HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029399.jpg

New Firepower in Shocking Suit Against Trump | Law.com Page 2 of 3 The rape suit isn’t exactly new. It was filed pro se by “Katie Johnson” in Los Angeles federal court in April, dismissed, refiled in the Southern District of New York, withdrawn and refiled on Sept. 30. But with the addition of Mason—a media-savvy lawyer not known for shying away from the spotlight—the stakes have changed. Suddenly, it’s a lot more serious. Which is not the same as legitimate, but the odds that the case will go away quietly are much slimmer given the a firepower of her new counsel. Especially now, in the wake of a 2005 > =| recording where Trump bragged about using his star power to kiss and ; grope women. DAILY DICTA The allegations in the suit are truly awful. Jane Doe says that when she was 13, she attended parties at Epstein’s New York City townhouse, enticed by promises of money and a modeling career. She allegedly had sexual encounters with Trump on four occasions there. The complaint states, “Defendant Trump tied plaintiff to a bed, exposed himself to plaintiff, and then proceeded to forcibly rape plaintiff. During the course of this savage sexual attack, plaintiff loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but with no effect. Defendant Trump responded to plaintiff's pleas by violently striking plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.” Epstein allegedly raped her as well. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, and has faced other suits by women who allege underage sexual assault. Trump’s lawyer Alan Garten, has unequivocally denied the allegations. In fact, the current complaint quotes his denial: “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.” Doe’s suit claims that this statement is libelous. The only reason I can think of for including such a seemingly absurd claim (how can you libel someone who is anonymous?) is that it’s not time-barred. The rest of the complaint probably is. The alleged incidents took place in 1994—22 years ago. The complaint claims that Doe didn’t come forward because she was “unrelentingly threatened by each defendant that, were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse caused to her by defendants, plaintiff and her family would be physically harmed if not killed.” But Epstein in 2008 was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Why couldn’t she have come forward then? That’s not the only problem with the case. I wrote about the suit when it was first filed in LA with great skepticism—“an anonymous stink bomb,” I called it. In large part, I was dubious because the person filing the complaint, “Katie Johnson,” claimed her only past work experience was as a freelance model. And yet her pro se complaint was perfectly formatted, with proper margins and numbering; it correctly cited statutes, got the venue and jurisdiction correct and contained no typos. http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/10/10/new-firepower-in-shocking-suit-against-tr... 10/11/2016 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029399