Protesters clash with police at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. (Julio Cortez/AP Photo) Trump’s legal team denies the allegation and argues in a memo that the trial is. The Case for Trump The Case for Trump. Country Recipes from Southwest France ebooks Free PDF. Download Ebook Goose Fat and Garlic: Country Recipes from Southwest France Book Directory PDF Read Online Goose Fat and Ga. The Case for Trump The Case for Trump. Home; Translate. Free Reading 1zz Fe Ecu Pin Out Audible Audiobook PDF. A Character Guide and World Compendium Download Free Books in Urdu and Hindi PDF. Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Search This Blog. Powered by Blogger. President are immensely important for international credibility.24 In this case, an Oval Office meeting with President Trump was critical to the newly elected Ukrainian President because it would signal to Russia—which had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and still occupied Ukrainian territory—that.
The Memory Hole 2 (and its sister site, AltGov2) is just me against a mountain of secrecy.
If you appreciate having all 40 documents from three different lawsuits
available in one place for FREE (I had to pay to download them from Pacer),
nicely organized and labeled, support my work:
Update: On Nov 4, 2016, 'Jane Doe' told her lawyers to withdraw her lawsuit. (Around this time, the Daily Mail of London became the only media outlet to get photos and a face-to-face interview with her.) There is currently no active lawsuit.
>>> A woman whose identity is being protected has filed a civil lawsuit against Donald Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein (a convicted sex offender) accusing them of raping her in 1994, when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media have been almost unanimously silent about this.
The lawsuit has gone through three iterations:
• the original suit, Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, filed in California in April 2016
• Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, filed in New York in June 2016
• the second Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, filed in New York at the end of September 2016
By posting these documents (retrieved through Pacer, a site run by the federal court system), we're not commenting on the merits of the suit. The fact is that the process is in motion: the lawsuit has been filed, a prominent lawyer is representing Jane Doe, summonses have been issued, and US District Judge Ronnie Abrams has scheduled a pretrial conference of counsel for all parties.
Trump's attorneys have vehemently denied the accusations of the previous lawsuits, and regarding the current one, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's campaign said the claims are 'categorically false, frivolous, and sanctionable.'
Documents in the second Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein
1 - Complaint and related documentsFiled & Entered: 9/30/2016
2 - Statement of RelatednessFiled & Entered: 9/30/2016
3 - Civil Cover SheetFiled & Entered: 10/03/2016
4 - Complaint [corrected] Filed & Entered: 10/03/2016
4-1 - Attachment: Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request for a Protective Order [Jane Doe]
4-2 - Attachment: Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request for Protective Order [Tiffany Doe]
4-3 - Attachment: Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request for Protective Order [Joan Doe]
5 - Order for Initial Pretrial ConferenceFiled 10/04/2016, Entered 10/05/2016
6 - Request for Issuance of Summons [Trump] Filed & Entered: 10/07/2016
7 - Request for Issuance of Summons [Epstein] Filed & Entered: 10/07/2016
8 - Motion for Admission Pro Hac ViceFiled & Entered: 10/10/2016
9 - Affidavit in Support of Motion (Certificate of Good Standing)Filed & Entered: 10/10/2016
10 - Summons Issued [Trump] Filed & Entered: 10/12/2016
11 - Summons Issued [Epstein] Filed & Entered: 10/12/2016
12 - Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [corrected] Filed & Entered: 10/18/2016; Terminated:10/19/2016
12-1 -Attachment: Exhibit [Supreme Court of Florida Certificate of Good Standing]
12-2 - Attachment: Text of Proposed Order
13 - 'Full docket text for document 13: ORDER granting  Motion for James Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Ronnie Abrams)(Text Only Order) (Abrams, Ronnie)' Filed & Entered: 10/19/2016
14 - Motion and Order to Appear Pro Hac ViceFiled & Entered: 11/01/2016; Terminated:11/01/2016
14-1 - Certification of Evan Goldman
15 - Notice of Voluntary DismissalFiled & Entered: 11/04/2016
Documents in the first Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein
1 - ComplaintFiled & Entered 06/20/2016
1-1 - Attachment: Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request for Protective Order [Jane Doe] Filed & Entered 06/20/2016
1-2 - Attachment: Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request for Protective Order [Tiffany Doe] Filed & Entered 06/20/2016
2 - Civil Cover SheetFiled & Entered 06/20/2016Let my people go surfing pdf free download.
3 - Request for Issuance of Summons [Trump] Filed & Entered 06/20/2016
4 - Request for Issuance of Summons [Epstein] Filed & Entered 06/20/2016
5 - Summons Issued [Trump] Filed & Entered 06/21/2016
6 - Summons Issued [Epstein] Filed & Entered 06/21/2016
7 - Order for Initial Pretrial ConferenceFiled & Entered 06/30/2016
8 - Order for Initial Pretrial ConferenceFiled & Entered 08/25/2016
9 - Notice of Voluntary DismissalFiled & Entered 09/16/2016
Documents in Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein
1 - Complaint - (Discovery)Filed: 04/26/2016 & Entered: 04/27/2016
2 - Certificate and Notice of Interested PartiesFiled: 04/26/2016 & Entered: 04/27/2016
3 - Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60)Filed: 04/26/2016 & Entered: 04/27/2016 & Terminated: 05/02/2016
4 - Notice of Assignment to United States Judges (CV-18)Filed: 04/26/2016 & Entered: 04/27/2016
5 - Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8)Filed: 04/26/2016 & Entered: 04/27/2016
6 - Order on Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60)Filed & Entered: 05/02/2016
7 - Mail ReturnedFiled: 05/09/2016 & Entered: 05/10/2016
8 - Mail ReturnedFiled: 05/09/2016 & Entered: 05/13/2016
Jane Doe instructed us to dismiss her lawsuit against Trump and Epstein today. Tough week for her. We wish her well. https://t.co/dnwCRFrZM5— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 5, 2016
Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl [Thorough Snopes overview of the situation]
Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored [By lawyer and NBC legal analyst Lisa Bloom]
Video Puts Spotlight on Donald Trump’s History of Lewd Comments [Under a misleading headline, the Wall Street Journal relates all three public accusations of sexual assault toward Trump, becoming the first member of the corporate media to report on the Jane Doe lawsuit.]
Related: Bill Clinton is also buddies with Epstein and often flew around the world with him on his private jet, nicknamed 'Lolita Express':
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday that the House impeachment brief against former President Donald Trump, which seeks to undermine Trump’s First Amendment-based argument in his defense, amounts to a dangerous broadside against the freedom of speech of all Americans.
Writing in an op-ed for The Hill, Dershowitz made a case against a key argument contained in the brief (pdf), namely that “the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,” signals Congressional willingness to take aim at freedom of speech more broadly.
“The brief filed by the House managers advocating the conviction and disqualification of citizen Donald Trump contains a frontal attack on freedom of speech for all Americans,” Dershowitz wrote. “It states categorically that ‘the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,’ despite the express language of that amendment prohibiting Congress from making any law, or presumably taking any other action, that abridges ‘the freedom of speech.'”
The legal scholar then challenged another statement in the brief, namely that “the First Amendment exists to promote our democratic system.”
“This categorical statement surely would have surprised the Framers of the First Amendment, who believed in freedom of speech but not so much in democracy,” Dershowitz wrote. “The Framers of our constitutional system thought they were building a ‘republic,’ with limited suffrage and many checks on ‘democracy,'” he added, arguing that freedom of speech is “essential to keeping it a republic, but not necessarily a democracy.”
“So, no, the First Amendment does not exist only to ‘protect our democratic system.’ It exists to protect our liberty, regardless of what system we choose,” he wrote.
Dershowitz said that the argument made by the authors of the House brief that the First Amendment “doesn’t apply to presidents or others who ‘attack our democracy,’ is the same as that made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his acolytes decades ago “when they sought to deny First Amendment protection to communists and others who were seen as enemies of democracy and who, if they had come to power, would have denied the rest of us our freedoms, including that of free speech.”
“Freedom of speech must include those who would replace democracy with other systems of governance. It must even include those who advocate severe restrictions on freedom of speech, as many young left wing radicals do today. They, too, must be allowed to express their dangerous views,” he argued.
The House brief argues that the First Amendment protects private citizens from the government but “it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office.”
Book The Case For Trump
Holding Trump “accountable through conviction on the article of impeachment would vindicate First Amendment freedoms—which certainly offer no excuse or defense for President Trump’s destructive conduct,” the brief’s authors argue.
“Even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements,” they wrote.
Citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases Branti v. Finkel and Elrod v. Burns, they argued that, “as the leader of the Nation, the President occupies a position of unique power. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not shield public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important government interests.”
The House brief alleges that Trump incited a mob that breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by sowing doubt about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump’s legal team denies the allegation and argues in a memo (pdf) that the trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president. The team also argues that Trump exercised his First Amendment rights in calling into question the results of the election.
“After the November election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of COVID-19 pandemic ‘safeguards’ states election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures,” the legal team wrote.
“Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment,” they wrote. “Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation.”
“If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all,” they added.
Dershowitz’ sentiment that the reasoning featured in the impeachment brief is a threat to freedom of speech more broadly was echoed in a statement by Trump adviser Jason Miller, who said: “not only will President Trump be on trial next week. The First Amendment will be on trial next week because the Democrats aren’t going to stop with attacking President Trump, they want to go after the free speech and the rights of all Americans.”
The Case For Trump Pdf Free Download Adobe Reader
Democrats face an uphill battle in the Senate in their pursuit of an impeachment conviction against Trump. Forty-five Republican senators voted in favor of a resolution calling the trial unconstitutional, since Trump is now a private citizen. With the Senate split 50–50, the impeachment managers would have to convince 17 Republicans that the trial is constitutional and that Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection.
Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.