroborating witnesses in a civil complaint. That all comes later. All that is needed for a civil complaint is to allege facts such that, if they were true, it would constitute the claim. Witnesses, evidence... all of that stuff... is important as a case proceeds, but alleging a "corroborating witness" in a civil complaint doesn't make it any more or less adequate as a civil complaint.
If you hit me with your car, I could file a perfectly fine complaint with:
1. PNWMOM hit me with her car.
2. I suffered a broken arm as a result of her hitting me with the car.
3. I have suffered additional financial and physical injuries.
4. I ask the court to award me damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Now, I might have ten witnesses, but for the purpose of filing a complaint, it makes no difference whatsoever.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)than the second. I didn't say that the second complaint was inadequate.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,191 posts)Besides, I don't think we want to set a precedent that we expect presidential candidates to be dealing with lawsuits during their campaigns.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'll check the docket again later, but you are basically correct.
This is a Jane Doe suit with a Jane Doe witness that has been filed, and not served.
The date for the initial status hearing - which is a perfunctory and automatic date set when you file a suit, and to which NO party needs to appear - keeps getting sold on the internet as "RAPE TRIAL IN DECEMBER" for the apparent purpose of confusing people who don't know jack shit about how lawsuits work.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Johnson’s first lawsuit was thrown out in California due to filing errors, including an invalid address and phone number, which would make sense if, as she claimed, Trump was threatening her life and that of her family. She also tried to file it herself. With the help of an attorney, she filed a new suit in a New York federal court in June of 2016.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/302073/all-trump-rape-allegations-cable-news-wont-talk-about/
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)She withdrew and re-filed because she now has TWO witnesses. One was a classmate she told about what happened back around the time it happened and the other person was an actual witness who saw what happened as they were employed by Epstein.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)out there. Wish the media would cover.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This lawsuit is bait.
I will now re-write a shorter version of the longer essay which I have posted a couple of times now.
When you file a civil suit, you can say all sorts of things about someone and be immune from a defamation claim. This immunity extends to papers filed in court for the purpose of the court proceeding.
HOWEVER, that immunity does not extend to a newspaper taking the same claims and publishing them in a paper. Even though the court document is a public record, and the person making the claims IN the lawsuit is immune from action for defamation, anyone who re-publishes the information is NOT immune from those claims.
So, in a situation where a paper might at all be interested in publishing claims of a plaintiff - claims which have not even been served on the defendant and which the defendant has had no opportunity to answer - what is the paper to do in this instance? The plaintiff and witnesses are Jane Doe, so the paper cannot even rely on an identified source.
What irritates me is that there is SO MUCH sourced and documented information about Donald Trump, that it strikes me almost as if someone would like Hillary supporters to go chasing shadows of speculation, rather than what we ALREADY KNOW about this guy.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)You are correct that the media has to be extremely careful in reporting it because none of them have publicly come forward. Now IF this victim or the witness who saw it happen came forward publicly THEN the media could run with it. I think that if Trump tries to pull something else like he did before the last debate that this victim may come forward.
Here is the updated filing documents:
https://www.scribd.com/document/326057027/Amended-Complaint-Filed-9-30-2016
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I posted the recent docket entries in this thread.
Thus far, the only things that have happened are:
Status check set for December - this is a perfunctory thing that doesn't involve the parties.
Denial of application for a Florida attorney to get in on the case because they didn't follow a simple rule.
Summonses issued and not served.
If Sept. 30 is "new", then so be it, but there is no "news" in this case, nor will there be until well after the election.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)IF the victim chooses to go public then the media can and will report that there IS a case pending. The only reason they aren't reporting that now is because they can't corroborate anything if they don't know the identity of the victim and witnesses.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)However, you will find many posts on DU claiming it is a "media blackout" or, as with the OP here suggesting Trump is in cahoots with the courts, some other nefarious conspiracy.
As you point out, there are sound reasons for no screaming press coverage of this filing, but tin foil hatters can't help themselves.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)That's really the point you are trying to make. You're coming across as being quite frustrated that people don't understand that so you are slipping some snark into your replies. I might do the same if I had been here long enough to answer the same thing many times.
People just know how crucial it is to stop Trump and how dangerous he is. This accusation is serious enough where it may get some of his supporters to snap out of it, and that is why there is frustration that it's not being reported so people know about it.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)After adding two witnesses and it looks like Lisa Bloom and Cheney Mason have joined the legal team.
I suspect that this case is going to hit the mainstream media soon.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)In a suit which has not even been served?
Seriously?
The status check date is automatically set by the docketing system.
The only purpose of a status conference is for the judge to check if the suit has been served and, if not, some judges will prod the plaintiff to serve it before the 120 day limit. If it has been served, then the parties will discuss proposed deadlines for preliminary motions, discovery and trial. In that district, trial would be sometime in early 2018 at best.
What is it you think the press should be reporting on this thing?
Cakes488
(874 posts)I'm not sure why you couldn't of just explained it and you should of omitted your dash of condescending Esquire Jberryhill
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Yes, don't know the intricacies of the trial process. BUT, I don't think I have to to question why the initial beginning of the process conveniently got delayed until after the election.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Like the "Laser Haas Incredible Action to Lock Up Romney", I occasionally get a little tired of posting the same fact check, when this thing is on DU just about every damned day.
I apologize, but, seriously, this thing will follow its course and there is nothing substantive to report about it at this time nor will there be for a while.
Cakes488
(874 posts)It's good to be me...I'm free from that problem... 
Just kidding!!! I'm not THAT dumb...or else I'd be a Trashpot follower 
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)information for voters to know - that a candidate has been accused of rape. Yet no one is mentioning. Thank god for NYDN
My point is that somehow the hearing date moved from Sept to Oct to Dec after election. Why/how - gotta be a story there.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The original lawsuit, which had its status check for October, was withdrawn by the plaintiff. It ceases to be. It exists no more. There were no "front page headlines" screaming "Lawsuit Withdrawn!"
It has been re-filed as a new action. The automatic status date is in December.
If you want, for $350, you can make an anonymous accusation against anyone, file it in a court, and it will get a hearing date.
Again, this case has not even been served on the defendant, so there is no objective indication it is going anywhere.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You used to not wear tinfoil.
The suggestion that Trump somehow got the court to move the date is comparable to the conspiracy crap peddled by the other side.
Your question in the subject line assumes a fact that you simply made up - i.e. that Trump got the hearing moved. It is an objectively false assertion, and while the other side traffics in that sort of thing, our side tends not to.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As you know there are things which occur during elections which are offered up as "bait".
Quit frankly, what Trump himself admits, and the corroborating accounts of identified persons, are enough for any person to determine what sort of person this Trump is.
There have been multiple posts on DU and elsewhere to the effect that Trump is facing some kind of imminent "rape trial" in December, premised on what is a perfunctory scheduling order for a status check that no actual party will attend.
These reports infuriate me because they are (a) wrong, and (b) involve anonymous accusations that no newspaper is going to print.
Running around saying "Trump is going to trial for rape in December" is taking the bait and distorted accounts of what, exactly, is going on in this civil filing, when there are so many undeniable things which are already and proven and true about the miserable creature the GOP nominated.
It annoys me because it is almost a daily occurrence here with this story. It is, of course, not a reflection on the high esteem I have for you.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)me.
Many of us have already wrongly reached a conclusion on this. Way before he has received due process.
Thanks for reminding us JB !!!!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)or are you assuming it hasn't been served (like it wasn't last time)?
The thing that makes me think there might be something substantive here is that the attorney in New Jersey is a reputable guy (though in intellectual law, an unrelated field). And I wouldn't think the Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, would want his name used for a completely bogus case.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm eating lunch at the moment and will check it for a while.
I posted the docket a couple of days ago.
Mason fucked up the basic pro hac vice application.
Just because you've seen a lawyer on TV who was involved in a criminal defense means absolutely nothing about their acumen in representing a plaintiff in a civil case.
UPDATE ON EDIT:
I just checked the live docket. This actually costs me money to do. But because I'm such a raging asshole, apparently, here you go:
10/04/2016 5[RECAP] ORDER AND NOTICE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 12/16/2016 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 1506, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Ronnie Abrams. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 10/4/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
10/07/2016 6 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Donald J. Trump, re: 4[RECAP] Complaint. Document filed by Jane Doe. (Meagher, Thomas) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
10/07/2016 7 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Jeffrey E. Epstein, re: 4[RECAP] Complaint. Document filed by Jane Doe. (Meagher, Thomas) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
10/10/2016 8[RECAP] FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jane Doe.(Mason, James) Modified on 10/11/2016 (wb). (Entered: 10/10/2016)
10/10/2016 9 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - AFFIDAVIT of United States District Court Middle District of Florida and The Florida Bar in Support re: 8[RECAP] MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by Jane Doe. (Mason, James) Modified on 10/11/2016 (wb). (Entered: 10/10/2016)
10/11/2016 >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 8[RECAP] MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from Supreme Court of Florida; missing Proposed Order;. Re-file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/12/2016 10[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Donald J. Trump. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
10/12/2016 11[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Jeffrey E. Epstein. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
----------------
So, no. No return of service. No action since setting the hearing date on the 4th and REJECTING Mason's application on the 11th.
I've done pro hac in that district. Like any district, you have to submit a recent certificate of good standing. It is a basic rule and it is the same everywhere. If Wonderlawyer Mason doesn't know that, he is an idiot.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)he'd want to attach his name to a bogus case.
And the attorney from Princeton is someone respected by lawyers in his town. It's hard to understand why he would have gotten involved if it was a fake case that would never go further.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)One of these days, I should write a long essay about "Common things people believe on the internet about legal practice versus reality".
There are many reasons why publicity-seeking lawyers would want to be on this case. There are thousands and thousands of lawyers in New York City alone. But this guy from Florida has some kind of special "magic" I suppose.
At bottom, the Paula Jones case had no merit. In fact, it was dismissed for lack of a supportable allegation that her employment was affected, even if all the allegations were taken as true. The case was dumb from the get-go, and for reasons having nothing to do with whether Bill Clinton ever propositioned her. The case was filed merely as a vehicle for discovery, and it was in the discovery stage where Bill Clinton shot himself in the foot on matter wholly unrelated to the basis of the actual employment discrimination suit.
The reasons for wanting in on this thing have NOTHING to do with whether the claims have substantive merit or basis in fact at all.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)The good thing about famous lawyers being involved is that if the victim decides to go public they can get massive amounts of coverage.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Palm Beach Post is a local newspaper. They broke a story a few days ago which has gotten massive coverage. No "famous lawyer" involved.
As a discovery vehicle, there is the potential to extract tall cash from the plaintiff for the purpose of avoiding being deposed on the subject in general. Any number of lawyers would want in on that action.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)Three Trump supporters got arrested for a terror plot in Kansas and it wasn't even covered on most networks. This is the most bizarre political/societal fustercluck I have ever seen in my 50 years.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)and a lawyer I know in that town says he's well respected there. His involvement more than Mason's makes me wonder about this.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)a couple of interviews with people writing about the case. Apparently he's taken this on on his own -- but he's part of a larger law firm.
Of course you're right that this is nothing till it's served. So we'll see. Thanks again for checking.
I had not sorted out all of the names.
Yes, the principal attorney in this case is a patent attorney from New Jersey who has never litigated a case like this in his career. I do not know what Mason's experience is in that regard.
In either event, there are no developments likely in this case until well past the election. There is an outside chance that, if it is served, there will be a preliminary motion to dismiss filed by the defense, which certainly will not be resolved before the election.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)is that Trump will settle. Epstein has settled many cases like this. If Epstein wanted to settle, could that make it tough for Trump not to?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)In fact, if this case got as far as trial, then any discussion of Epstein having settled would be kept from the jury.
There is a strong incentive for Trump to settle, even if none of it is true. Accordingly, there is a strong incentive to represent the plaintiff on a contingent fee basis.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The summonses were just issued a few days ago.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)and supplying the detail level you did is just above and beyond the call of duty.
I also had wondered why this allegation didn't get much press coverage, and now that you have explained it in excruciating detail it makes sense completely. It's one of those "oh, yeah, why didn't I think of that?" moments.
Don't have any great advice to give you on the frustration you're having. Probably it's just part of the path you've chosen, you are bound to get frustrated when you try to do what you're doing. Sort of a civic duty, I suppose maybe you view it that way -- kind of like the natural duty of care adults have toward children. Anyway, take heart, surely I can't be the only one who appreciates your efforts and tutelage.
