What is it about Trump's pending rape case that sets some folks on the DU off..

[KALD]

I find it utterly fascinating that myself and another poster have been getting pushback from some folks here for bringing up an actual case that has a hearing set for December. This is far more serious than Clinton's e-mail bullshit! Is it really hard to believe that a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women actual raped a 13-year-old? If you take the time to read the alleged victims complaint that was filed way before we heard the tape... Trump used the same language while raping her.

[Farmgirl1961]

1. I wish that this would be blasted all over the airwaves

it's vile, disgusting and criminal.

[KALD]

4. I know, me too. It's so odd that people want to sweep it under the rug. You know

It reminds me of how women feel who were sexually assaulted, no one wants to talk about it. It's such a problem in our society. It's also the reason why a lot of women don't come forward.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. It certainly is. But I'm speculating that at least some media outlets

are afraid of being sued, because that's what Trump does. He wouldn't win, of course; but the hassle and expense of a lawsuit could be a deterrent for some.

[skylucy]

2. I don't understand why the MSM is tip toeing around Trump's pending rape case.

A few emails from Huma found on her ex-husbands computer with absolutely no indication they even are new or have anything to do with classified material is sucking all the oxygen at msn, but Trump being accused of raping a 13 year old...zip.

[rainy]

32. do you think it's because the right will squawk and whine about Hillary and get airtime doing it,

but, Hillary and the left don't bring up the rape case. So therefore its not part of the game.

[PoliticAverse]

34. You may want to consider that lots of powerful people want any case involving Jeffrey Epstein....

to disappear.

[KALD]

50. Yes, he has ties to a lot of powerful people.

[RKP5637]

54. That's likely behind a lot of it, they want it silenced. n/t

[jberryhill]

136. Well, that, and the $1M price tag for getting a statement from the victim

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html

[RKP5637]

154. Thanks! Why in the world would a judge go forward with hearing more on this? Is it

just procedural?

[jberryhill]

155. The judge hasn't heard any of it

This case is nowhere near a substantive hearing.

When you file a lawsuit, the court will normally set a date for an initial status conference. The expectation is that you will serve the suit on the defendant, get in touch with counsel for the other side, figure out together when you want to set dates for certain procedural milestones, and then show up on the date of the status hearing to discuss the proposed schedule with the judge.

If you haven't served the lawsuit on the other side, then the hearing will consist of the judge asking you why you haven't served it, and then issuing an order requiring you to either serve it on the other side by a certain date or else have a really good explanation why not.

[RKP5637]

156. Thanks!!!

[EL34x4]

38. It would help if the so-called "victim" didn't have a publicist

trying to sell her story for a cool million bucks.

That the case is being hawked by a former producer for the Jerry Springer Show with a long history of suing celebrities I'm sure is also problematic to those who wish this would receive more mainstream coverage.

[Thinkingabout]

57. Does selling a story excuse the rape?

[EL34x4]

59. It makes it harder to take it seriously.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Doesn't look like too many other people are either.

This could be why:

"A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag."

From the stalwart conservative publication, The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit

[Thinkingabout]

62. Rape is a very serious issue, his own statements does not remove doubt for me.

[WinstonSmith4740]

72. Well, I might be the only person here who agrees with you.

While I agree Trump is an absolute slime ball, and I wouldn't put this sort of thing passed him, I've had trouble with this particular story from the beginning. The way I understand it, this young lady went to New York to pursue a modeling career at 13, and I never heard anything about parents, aunts/uncles, older siblings, anything. Really? Alone in New York at 13? No adults in her life? Who'd she live with? I know if this was me, and I told my dad, Donald Trump would not be alive today. I'll never blame the victim, and I'm sure at that young age, she may have honestly thought she was doing what she had to do to break into modeling...but she said nothing? To anyone? Again, no adult around? And this was supposed to have happened 4 times. Even at a very naive 13, I wouldn't have gone back a second time.

I just think there are too many holes in this story, which is why I think even a press as compromised as ours is, didn't go after it. I wouldn't doubt statutory rape for a second. Like I said, she may have felt this was what she had to do to pursue her career. I also don't doubt he would have become more violent as things progressed. I don't know about statutes of limitation on these types charges, but if she had gone after him for statutory rape/assault, she would have been more believable, at least IMHO.

[JanMichael]

84. did you grow up in a doll house? 13 year olds often get caught up with criminals.

and dads arent alwats there to kick the shit out of a trump type. most all of the time even when not with celebrities and in the small towns.

hell i knew a 19 year old when i was 20 that had run off to nyc at 13 to model. came back a wreck.

yeah dad would kill trump if he knew. why would he know? how fantastical. reality is that most families are not that easy to describe.

[KALD]

94. True, we don't know her background or home life. I would

find these claims hard to believe if Trump's first wife didn't accuse him of rape and if he didn't admit to sexual assault on tape.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

61. It's a shame--even attention seekers can get raped and deserve justice.

But people will use this to generally and further delegitimize rape.

Edit to add...the easily manipulated can also suffer rape; she might have been swarmed by scandal-mongers telling her to let them handle everything.

We don't know...but we do know sexual assault, abuse and harassment are nothing out of character for dumpf.

[Angry Dragon]

3. I have read that his first wife also accused Trump of rape in her divorce papers

[KALD]

5. She did and also said he pulled her hair out too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Excerpt (explicit):

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-feel-violated-during-sex.html

From a deposition by her in the divorce.

[KALD]

9. There's no way this man should be president.

Thanks for the link.

[uppityperson]

6. What do you mean, you've been getting pushback for bringing it up?

[KALD]

8. I was asked why am I posting this story? I thought

It was relevant and shows Trump's true character.

[canetoad]

11. It very well might be relevant etc

But it still has to go through the law courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit
The court order gives no details of the legal complaint raised by “Jane Doe”. It instructs all parties to the case to set out in advance the nature of the allegations and the “principal defenses”, as well as any previous motions and discovery as well as the “estimated length of trial”.

It's certainly not 'going high' by turning an allegation into a tabloid done-deal. Maybe that's why folks are 'pushing back'.

[KALD]

19. Hey, the only thing I did was post it. I can only go by what Trump himself has

admitted to doing. I don't believe in going high when a slimeball like Trump is an admitted sexual predator. You go high all you want. I just posted a link to the story and said that the victim has more credibility than Trump.

[EL34x4]

88. You posted the story while lamenting that people here aren't buying it.

People here aren't buying it because there's giant red flags all over the place.

There may be a few others here who think these allegations do a disservice both to rape victims and to the Trump campaign's legitimate opposition.

[KALD]

92. This woman's story is just as credible as the women who claimed Bill Cosby raped them.

[EL34x4]

102. No, not really. Not really at all.

But if there are any similarities, maybe "Jane Doe" should ditch the Jerry Springer Show guy and the money-grubbing publicist and give Gloria Allred a call.

Though if I were a betting man, I'd say Allred has already looked into her story and said, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm gonna pass. Good luck to you!"

[KALD]

110. "Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible"

Attorney Lisa Bloom. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

[jberryhill]

131. Since the victim needs a better attorney, why not Bloom?

[womanofthehills]

161. Didn't Cheney Mason sign on to represent "Jane Doe" ?

He was Casey Anthony's lawyer.

"Court records filed Monday indicate that attorney Cheney Mason has signed on to represent ‘Jane Doe’ in her lawsuit against Donald Trump. Doe says that Trump raped her when she was 13 years old in the 1990’s. On Friday, Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a December 16th status conference hearing. She’s asked for both sides to provide information that could assist the court in advancing the case to settlement or trial.

Mason, who is now representing Doe, is a Florida-based attorney, who has represented a number of high profile people, including Casey Anthony. Anthony was acquitted of murdering her 2-year old daughter, who went missing in 2008. Mason’s office confirmed he is now representing “Jane Doe” along with New Jersey attorney, Thomas Meagher."



http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/high-profile-casey-anthony-attorney-now-representing-jane-doe-in-trump-rape-lawsuit/

[jberryhill]

165. Yes...

He has yet to do anything, and has no experience with this type of litigation.

The reason for his involvement is that the price tag of $1M for the "Katie Johnson" videotape interview is being shopped around by the same Jerry Springer producer who was also shopping around, for the same $1M, a promise of an interview with Casey Anthony. Mr. Mason clearly has signed on for a piece of that action.

Neither Mr. Mason nor Mr. Meagher have had this case served on the defendant.

[jberryhill]

130. Allred reportedly turned it down

So did the attorney who represented other Epstein victims:

http://www.gossipextra.com/2016/05/03/donald-trump-sex-abuse-lawsuit-dismissed-but-alleged-victim-shopping-for-attorney-south-florida-5815/

We’re told Johnson reached out to L.A. women’s rights lawyer Gloria Allred last week but was turned down. Allred declined comment.

She contacted Fort Lauderdale lawyer Brad Edwards, who represented Epstein’s victims in Palm Beach County. He, too, declined the case.

[KALD]

195. Well, she has Lisa now!

[jberryhill]

196. Not in this litigation

The latest docket entry in the actual litigation is another attorney appearance, by an Eric L. Goldman

http://ia601506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.docket.html

Lisa Bloom is not representing her in the NY litigation. This is the alternative strategy that I've discussed in the thread elsewhere, where the idea is to provoke a defamation claim.

[KALD]

197. Doesn't matter, she is out there advocating for her and the story is getting national attention.

[jberryhill]

198. That's fine

You still don't seem to distinguish between procedural observations about this piece of litigation, versus the substance of the underlying claims.

This lawsuit, and the October 4 order, still haven't been served on the defendant.

[jberryhill]

10. It's not about the veracity of the complaint, but the dishonest things being said about the case

First of all, there is no "rape trial" scheduled for December.

When you file a lawsuit, a court issues a perfunctory scheduling order stating when the the court would like to see the case served on the defendant, and setting an initial date for the attorneys for both sides to show up and agree on a schedule for filing preliminary motions, conducting discovery, etc..

The plaintiff in this case has yet to comply with the order that people are using to falsely state that Trump is required to attend some kind of hearing in December.

Here is the order:

http://ia601506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.5.0.pdf

Can you read the last line? It is written in English:

Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendants with a copy of this order and to file an affidavit on ECF certifying that such service has been effectuated.

That order is dated OCTOBER 4, 2016.

Here is the rest of the entire docket in the case:

http://ia801506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.docket.html

You will notice that the Plaintiff was ordered by the court to serve the case back on October 4. The Plaintiff requested a summons on October 7. The summons was issued on October 19.

The Plaintiff, having been ordered nearly a month ago to serve the case on the Defendant and to submit an affidavit of service, still has not done so.

As this case currently stands there is no, zero, nada, zilch, obligation on the part of Trump or his attorneys to make an appearance in the case or to turn up for the scheduling hearing in December. No complaint has been served on Trump or his attorneys. No order has been issued to Trump and his attorneys. Again, go look at the order. Since there was no defendant appearing in the case on October 4, the court specifically required the plaintiff to serve the order on the defendant.

The plaintiff still has not complied with the order which you think, for no reason whatsoever, magically obligates Trump or his attorneys to appear at the December scheduling conference.

To state that a "rape trial is scheduled for December" is a lie. To state that Trump or his attorneys are thus far required to do ANYTHING about this case which has still not been served, is a lie.

That has nothing to do with anyone's opinion about the veracity of the underlying claims. What is annoying to people who actually understand how courts work, are the hyperbolic and dishonest statements people are making about this case.

So, why not ask yourself, "Why is the plaintiff in this case thus far refusing to comply with the court's order?"

[canetoad]

12. Thank you.

Much more comprehensive than my reply above. Are you a lawyer or something?

[jberryhill]

14. Yes

And any attorney would grasp what is going on here is much different from what people are saying.

Furthermore, any attorney can also explain why the papers are not running with allegations from an anonymous plaintiff in an unserved suit.

[LeftInTX]

15. The story of the impending case keeps going on and gets repeated....

Yet, it doesn't seem the case is going anywhere..

As much as I would like to have a rape case against Trump, it seems be wishful thinking.

[jberryhill]

16. A federal civil case doesn't "go anywhere" for at least a year

One of the side effects of GOP obstructionism is a tremendous backlog in the federal courts.

But, even if this case were served on the other side, the first thing that would happen is a motion to dismiss because it is well outside of the relevant statute of limitations.

It would get a trial date in early 2018 at best, even if it survived preliminary motions.

[LeftInTX]

25. I appreciate you keeping us informed

It really won't go anywhere if it is outside the SOL...

[jberryhill]

27. It's extremely unlikely

And "I was afraid of Trump" is not going to cut it.

[elehhhhna]

107. JB, is the Trump U action a RICO or racketeering charge or what?

I don't know what to believe any more and can barely keep up. Help another early DUer out? xox

[jberryhill]

113. It's a civil suit for fraud

No problems with that one.

There are a variety of folks who seem to have a lot of investment in chasing after the "rape trial" rainbow, to the exclusion of many things wrong with Trump which are well documented.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Why is this in federal court at all? Is it being brought as a diversity case?

And wouldn't a case like this be better in a state court (depending on the state)? Federal juries tend to be a bit stingy. Of course, if it was brought in a state court but there is diversity jurisdiction, Trump's lawyers would try to get it removed, causing more delay and expense. I'd love to see this thing happen; it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he actually did what's claimed. But they've got to get it right and so far they haven't, it seems.

[jberryhill]

66. I have posted a link to the docket in this thread

From that docket, you can directly click on a link to a PDF of the complaint.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. Thanks. I just read the complaint

and found it odd in some respects. Maybe I've been away from the legal business for too long, and maybe I'm being too technical, but I'm wondering why they pled statutory crimes instead of the relevant torts under the common law of New York. It seems like they made a sort of muddy hash of the complaint by not more specifically pleading the elements of the various common law torts, mixing them up instead with the various statutory crimes. Also, New York, like most states, has a tolling provision relating to personal injury claims by minors and I didn't see that anywhere. If this is real I hope it goes somewhere but on cursory examination it looks messy and poorly pled.

[jberryhill]

76. No, it's not you

This case was shopped around by a Jerry Springer producer who, among other things, claims to have proof that Kurt Cobain was murdered.

Despite thousands of attorneys in New York experienced in precisely this sort of claim, it was picked up by a patent attorney in New Jersey with zero experience with this sort of claim. It was then also signed onto by a TV lawyer with criminal defense and family law experience.

It is a refiled version of a case that was originally filed as a section 1983 case by someone claiming to be "Katie Johnson" pro se who also petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis. The "Katie Johnson" case was kicked out and her petition denied. If you look at the docket for that case, it is also apparent that mail sent to "Katie Johnson" to the mailing address given by that plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

79. I wonder what the real story is...

But thank you for assuring me that I haven't lost my legal mind. The other thing I noticed is that they also pled violations of federal statutes so there would also be federal question jurisdiction, which they didn't mention. I wonder how much experience these lawyers have with federal civil procedure? A patent lawyer would know about patent litigation but that has its own specialized procedure, and somebody who does criminal defense and family law will likely be completely lost in federal court. This is a mess, legally speaking, and if there's merit to it it's regrettable that the plaintiffs didn't find lawyers who know what they're doing. If, however, no lawyer with the right sort of experience would take the case, well, that tells you something, too.

[jberryhill]

87. Did you notice that "Jane Doe" is alleging defamation?

Wrap your legal mind around that for a moment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

91. Huh. How can you harm the reputation of someone who's anonymous?

They'll have a tough time with that time as long as the plaintiff continues under a pseudonym.

[jberryhill]

97. The rabbit hole goes much deeper on this one

Take a look at this docket:

http://ia601209.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.646485/gov.uscourts.cacd.646485.docket.html

You know, it's kind of unusual to file a complaint and a pauperis petition with a court, and give the court a bogus mailing address of a bank-foreclosed property when you do it.

This thing has more red flags than a Chinese boy scout troop.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

98. Curiouser and curiouser.

No wonder the media aren't all over this. It's fishier than Sea World.

[jberryhill]

101. Add to that what you see manifest in this thread

There are people who believe that a man with an actually documented history of claims made by adult women, is therefore likely to be a pedophile.

Pedophiles tend to be pedophiles.

But, yeah, incalculable reputational damage to someone who claims to be living in a bank foreclosed one-room shack.... ummm...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

106. He has admitted liking them young, so I suppose there's a possibility

he went after underage girls too. But what bothers me even more is that so many people don't have even the faintest understanding of how the legal system works - there's an apparent belief, in this and a number of other threads, that Trump will be tried for rape in December and that's not even close to true. Nobody expects everyone to understand the nuances of federal civil procedure (Jane Doe's lawyers don't appear to) but it seems like a lot of folks want so badly for this to be true that they aren't listening to explanations about what's really going on. And some of these media reports aren't helping. Confirmation bias is a b*tch...

[jberryhill]

115. Thus the answer to the question posed by the OP subject line

Yes, there is a real push to "go out and tell everyone Trump goes on trial for rape in December".

Why someone would want others to be making an obvious false claim like that, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[duffyduff]

148. I doubt that will ever happen.

It will either be tossed out or settled out of court.

[jberryhill]

149. I doubt it will ever be served

[KALD]

17. Here's the latest about the case..

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/reminder-donald-trump-due-in-court-after-election-day-on-child-rape-and-racketeering-charges/

[jberryhill]

18. That story is bullshit

That is exactly the type of dishonesty I referred to above.

I'm going to guess that you did not take a look at the actual court docket and the scheduling order which I obtained and posted for your convenience.

No, Trump is not "due in court". Neither he nor his attorneys are due ANYWHERE in that case. The case, and the scheduling order, has not even been served on Trump or his attorneys.

[KALD]

20. So you were there when the rape occurred? If so, I suggest you contact the authorities.

[jberryhill]

21. You seem not to be able to understand two things

I have posted the complete docket and orders in the case. Trump is not due in court. The Plaintiff has not yet complied with the October 4 order to serve the case on the Defendant.

You seem not to be able to understand that has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims in the underlying case.

Trump is not due in court in December, because Trump has not been served with the case.

But since you completely ignored everything from the actual court documents themselves, you have apparently decided to believe that there is going to be some kind of "rape trial in December". You are entitled to believe that. It is simply not true.

The assertion by RawStory that Trump is due in court in December is not true. It is bullshit written by people who do not understand how lawsuits work.

[KALD]

22. What you're saying is actually NOT true..

"Trump, who has denied the lawsuit’s claims, is scheduled to appear Dec. 16 for a status conference in the U.S. District Court of New York."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit

[jberryhill]

23. No he is not

He has not been served with the case.

You are reading a news article written by someone who does not know how to read court documents.

This is the order setting the initial status conference date:

http://ia601506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.5.0.pdf

Please click on the link and READ IT. In particular, read the last line, which orders the plaintiff to serve that order on the defendant. The plaintiff is ordered to serve the case on the defendant, because nothing thus far has been served on the defendant - NOT EVEN THE SCHEDULING ORDER ITSELF.

Do you notice that the plaintiff is also required to file an affidavit with ECF (electronic case filing) stating that it has been served?

This is the ECF docket of that case so far:

http://ia801506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.docket.html

Do you see anywhere on there were the plaintiff has filed a return of service and and affidavit of service?

No. It has not happened.

I realize that your understanding of these documents is, in all probability, extremely limited. But they are written in English.

I will make a bet with you, however, if you want to believe a news article written by a non-lawyer. Would you bet me $50 on your belief that Trump will be appearing in court in December in this case?

[KALD]

24. Trump may not show up but his lawyers will.

A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe."

[jberryhill]

26. The case has not been served on Trump or his lawyers

There is no lawyer in the country working for Trump who has an obligation to appear in that court in December.

As you can see, from the actual court docket, there is no entry stating that the case has been served on anyone, as the court ordered back on October 4.

It has not been served on Trump. It has not been served on any lawyer for Trump.

I'm curious to know, in your mind, which of Trump's various attorneys are required to show up in December.

The Plaintiff has not complied with the scheduling order issued nearly a month ago.

[Shrike47]

30. I just don't think they can understand, j.b. No service = no case.

Furthermore, Trump would NEVER be required to appear personally unless subpoenaed. He could 'go to trial' without ever entering the courtroom.

[jberryhill]

35. He could be required to appear under a number of circumstances

But none on the horizon, even if this case had been served.

The obvious preliminary motion is to dismiss the case because the claim is time barred. The burden there is clearly on the plaintiff.

For $350 anyone can file anything with a court. An unserved anonymous lawsuit doesn't prove a thing. If one is inclined to believe the veracity of the complaint, then one has already made their mind up about Trump. If, at this point in time, one is "undecided", then the fact that someone paid $350 to file a suit, and has curiously not served it by now... I can't see what this does for such a person.

[WillowTree]

40. What's that old saying? Oh yeah.........

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

I've got to admire the patience you've shown in trying to explain what the situation really is with this case presently, but some just "will.......not.......see" what they do not wish to see. Amazing, isn't it?

[jberryhill]

43. Nobody is born knowing civil procedure

But the OP was a question about why some people seem to get upset at the sensational news articles and blog posts which have given a completely wrong impression about where this case is procedurally.

I don't fault anyone for that but those who continue to distort the actual posture of this case.

Wishful thinking is strong stuff.

There are some other observations that could be made about the circumstances of this case, in the event it is never served. We'll see.

[pnwmom]

73. jberryhill is right. Are you aware that this lawsuit was already

filed in New York previously -- and assigned an October date -- but not ever served? Then the attorneys asked to withdraw it with permission to refile. And the October date was cancelled.

Then the woman's lawyers refiled, and got a new status hearing date assigned -- but if the lawsuit doesn't get officially served on Trump, then that status hearing date will also be cancelled.

Think about it. It just makes sense. You can't file a lawsuit against someone and NOT send them official notice of it. That's what serving a lawsuit does. It proves you've given the person you're suing a copy of the lawsuit and notice to appear. Otherwise they have no reason to do so.

[jberryhill]

118. Here's another rule of federal procedure which will help you

You don't have to "withdraw with permission to refile".

If you have not served a suit, you can voluntarily withdraw it anytime you like, and you can refile it any time you like.

However, if you have filed a suit, and you realize there are problems with your pleading, that's okay too. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the plaintiff with the right to amend the Complaint any way they'd like to amend it, if it hasn't been served.

Prior to the time that a response or motion to dismiss is filed by the defendant - which of course does not happen prior to service - you have an absolute right to file an amended pleading.

HOWEVER, you do have a 120 limit - and the court can shorten that - to serve the case.

So, if you want this thing dangling out there for bloggers to salivate upon then, yes, you file it, don't serve it, withdraw it, refile it... and you can keep doing that as long as you like. The court is perfectly happy to cash a $350 check each time.

And, oh by the way, you'll notice that the California suit was filed along with a petition to waive fees because the plaintiff claimed not to be able to afford the $350 filing fee - notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has a publicist who was a Jerry Springer producer.

Of course, IF it had been filed with the $350 fee, then someone would have to sign that check on an honest-to-Betsy bank account.

Is this picture getting clearer for you?

[NCTraveler]

39. I'm assuming a summons has an expiration date.

Do you know what date they would have to be served by the plaintiff?

Thank you for putting this out there.

[jberryhill]

41. The default rule for serving a case is 120 days from filing

But a judge can order the plaintiff to move things along faster than that.

In this instance, the judge ordered, on October 4, that the plaintiff serve the case and the initial order.

What will happen come December, if the case remains unserved, is that the judge will order the plaintiff to fish or cut bait within a few days.

[NCTraveler]

44. Thank you.

So there is an allegation?

Again, I appreciate the information. Seems pretty clear.

[jberryhill]

46. Well, yes of course there is an allegation

However, since the alligator is anonymous, then anyone seeking to publish that allegation is on their own.

[NCTraveler]

47. Don't we have her words?

Doesn't seem alone to me. Seems to be an allegation. Your Use of alone in this context is not legal and is subjective.

I do agree from your outline that there isn't enough to be a major media story.

[jberryhill]

48. Whose words?

We don't even have any public statements from the plaintiff's attorneys. Any idea why?

They've had a month to put that order in an envelope and drop it off at Trump Tower. It's not hard to do. People have managed to serve suits on Trump hundreds of times. Take a looky (and this is only the last couple of months):

29 Trump, Donald, Jr. (dft) caedce 2:2016-cv-02507 470 10/20/2016
Kaighn v Trump et al

30 Trump, Donald (dft) caedce 2:2016-cv-02507 470 10/20/2016
Kaighn v Trump et al

32 Trump, Donald (dft) txndce 3:2016-cv-02914 550 10/17/2016 10/19/2016
Ray v. Trump et al

33 Trump, Donald J. (dft) nysdce 1:2016-cv-07673 320 09/30/2016
Doe v. Trump et al

34 TRUMP, DONALD JOHN (dft) dcdce 1:2016-cv-01936 820 09/29/2016 09/29/2016
ODEMNS v. TRUMP ORGANIZATION et al

35 TRUMP, DONALD JOHN (dft) dcdce 1:2016-cv-01937 820 09/29/2016 09/29/2016
ODEMNS v. TRUMP ORGANIZATION et al

37 Trump, Donald (dft) caedce 2:2016-cv-02227 370 09/19/2016
Kaighn et al v. Trump

38 Trump, Donald (dft) casdce 3:2016-cv-02304 550 09/09/2016
Kherdeen v. Obabma et al

39 Trump, Donald (dft) nysdce 1:2016-cv-07088 440 09/09/2016 09/13/2016
Hurt v. Trump

40 Trump, Donald (dft) gandce 1:2016-cv-03273 440 08/31/2016 09/13/2016
Allister v. Rodham Clinton et al

41 Trump, Donald (dft) flsdce 1:2016-cv-23288 540 08/01/2016
Banks v. Disney et al

42 Trump, Donald (dft) cacdce 2:2016-cv-05554 890 07/25/2016 07/27/2016
Frederick Banks v. Disney et al

43 Trump, Donald (dft) gandce 1:2016-cv-02698 540 07/25/2016
Banks v. Disney et al

44 Trump, Donald (dft) iddce 1:2016-cv-00333 540 07/25/2016
Banks v. Disney et al

45 Trump, Donald John, Sr. (dft) txsdce 4:2016-mc-01633 07/18/2016 08/03/2016
Hamilton v. Trump

46 TRUMP, DONALD (dft) pawdce 2:2016-mc-00650 07/11/2016
BANKS v. DISNEY et al

[NCTraveler]

52. No dates have been missed.

You are holding the position that in itself is inpropriety. A unique position to hold. A plaintiff, through no act of their own, has you claiming that alone as a negative. You have gone far past "why isn't the media discussing it."

[jberryhill]

70. The October 4 order directed the plaintiff to effect service

Perhaps you run your practice differently, but when a court directs me to effect service, I do so. Now I did have one case against a foreign government entity in which I had to regularly report to the court about the steps we were taking relative to The Hague Convention on international service of process, but here the defendant's address is pretty well known, and nobody else seems to have trouble serving process on the defendant.

[jberryhill]

49. You may find this interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

[pnwmom]

75. Is the word really "alligator"? LOL. n/t

[jberryhill]

77. No, but I like it

"I deny the allegation, and I resent the alligator."

It should be a word, but there is no evidence that the plaintiff exists. The plaintiff's previous incarnataion as "Katie Johnson" had a fictitious mailing address.

Now, why would a case filed by "Katie Johnson" be re-filed as "Jane Doe"?

[pnwmom]

81. Well, her attorney asserts that she exists. And he put her on a conference call

with a blogger who has written about the call.

Isn't that attorney going out on an awfully thin limb if she doesn't exist?

[jberryhill]

86. No

If he has communicated with a living female who claims these things are true, and who claims that she will so testify, then that is all the obligation he has.

However, he is not going out on any sort of limb so far, in any manner whatsoever. He hasn't even started up the base of the tree. Since the case hasn't been served on the Defendant, there is no one to file a Rule 11 motion against him.

What sort of limb are you suggesting?

[pnwmom]

90. His reputation with fellow lawyers, if it is proven that he took on a case

of a non-existent client.

[jberryhill]

99. Meh

The case isn't going anywhere, and notice that he is a partner in a firm, but that he has not filed this on behalf of the firm.

I can tell you from experience that there are plenty of lawyers who don't give a damn what other lawyers think about them. Aside from which, his firm has its regular clients who don't know or care what other cases he takes.

I don't have an opinion about this lawyer one way or the other, and this wouldn't affect my decision to advise a client to engage him or not in patent litigation. My guess is that they aren't serving the suit because they are looking for "go away money". If he gets it, good for him.

Every attorney has, once in a while, a client who lies their ass off. Sometimes you figure that out early, and sometimes you figure it out later.

[pnwmom]

104. Yeah, she could be a liar, for sure. OTOH, we know Trump is a liar.

We just don't know if he's lying in this particular case or not. We do know that he's bragged about assaulting women before, and that his wife accused him of rape.

[jberryhill]

116. Yes, his behavior toward adult women is well documented

And given that, the best possible thing for him would be for people to de-emphasize his well documented history in that regard, in favor of a claim that has obvious issues.

This case is the Texas Air National Guard Memo of this election season. Anyone inclined to buy it is not voting for Trump in the first place.

[KALD]

120. This case was out there way before the alleged victim knew Trump was running for office also

Lisa Bloom has handled many rape cases and if she says the alleged victim sounds credible.. I'll take her word for it.

[jberryhill]

122. The California case was filed in April 2016

Donald Trump was most assuredly running for office in April 2016.

This case in New York was filed September 30, 2016.

Donald Trump was the GOP nominee for president when this proceeding was filed.

Again, here is the docket:

http://ia801506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.docket.html

I have responded to you by reference to that docket several times. It is clear that you refuse to look at the docket. If you did look at the docket, and the filing date noted right there up top, then there really is no point in continuing to discuss the procedural facts of this case with you.

Either you refuse to look at the facts for yourself, or you are not aware that Donald Trump has been running for president for the entirety of 2016.

And, once again, the procedural issues with this case have nothing to do with whether the underlying claims are, or are not true. For whatever reason, you do not seem to understand what that sentence means.

The fact remains that Donald Trump does not have a "rape trial" in December. The fact remains that neither Trump nor his lawyers are required to lift a single finger in relation to this proceeding, because it has not been served on the defendants.

The fact remains that any statement to the effect that Trump has a court appearance in December in relation to his proceeding, is simply not true.

[KALD]

157. The case was first filed a year ago, due to the fact that the victim isn't a lawyer she

didn't present the right documentation , so the case was tossed out. The fact remains that a judge ordered a a status conference . The fact also remains that going by Trump's past statements and actions he is more than likely guilty.

[jberryhill]

159. No, it was not filed a year ago. That is an absolutely false statement

Once again, you are simply mistaken, and what is remarkable is that you have the links to the relevant documents right under your nose.

This is the docket for the original filing:

http://ia801209.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.646485/gov.uscourts.cacd.646485.docket.html

The case was originally filed as Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump et al, case no. 5:16-cv-00797 in the Central District of California on April 26, 2016.

Despite backing by a Hollywood publicist, the case was filed without the $350 fee, but with a petition requesting that the fees be waived.

The petition to waive fees was denied. Additionally, the judge observed that the lawsuit was based on a claim of violation of civil rights, which is entirely inappropriate for a private civil suit. Neither of those is a matter of having the "wrong documentation".

Additionally, when the court sent its denial of the petition and the complaint to the plaintiff, the mail bounced as undeliverable.

It is not possible to honestly state that the case was filed "a year ago". Whomever told you that is simply making things up.

[pnwmom]

69. jberryhill, I appreciate your repeated efforts to inform and educate,

but I wish you wouldn't accuse people of lying about the case because they didn't understand that Trump must be served and hasn't been.

Many of the reports in the media, including the one in the Wall Street Journal, report the December date as if it were definite, or say the case is "pending," without mentioning anything about the unmet requirement of the plaintiff to serve Trump. You shouldn't be accusing non-lawyers of lying about this. They're getting the information from legitimate news sources that should have been more careful.

[jberryhill]

71. I am referring to various sorts of "news" sources which are indeed lying about the case

Some of those sources would love to see the media bite on this hook.

[Hekate]

109. Thank you +1000.

[druidity33]

153. Does Trump need to physically/personally be served? nt.

[BainsBane]

178. Can you tell if the plaintiff has tried to serve Trump?

and hasn't been able to? Or have they not made an effort?

[jberryhill]

179. Yes

In fact, I check the docket every day.

Service in New York can be effected by first class mail, incidentally, and Trump's residence is well known. No one has ever had a problem serving Trump.

When someone serves a suit, they will file a "return of service" in the docketing system. That has not happened.

In fact, on October 4, the judge ordered the plaintiff to serve the scheduling order on the defendant, and to file a document with the ECF system (which is publicly accessible) stating that the plaintiff had done so. If you are having problems with service of a proceeding, you can also ask the court to permit alternative means of service. The rules are quite flexible in that regard.

If I wanted to move forward with a case, and for some reason was having a problem serving the defendant, then I would move for the court to grant an alternative method of service. For example, in the area I practice, it is quite common to request service by email.

We are going on a month now, and there has been no return of service. I check the docket every morning. They just added yet another plaintiff's attorney from New Jersey, but there is no service on the defendant.

The "file a lawsuit but don't serve it" technique is used when you have what you believe to be a case the defendant will want to settle, but you don't want to actually engage in litigation. You file the case, and dangle it over their head like the Sword of Damocles, while contacting them to see if they want to waive service.

There is a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, normally, you serve a suit and the defendant has 20 days to file a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss. HOWEVER, if you contact the defendant and ask them if they want to waive service, then the defendant has 60 days to file a responsive pleading or motion to dismiss. This is, in part, because courts don't want to get bogged down in disputes over service.

This case has been filed three times. The excuse that "there was something wrong" with any of the prior filings does not make sense, because under the Rules, the plaintiff can amend the civil complaint, by right, prior to service on the other side or the filing of a responsive pleading or motion. In other words, your initial complaint can be a complete ball of shit, but as long as you haven't proceeded any further, you can throw it out and replace it with a new one, and save yourself $350.

I realize that some people are upset by my comments, but those are the procedural facts here.

[BainsBane]

180. That doesn't speak well for the validity of the case.

I do appreciate the information.

What about the racketeering and Fraud case for Trump U? Is that a civil case? It is proceeding along, isn't it?

[jberryhill]

181. Yes, the Trump U case is steaming along just fine

But you see a lot of folks asking "Why isn't the Clinton campaign or media picking up on the rape case".

There are a lot of reasons why.

What I find interesting is that this latest re-filing is "more credible" because it has an anonymous witness statement from someone alleging to have been a pimp for Epstein.

But there are also published reports of anonymous pimps for Epstein making similar claims about Bill Clinton.

So, some anonymous pimps are more credible than others. The difference seems to be whether they are saying something that one wants to hear.

[BainsBane]

182. It makes me ill that Bill Clinton hung around that guy.

and that Epstein got such a short jail term.

Is the accuser in the case against Trump the same one who accused and then withdrew allegations against Alan Dershowitz?

[jberryhill]

183. No, this one has different parentage

[BainsBane]

184. She's changed lawyers again

Now seems to be represented by Lisa Bloom. https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/793880513018785792/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[jberryhill]

186. Not on the court docket

An Evan Goldman has entered an appearance, but the case still has yet to be served on the defendant.

http://ia601506.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432/gov.uscourts.nysd.463432.docket.html

[BainsBane]

187. Okay

Perhaps Bloom is just handling her public appearance?

[jberryhill]

188. That would seem to be the situation

The idea with this kind of maneuver is to get a public denunciation, and then sue for defamation, because the substantive claims are long time-barred.

[BainsBane]

189. What does long time-barred mean?

[jberryhill]

190. You can't sue someone in 2016 for an assault in 1994

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx

New York - 5 years

California - 1 year

----

There are normally provisions for tolling the time bar where the victim was a minor - i.e. re-starting the clock when they become an adult.

[BainsBane]

191. So a civil version of statute of limitations?

Which is also five years in NY.

[jberryhill]

192. yes

There are limits on how long you can wait before filing various kinds of civil actions.

Then, there are issues about "when you found out about it" versus "how long it has been going on".

That was the entire POINT of the Lily Ledbetter Act in relation to discrimination claims, incidentally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.

[BainsBane]

193. Right

I knew that about Lilly Ledbetter.

Thanks for all the information.

[demmiblue]

13. Meta. n/t

[billymike]

28. Maybe

it triggers almost primal responses from survivors of sexual abuse. It does for me.

[karynnj]

29. Easy -- There are many many reasons that Trump is not fit to be President that are 100% proven

or things he himself has proposed. This, while it MAY go to trial and he may be proven guilty is not yet something you can say is 100% solid.

The reason for push back is this could blow up in the faces of Democrats who are pushing it and cause people to question the absolutely known actions.

[KALD]

33. I doubt it will, since he admitted that he goes around groping women and also said he could do

whatever he wanted.. Which is the same thing his victim said he said to her years before we heard this tape.

[Shrike47]

31. Appear is a term of art in law. It does not involve personally appearing.

[RKP5637]

55. At least it's on the front/home page of DU now. n/t

[RKP5637]

56. It's getting a lot of visibility on a Google search now!

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+rape+case&num=50&newwindow=1&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7fyZl4bQAhUjr1QKHQ5lDiEQpwUIFg&biw=1260&bih=620

[Thinkingabout]

60. IF, a big IF Trump should win he would be the first president elect standing trial for

A criminal offense. Yes, it would be much larger than Watergate. The worst presidential nominee, the Republicans are responsible for this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

67. This is a civil case, not a criminal prosecution.

The statutes of limitations have almost certainly run for any criminal charges, but in some civil cases where the plaintiff is a minor the statute of limitations might be tolled (suspended) until some period of time after the minor becomes an adult.

[Jim Lane]

126. New York law does have a tolling for minor but it's not enough here.

If the plaintiff was 13 years old at the time, then she was entitled to a tolling for infancy (the term in New York law for someone under 18). But that doesn't mean she can bring an action anytime she pleases for the rest of her life. If her claim arises from events in 1994, then the statute of limitations, even with the tolling, has long since expired, and the action is time-barred.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

128. I hadn't paid attention to the date. If this occurred in 1994 when she was 13,

she'd have turned 18 in 1999. So even if NY law gives her another few years (in my state I think it's 7), you're right; she's run out of time - unless the NY statute allows for 17 years, which is unlikely. So I guess her lawyers are arguing for some sort of common-law tolling. Not sure that's gonna work.

[jberryhill]

135. I refer you to the complaint...

Their argument is that she feared for her life.

Nothwithstanding that a 1997 civil case for sexual assault was filed against Trump and settled, with no apparent loss of life.

Take a deeper dive into this circus:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

139. Wow, this is very weird.

Maybe it's a complete hoax; or else maybe Katie Johnson (or whatever her name is) a real person whose allegations are true, but she's mentally disturbed in some way and has been taken advantage of by people looking for publicity. Whatever is happening, this lawsuit isn't likely to go anywhere.

[Crabby Appleton]

68. It's not a criminal case

it's a civil lawsuit.

[WillowTree]

83. Not only is this a civil rather than a criminal suit, .......

.......but it remains to be seen if it ever goes to trial. The cart needs to get back behind the cart while the legal system handles this thing.

[backscatter712]

96. That woman (who was 13 back when the Donald raped her)...

...should be allowed by law enforcement to skin Trump alive and turn his hide into a lampshade.

Fuck child rapists!

[SomethingNew]

145. Thankfully,

you aren't in charge of our justice system.

[KALD]

108. From Attorney Lisa Bloom regarding this case..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
"Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

111. But if they are, they have to be handled correctly and competently

or they won't go anywhere. As of now, Trump and his lawyers haven't been served with a summons and complaint, and nothing will happen until that occurs. Jane Doe ought to find better lawyers.

[KALD]

114. Hopefully she will. She should hire Lisa.

[Doodley]

127. As far as Trump is concerned, I don't care if it is true or not.

Trump represents a danger to all of us. He has stoked the flames of racial hatred for his own ends, The truth is a stranger to him. I don't give a f*** if he goes down for something that is true or false. Whatever it takes to take down a man who would put national security and our environment as risk for personal gain, I am all for it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

146. We should always care whether something is true.

If we don't, then we are no better than Trump, who cares nothing about the truth at all.

[Rex]

152. Sexual assault lawsuit.

I think before this is all said and done, Trump is going to be facing a lot of lawsuits against him. Maybe there can be one a month.

[KALD]

158. "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored."

"I’ve carefully reviewed this federal complaint. It is now much stronger than the one she filed on her own, which makes sense because she now has an experienced litigator representing her. Jane Doe says that as a thirteen year old, she was enticed to attend parties at the home of Jeffrey Epstein with the promise of money modeling jobs. Mr. Epstein is a notorious “billionaire pedophile” who is now a Level 3 registered sex offender - the most dangerous kind, “a threat to public safety” — after being convicted of misconduct with another underage girl.

Jane Doe says that Mr. Trump “initiated sexual contact” with her on four occasions in 1994. Since she was thirteen at the time, consent is not an issue. If Mr. Trump had any type sexual contact with her in 1994, it was a crime.

On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage sexual attack,” while she pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face. She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.” She says she has been in fear of him ever since.

New York’s five year statute of limitations on this claim - the legal deadline for filing — has long since run. However, Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read and which do support tolling

Two unusual documents are attached to Jane Doe’s complaints - sworn declarations attesting to the facts. The first is from Jane Doe herself, telling her horrific story, including the allegation that Jeffrey Epstein also raped her and threatened her into silence, and this stunner:

Defendant Epstein then attempted to strike me about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at me that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who took my virginity, not Defendant Trump . . .

And this one:

Defendant Trump stated that I shouldn’t ever say anything if I 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 I had not seen since that third incident, and that he was capable of having my whole family killed.

The second declaration is even more astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are, legally, children.

Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe:

I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.

It is exceedingly rare for a sexual assault victim to have a witness. But Tiffany Doe says:

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.

Tiffany Doe corroborates, based on her own personal observations, just about everything in Jane Doe’s complaint: that twelve year old Maria was involved in a sex act with Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump threatened the life of Jane Doe if she ever revealed what happened, and that she would “disappear” like Maria if she did.

Tiffany Doe herself says that she is in mortal fear of Mr. Trump to this day:
I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein . . . I swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.

Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein’s own sexual crimes and parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump’s relationship with him two decades ago in New York City. Mr. Trump told a reporter a few years ago: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 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.”

Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.

Jane Doe has not granted any interviews, and we don’t know anything about her background, or Tiffany Doe’s, or the details of their stories. Much information needs to be revealed to fully assess this case. Perhaps they will be discredited on cross-examination. Perhaps they will recant. But if we’re going to speculate in that direction, we should speculate in the other direction as well. Perhaps Jane Doe and her lawyer will have more evidence and witnesses to corroborate her claim. Perhaps witnesses from Mr. Epstein’s notorious parties will come forward. We just can’t know any of that at this point.

But based on what we do know now, Jane Doe’s claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness, and thus should be taken seriously. Her claims merit sober consideration and investigation.

We live in a world where wealthy, powerful men often use and abuse women and girls. While these allegations may shock some, as a lawyer who represents women in sexual abuse cases every day, I can tell you that sadly, they are common, as is an accuser’s desire to remain anonymous, and her terror in coming forward.

What do you call a nation that refuses to even look at sexual assault claims against a man seeking to lead the free world?

Rape culture."

We ignore the voices of women at our peril.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

[brooklynite]

162. Here's the problem I have with this story...

1. this is not a CRIMINAL trial; it's a CIVIL LAWSUIT, e.g. there was not enough evidence in the allegation for the authorities to file charges.

2. The lawsuit was previously filed (in CA) and dismissed. That suggests there were legal flaws in the suit that are no less likely to come up this time.

[KALD]

163. She first filed without a lawyer, I'll take Lisa's word.. she has handled a ton of these

cases, and she finds the story credible.

[napkinz]

185. this SHOULD be a Breaking News story ... will the MSM cover it?

BREAKING: woman who sued Donald Trump for child rape breaks her silence today. http://ow.ly/5gbR305MW3N

see https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/793880513018785792

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512573622

November Surprise?

[KALD]

194. I could say so much about doubters, but I'll be polite. I hope this woman has her day in court

and receives the justice she seeks. I also hope that other people won't be so quick to shoot down claims such as this. Anything is possible. Egg on face is not a good look.

[jberryhill]

203. Please, don't hold back

Go ahead. Say what you want about the people who said this case would never go anywhere.

[PoliticAverse]

199. Followup: The Woman Who Accused Trump of Raping Her at 13 Just Dropped Her Lawsuit

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598?utm_campaign=socialfow_jezebel_twitter&utm_source=jezebel_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[jberryhill]

200. I assume now that you have an answer to your question:

"What is it about Trump's pending rape case that sets some folks on the DU off?"

It was bait.

[KALD]

201. Obviously you have no experience with women who have been sexually assaulted.

I applaud her for having the courage to file in the first place.

[jberryhill]

203. I would guess that Lisa Bloom does

....and the only thing that Lisa Bloom contributed to this particular story is that Ms. Bloom managed to get photographs of Jane Doe taken and published, before the suit was withdrawn.

Assuming that there is underlying merit to the now-withdrawn claims, Ms. Bloom has done more harm than good here.

Alternatively, like the Cruz promoter who sunk $49,000 into this thing, Ms. Bloom may have realized that she has had the rug pulled from under her.

[Frank Cannon]

202. "Habeus corpus", "innocent until proven guilty"

All that liberal/progressive "bullshit" that somehow shows up in the US Constitution.

There are a million reasons not to vote for Trump. This may be one of them, but we won't know until he receives due process in a court of law, a requirement that is also spelled out in that troublesome document, the US Constitution.

[KALD]

204. True, but since the suit was dropped, that's not going to happen.

I can only go by his words that were caught on tape, and judge him by his actions and attitude toward women.

[Frank Cannon]

205. Then hate him for your own reasons, not legal ones.

You have plenty of reasons to dislike him and not vote for him. You don't need to invoke the court system.

[KALD]

206. Hate is wasted energy. It's a free country. I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is

The woman was telling the truth. That's it plain and simple. I shall move on and I have nothing else to add to this tiresome discussion.