Friday, November 4, 2016

THE JANE DOE V TRUMP ALLEGATION

The Jane Doe child rape allegation is an evolving lawsuit against Donald Trump who is trying to become the 2017 POTUS.  Should Trump be successful in his attempt, her case should be able to continue despite the  presidency.  The Jones V Clinton set precedent.

TIMELINE:

1990's
According to Jerry Epstein victim,  Virginia Roberts,  she was working at Trump's Mar-a-lago club as a locker room attendant for $9/ hour.  She was 15 at the time when she was recruited while at the club to serve Jerry Epstein's sexual needs.

1991:
The first  allegation of sexual assault against Donald Trump was made.  In a sworn deposition, Ivana Trump claimed Donald raped her in 1989. According to an author who relayed the alleged incident in his book, Trump barged into the room,  screamed at Ivana,  ripped out her hair, tore off her clothes, and copulated with her in the first time in 16 months all while she as crying.  Later, Ivana denied that she meant "rape" and changed her words to feeling "violated."  In 2016, Ivana continued to deny the rape allegation.  However, she has yet to claim the incident, as described by the author, was not as he described.  Interestingly,  despite the many lawsuits and threats of lawsuits for defamation,  Trump never filed a lawsuit against the book author to claim the  story as the author described it was not true.   Neither did Ivana which supports it was the same story she told in her deposition.

1995:
 A second allegation of sexual assault was made.  As part of a breach-of-contract lawsuit, Jill Harth alleged Donald Trump had forcibly kissed her and also groped her on more than one occasion and then continued to sexually harass her for the next several months.  She alleged her refusal to succumb to his advances was the reason he broke the contract with her significant other's company.  The allegations were sealed by a federal judge and Trump refused to settle the lawsuit for two years.  Jill renewed her complaints in a 1997 lawsuit.  Trump initially claimed it was an attempt to get him to settle the initial lawsuit that was not "winnable" and implied he would never pay.  Two months later he did and Jill dropped the additional lawsuit.  Years later, the lawsuit came up again and even though she had been supporting Trump in his presidential campaign, she stood by her allegation. She claimed she dropped the lawsuit as part of a verbal agreement to do so if Trump paid the initial breach-of-contract lawsuit.  According to Jill, she was spent from dealing with the issue and just wanted to put it behind her.   Months later,  a 2005 tape was released with Trump making statements that matched Jill's earlier allegation.

2002
A New York Magazine did a piece on Jerry Epstein, before he was convicted of propositioning an underage girl for sex.  The article quoted Trump as saying,
"“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. 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.”
MARCH 2003 
A article in Vanity Fair listed Trump as one of the people who dined at Epstein's home.

MARCH 2005
A mother contacted police after learning her 13-year old daughter was paid $300 to strip to her underwear and give Epstein a massage. An investigation occurred and turned up multiple other victims.

2005 - 2008 
Evidence in the investigation showed that Trump was associated with Epstein beyond that of Epstein being a member of Donald's Palm Beach Mar-a-lago club.

  • In the early 2000's, the social section of the New York Magazine placed Trump as attending a dinner party at Epstein's home:

    LINK: Dinner Party
  • Message pads seized from Epstein's Palm Beach home had showed Trump called him twice in November 2004
    l
  • Epstein had 14 contact numbers for Trump in his little black book, including what looked like it might be Melania's number:

  • Epstein admitted to knowing Trump during a deposition but took the fifth when he was asked if he associated with minors in Trump's presence.
  • Epstein's houseman, Juan Alessi, testified Trump came over to Epstein's home for dinner but ate with him in the kitchen. 
  • Epstein's brother Mark testified that Trump was with him and Epstein on Epstein's plane but did not know Trump's purpose.  He claimed Trump and Jerry were friends.  Click for COURT DOCUMENT
    k
  • In 1997,  Trump was photographed with Jerry Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.



JUNE 2008
Epstein pleaded guilty of soliciting sex from minors. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to register as a level III sex offender

2008
Multiple Civil lawsuits were filed against Jerry Epstein by women claiming to be victims.

2009
Allegedly,  Donald Trump was served a subpoena to give a deposition in Virginia Roberts' case against Jerry Epstein.  The subpoena indicated that there was an association between the two men.

Later, Trump’s attorney Alan Garten, denied it.  But, according to one of Roberts' attorneys, Brad Edwards,
"There is no debate over what happened. I served Mr. Trump with a subpoena for deposition in 2009. He talked to me voluntarily, and consequently we withdrew the subpoena in light of his voluntarily providing information…. I can’t imagine there being any dispute of any of this.”


June 2015
Trump announced his candidacy. Over the next few months he insulted his opponents.

AUGUST 5th, 2015
According to a 2016 Gawker article,  a man named "Al Taylor" contacted them with information about Donald Trump.   Taylor would later claim "Katie Johnson" told him at a party she had been raped by Donald Trump.The contact initiated a series of back and forth discussions between Gawker and Taylor.

January 2016
Polls showed Trump was ahead with a 41% chance of winning the nomination.

February 2016
A video of "Katie" describing the incident wearing a disguise is created but not released.  According to some rumors,  a videographer named Jonathann Launer was hired to make the tape and promised 20% of whatever the tape brought in from any tabloid willing to purchase it.

March 2016
Polls showed Trump was on average 15 points ahead of everyone else for winning the republican nomination.  Around that time, polls also suggested  Trump was the only one who would not win against Hillary Clinton, the democratic front runner.

March 2016
Gawker signed an agreement to not disclose the contents of the video they were considering purchasing from Taylor.

April 26, 2016
A woman filed a lawsuit in California using the name "Katie Johnson."  The lawsuit was filed "pro per", or without the use of an attorney.  All contact with Gawker ended at this point.  The lawsuit request that Trump and Epstein pay her "one hundred million dollars."

 According to the woman, between June 1994 and September 1994 she had sexual contact with Donald Trump on four occasions while she was 13-years old.  She claimed the last one was rape.
Click for KJ CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT

APRIL 28, 2016 
Radaronline referred to the 2009 subpoena and noted that Trump voluntarily spoke with Edwards, the lawyer issuing the subpoena.  According to Radaronline's source:
"Around 2008 or 2009, Brad was issuing subpoenas to a lot of people who’d met Epstein. He got a call back from Mr. Trump’s lawyer to say there was no need to subpoena him — Mr. Trump would call him immediately."
Radaronline also quoted Roberts' attorney as stating
" “During the conversation, Mr. Trump was open and forthright.I cannot discuss the substance of the conversation. But I will say that it was obvious to me that he was in no way involved in any untoward activity.”
APRIL 28, 2016
Trump's lawyers  stated that Trump did not have any relationship with Epstein other than Epstein being one of the 1000's of members at his Mar-a-lago Florida club. The Daily Mail was the first to report on the case.  According to them, Trump's lawyer Alan Garten stated, 

'The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, more likely, are politically motivated. To be clear, there is absolutely no merit to these claims and, based on our investigation, no evidence that the person who has made these allegations actually exists.'

It was obvious by the Daily Mails report that the Trump campaign attempted to seek out "Katie Johnson."
The address listed on the lawsuit exists. There is no indication or record that that person' named as the lawsuit plaintiff 'ever resided there. So we believe it is a false address.'
According to the lawsuit,  "Katie Johnson" was afraid of Trump.  When the lawsuit was refiled, she requested an order of protection.


APRIL 29, 2016 
Katie Johnson's California lawsuit is dismissed because of technical filing errors including asking for relief under the incorrect legislation.

Click for DENIAL OF THE CASE

May 2016

Steve Baer, a strong GOP known for going against other GOP members who he did not feel represented strong enough conservative values contacts Taylor and offers his financial assistance for "Katie Johnson/ Jane Doe."

May 20, 2016
According to reports, Baer wired $19,000 to Katie Johnson to help her get on her feet.  He also sent unpixelated versions of her video to Ted Cruz, Charles Koch, Paul Ryan, and John Kasich.  Additionally, he sent it to some journalist and other conservatives.  The release of the unpixelated video upset Katie's lawyer.

JUNE 20th, 2016
The "Katie Johnson" case was refiled in New York with the assistance of New Jersey attorney, Thomas Francis Meagher.  "Katie Johnson" was listed as "Jane Doe" and a request for a jury trial was made. Click for the JANE DOE CASE  The new request for payment is $75,000 plus attorney fees.

The complaint made several other requests:
  1. Allow the plaintiff to proceed anonymously due to the risk of harassment and threats associated.
  2. To waive the statute of limitations due to the alleged threats to harm her or her family if "Jane Doe" told.
  3. To provide an order of protection against Donald Trump and his agents/ associates.
  4. To consider that Donald Trump, particularly his attorney, defamed Jane Doe and opened her up to threats and harassment.
JUNE 30th, 2016
An initial conference was set for September 9th, 2016 in front of Judge Abrams.

JULY 03, 2016
The "Jane Doe"  video statement shows up on Youtube.   It is believed to have been released after the June filing. 

JULY 13th, 2016
Emily Shugerman, a writer for Revelist, wrote she saw a letter allegedly from "Katie Johnson"  addressed to Ryan Paul, speaker of the House.  She also indicated she spoke with "Katie Johnson" over the phone for an interview:



JULY 28th,  2016 

Trump addressed the Ivana Trump complaint but the "Jane Doe" complaint is not addressed.   Trump expressed his anger that the media was reporting on it even though Ivana changed her story.  He chastised the current reporter for asking him about it.  During the interview, he implied that the press should not be able to investigate those types of allegations once they are denied.  Per his responses, it seemed like he was suggesting a cap on the first amendment when it came to freedom of the press to report things of public interest.

Each time media had reported on the rape allegation, they included that Ivana's statement that she did not mean rape.   Per his words, it seemed the Donald Trump wanted to hide the fact that the allegation was ever made.


~ first three minutes.


JULY 2016

Donald Trump won the republican nomination.

August 25th, 2016
The initial conference is delayed:
ORDER: 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. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/25/2016) (cf)

SEPTEMBER 16th, 2016

"Jane Doe" voluntarily withdrew her case.  It is dismissed  without prejudice.  Click for Dismissal.  According to "Jane Doe's"  attorney, she will be filing a new case to include an additional witness.

September 13th, 2016
Jane Doe refiled her lawsuit.
Click for the Amended Complaint

The complaint included a third witness, "Joan Doe."  "Joan" alleged "Jane Doe" told her about the alleged rape during their 1994-1995 school year.

2016
Virginia Roberts, indicated in an interview that Donald Trump and Jerry Epstein were friends. She indicated that she had never seen Donald Trump partake in any sexual activity with any of the girls but added Donald Trump did flirt with her.  Roberts' employment with Epstein started years after "Jane Doe/ Katie Johnson"  claimed her alleged sexual interaction with Donald Trump occurred.


October 1st, 2016
Trump's lawyer denied the allegation and threatened retaliation if they are served.

"As I have said before, the allegations are categorically untrue and an obvious publicity stunt aimed at smearing my client. In the event we are actually served this time, we intend to move for sanctions for this frivolous filing.”


October 4th, 2016
A status conference was ordered for December 16th, 2016
Click for link to the Order for Status Conference

Court Docket:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/12206367/Doe_v_Trump_et_al

OCTOBER 22, 2016
Jill Harth attorney, Lisa Bloom, announced she will represent anyone who is threatened for making allegations against Donald Trump and crowd fund the costs.




November 2, 2016
In the early afternoon,  Lisa Bloom announced "Jane Doe" will speak out to the public under Bloom's representation.  It is unclear if Bloom is now representing Doe in the case against Trump or if she is representing Doe against any defamation case Trump might bring against Doe once her case proceeds.


The press conference is later cancelled.  According to Bloom, Jane Doe was too afraid.
" She has decided she is too afraid to show her face. “We’re going to have to reschedule. I apologize to all of you who came. I have nothing further."



November 4, 2016 AM/ Afternoon

Katie Johnson filed paperwork to drop her lawsuit against Donald Trump.  CLICK for Dismissal

The question is why cancel the lawsuit?

November 4th, PM

Lisa Bloom tweeted that KJ/JD  told them to dismiss her lawsuit.  There was not any explanation provided.



November 4th, 2016 7 pm EST

The Daily Mail's interview with Katie Johnson/ Jane Doe is first published.  




The Daily Mail stated their interview with Katie occurred before she backed out of the press conference.  According to DM,  "KJ/JD" did not ask for money for the interview nor was she paid for it.   The situation seemed to indicate her motive was not a financial one. 

"Katie" claimed her motive for filing the suit was merely based on wanting others to know what type of guy Donald Trump was.
"'We would have a rapist in the White House. I would feel horrified every single day if I stay in this country


DM indicated they were aware of KJ/JD's true identity and "Katie Johnson" was not it. "Katie" only would provide an interview with them if they agreed to not share her true identity.  The request seemed to support the claim that  Katie was too afraid to come forward.  But, her decision to share her pictures seemed to say something different.  The Daily Mail not only shared current pictures of Katie which could be used to identify her,  it shared a picture of Katie in her youth.   These pictures can be used to help identify her.


Click for Katie Johnson Interview/ Pictures



This timeline will continue to be updated if more information is released.  




IS THERE MOTIVE FOR FILING A "FALSE" CLAIM?

Trump's spokesmen have repeatedly stated "Katie Johnson's" allegations are false.  They also claimed that Trump was not associated with Jerry Epstein;  They said Jerry was just a member of Trump's club.  The evidence showed the two men had a stronger connection.

 It was well known that Jerry had interacted with several famous or influential people, had them on his plane, or invited them to his Island home.  Included in the list were: Bill Clinton,  Britain’s Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, Woody Allen, Larry Summer, Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak,  Katie Couric,  George Stephanopoulos, Chelsea Handler, Professor Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking,  American physicist and Nobel laureate David Gross, two other Nobel laureates, Gerard t’Hooft and Frank Wilczek, Sen. John Kerry, various members of the Kennedy clan and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

So why did Trump deny the association when it was known Jerry Epstein had associated with many people? 
Some might suggest that Trump denied the association because there was some truth hidden in "Katie Johnson's" lawsuit.  But was there?   Trump's campaign vehemently denied the allegation and suggested their was an ulterior motive attached to Katie's lawsuit. 


Political?


One suggestion the Trump camp offered as a motive for the lawsuit was that it was part of a political agenda to destroy Trump's campaign.  Trump's supporters currently blame Clinton.  However, what needed to be considered when accessing political motive is the timing of the complaint.

According to a website called "Gawker",  Al Taylor (KJ's associate), contacted them on August 5th, 2015 to offer them a chance to purchase information that could damage Trump.  Trump had just joined the presidential race two months earlier and was not considered a "serious contender" for the republican nomination.   A GOP website, the Conservative review,  gave Trump poor overall scores:
Between June 2015 and August 2015, Trump was considered a candidate who could not "win." Why would either the Democrats or Republicans had singled him out, worked with Al Taylor, and initiated the rape allegation by getting Gawker to try to buy it?  At the time, Donald Trump didn't appear to be a large enough political fish to fry.   However, given his wealth, popularity, and concern for maintaining the integrity of the "Trump" brand,  Trump would appear to be the perfect target if someone was looking for financial gain.

Al Taylor continued to discuss with Gawker the possibility of them purchasing his scandalous information on Trump.  As Trump moved up in the polls,  the story became more appealing.  By December 2015, a CNN poll showed Trump 20 points above the other republican candidates.  Trump went on to dominate the first national poll of 2016.

In February 2016,  Taylor hired a videographer to assist in making the "Katie Johnson" tape. According to sources, as payment for his services, the videographer was offered 20% of whatever money Taylor could solicit from the tabloids to purchase it.  He offered it to Gawker, and a non-disclosure agreement was signed in March so Gawker could view it. However, all negotiation stopped when Katie Johnson filed a pro per lawsuit in late April, 2016.

When Katie filed her lawsuit, despite what Trump supporters claim,  the Hillary claim did not have an incentive to make a fake allegation against Trump at the time.  Polls were showing that out of the top contenders,  Trump was a candidate Hillary could easily beat in the general election.  According to the data, it was beneficial for Hillary if Trump was nominated.  In fact, rumors had spread that democrats had purposefully registered as republicans to help get Trump the nomination to ensure a Clinton win.


The only group that would have benefited from a lawsuit alleging rape was the republicans.  If the case was believed, it meant that it could influence the conservative voters to turn away from Trump and support a candidate with more traditional conservative values. In fact, after KJ filed, GOP member Steve Baur provided his financial support to Katie because he did not consider Trump a true republican.

The KJ case was dismissed on technicalities and refiled in June, prior to the RNC.  At the time of the refiling,  polls consistently showed Trump winning the nomination but loosing to Hillary Clinton in the general election.

In fact,  one article suggested that the data showed if Trump obtained the nomination, it meant Hillary had already won the White House.  RNC delegates were making "last-ditch" efforts to block Trump from getting the nomination.  BLOCK ATTACK

When Jane Doe filed her initial two lawsuits,  the data at the time showed the republican party had a lot to loose and the democratic party had a lot to gain should Trump become the nominee. The situation supported that if any party was behind the rape allegation, it was the republicans.  But, there was just one problem with that:  The allegation continued.

"Katie Smith" aka "Jane Doe" initially dismissed her lawsuit in mid September but her lawyer confirmed she would be refilling; and she did.  On September 30th, KJ/JD refiled the lawsuit and included another witness.  The GOP did not want Hillary, a Democrat, to win the White House.  For many members of the GOP,  Donald Trump as a republican was better than any Democrat as POTUS.  Continuing the case and including more witnesses risked harming Trump's chances of the GOP winning the title.  GOP's supporting rape allegations against Trump before the RNC made sense;  GOP support of the allegation after the RNC did not.

The initial introduction of the claim to Gawker in 2015, and the lack of consistent motives for the parties suggests that the allegation against Trump was not created for political reasons.

Social Media Attention?
Perhaps Trump's lawyers considered the issues with the political agenda angle when they made the suggestion the suit was filed to "solicit social media attention."   Accusing  a wealthy famous celebrity of a rape allegation would certainly gain attention to the woman making the allegation. However, when that celebrity has a strong fan base and even stronger supporters,  it results in the wrong sort of social media.  To make matters worse, such an allegation risked retaliation in the form of verbal attacks and threats of lawsuits by a man who had used both in the past.  It did not seem reasonable that someone would risk so much to be cited as "that anonymous person who accused Donald Trump of rape."   Trump's accuser hid both her face and identity and said very little to the press up until she withdrew her case just days prior to the election.


Financial?
Interesting enough,  the most logical motive that could be alleged with the suit was never suggested by Trump's spokesmen.  There was a lot of evidence that could support a claim of a financial motive:

  1. When the allegation was first brought forward,  Trump had just joined the campaign. If the allegation was untrue, there was little else to gain other than financially for those reasons already cited.
  2.  Instead of filing a lawsuit,  Al Taylor's first incentive was to sell the allegation and associated tape to "Gawker."
  3. Sources alleged that prior to the video being created,  Al Taylor had already planned on selling it to the tabloids and offered the videographer 20% of the proceeds as his payment.
  4. When "Katie Johnson" filed her lawsuit, she asked for 100 million dollars.  The time of filing was strategic and could have interfered with Donald obtaining the rep nomination.  
  5. When "Katie Johnson" refiled her case, she asked for a significantly lower amount.  It was $75,000, an amount that Trump could have easily come up with to silence the allegation.
  6. Despite being given the opportunity to severely impact her alleged rapist's chances of becoming the next POTUS by sharing her story live with the press, KJ backed out.  And, despite there was  chance her alleged rapist would have to be put under the microscope during a trial,  she withdrew her lawsuit.  According to her representatives,  KJ was too scare to come forward.  Yet.....
  7. On the same day KJ canceled the press conference, she shared a detailed description of the alleged rape in an interview with the Daily Mail;  and she did so without being paid or requesting payment.   KJ allowed her story to be printed in an article the next day along with pictures that could be used to identify her and thus locate her.
  8.  Katie's final actions do not fully support some of the motives she may have had for both initiating and ending the lawsuit:
    • A political one:
      •   No. When KJ filed the initial lawsuit it benefited the GOP and not the Democratic party.  Additionally, she backed out of the press conference and withdrew her lawsuit at a time when the press conference and lawsuit would have been very beneficial to HRC.
    • A desire to prevent Trump from being president:
      • No.  The press conference would have helped but she backed out of it.  She dismissed the lawsuit prior to the election which threw doubts on her allegations prior to the new POTUS being selected in a very tight race.
    • A fear for her safety:
      • Possible.  However, despite her alleged fear, she gave pictures of herself to go along with a detailed interview regarding the alleged rape.  Prior to that, there were not any published photos of her.  

But, there is support for a final motive when it comes to initiating it.  And, it may explain the sudden withdrawal of the case and backing out of the press conference.
    • A financial one:
      • Making the allegation during Trump's campaign increased the likelihood he might pay to make the "problem" go away.  If so, why would she withdraw the lawsuit at a time she was very poor?  If it's not fear, retribution, political, what would the probability percentage be that someone, not necessarily Trump or his campaign, paid her the amount she was seeking on the condition she would withdraw the lawsuit and not proceed with Bloom's very publicized press conference?  
ANOTHER MOTIVE FOR FILING

Because Katie is staying anonymous, it's difficult to fully assess the truth behind her decision to file and her decision to withdrawal.  Since she shared her picture on The Daily Mail, including her childhood photo, her identity may one day be revealed even if she doesn't wish it.  At that time, there may be more information to help determine the legitimacy of her claim and her motive for filing. Until then,  the factors in her case indicate some of the suggested motives are not supported:

  • Political - the case was started before Trump became the republican nominee and data was suggesting he would be the least likely candidate to beat HRC, the front runner for the DNC.  The case was continued after Trump was the republican nominee.  Both parties had motive but neither had motive throughout Katie's case history.  
  • Social media attention -  When she came out,  Trump was known for attacking others who went against him.   He had a strong fan base who would almost be sure to call her a liar and make negative statements towards her, as they have.     That is a lot to risk for "SM attention."  And, due to expected threats,   KJ/JD remained anonymous and hid her face and the full story until  just recently.
  • Financial - KJ/JD dropped the lawsuit even though it could have made her money and told her full story on The Daily Mail for free (or as was stated).   It's clear that due to the interest in her story, many sites would have paid her for it.  Unless she was secretly paid in an "off the table offer", it does not seem like it was financial.  She could have been threatened to stay quiet, but if so, why give the Daily Mail interview?

There is  one motive for filing that is hard to discredit at this time and that is what Katie Johnson said;  her case is true and she wanted to expose Trump.  It is something that Katie has been noted as saying since she filed.  However, given the multiple possibilities, it is not legally just to label trump as a child rapist at this time no matter how much one despises him.