On June 20th, a lawsuit was filed in New York against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, for child rape. Epstein, a good friend of Trump’s, already served on time soliciting charges (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065). I have tried to look for coverage of this news story on major networks like CNN, 60 minutes, and ABC/CBS/NBC national nightly news. Has it aired and I missed it?
I am suspicious that it hasn’t aired, even though Snopes cleared the story as true (http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/). As a sexual assault prevention educator, I often see dangerous rape myths repeated on the news, poorly written articles that seem to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator, and a lack of reporting on allegations against powerful men (Bill Cosby). Whether Trump is guilty or not, is not an issue of when and how it should be covered by the mainstream news. Child rape allegations against the presidential nominee for the Republican party is a bombshell story, and needs to be covered by more than just the blog news websites (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html).
There’s a lot going on right now with racially motivated killings, in the news. These stories and the attention are long overdue. Keep focusing on them! But please also cover this story about Donald Trump allegedly raping a 13-year-old. I’ve copied and pasted all I can from the court documents shown online, below. For the complete documents, you need to visit: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen . People who are thinking of voting for him need to know the truth, one way or another.
In my field, we know that victims tell the truth regarding their assault 92-98% of the time—according to the FBI. Which means it’s likely this story is true. We also see many people waiting for years to tell what happened to them, especially in childhood. Some victims never want to speak of their sexual abuse, and won’t until their hand is forced, such as in the case of their perpetrator gaining alarming amounts of power. One thing different about this story is the presence of a signed witness affidavit. This is an extremely rare piece of evidence to have in a rape case.
Scroll down to see what of the court documents could be copied and pasted. Please don’t hesitate to call or email with questions, and I look forward to seeing what your investigators uncover.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JANE DOE, proceeding under a pseudonym,
DONALD J. TRUMP and
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS,
SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE
IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym, brings this action against Donald J.
Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, and alleges that:
Plaintiff is an individual residing in and a citizen of the State of California.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein
each reside in this District and are citizens of the State of New York.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants are citizens of the State of New York for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
!"#$ &'&()*+),-(-. /0*12$34 & 567$8 ,(9.,9&( :";$ & 0< =
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars
($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
Defendants are each subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as both defendants are residents of and/or are domiciled in this district and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE,
FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, AND FALSE
Plaintiff was subject to acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts,
sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and threats of death and/or serious bodily injury by the Defendants that took place at several parties during the summer months of 1994. The parties were held by Defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Epstein at 9 E. 71st St. in Manhattan. During this period, Plaintiff was a minor of age 13 and was legally incapable under New York law of consenting to sexual intercourse and the other sexual contacts detailed herein. NY Penal L § 130.05(3)(a). The rapes in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual misconduct; criminal sexual acts in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual abuse in the first, second, and third degrees; and forcible touching (and, on information
!"#$ &'&()*+),-(-. /0*12$34 & 567$8 ,(9.,9&( :";$ . 0< =
and belief, predatory sexual assault) detailed herein are unlawful under New York law, e.g., NY Penal L § 130.20-130.52, and 130.55-130.65 (and, on information and belief, 130.95) and constitute the torts of,
, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, including threats of force and serious bodily harm, under New
York law. Declaration of Plaintiff Jane Doe, Exhibit A hereto; Declaration of Tiffany Doe,
Exhibit B hereto. Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe are each pseudonyms as each woman wishes
anonymity. Tiffany Doe, a witness, was an employee of Defendant Epstein. Exh. B.
Courts have discretion to allow proceeding anonymously where the need for
privacy outweighs the public’s interest in knowing their identity and any prejudice to the
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant
, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). This
litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature, and identification of Plaintiff would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others. Exh. A. All of the ten factors that the Second Circuit articulated as relevant to this analysis favor anonymity,
especially factors 1-4, 7, and 10 (e.g., factors one and two: “whether the litigation involves matters that are ‘highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature,’” and “’whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the ... party [seeking to proceed anonymously] or even more critically, to innocent non-parties’”), or are neutral with respect to anonymity.
Protecting Plaintiff’s anonymity is also appropriate as she is a rape victim.
Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of parties, with other similarly situated minor females, held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At least four of the parties were attended by Defendant Trump. Exhs. A and B. On information and belief, by this time in 1994, Defendant
!"#$ &'&()*+),-(-. /0*12$34 & 567$8 ,(9.,9&( :";$ > 0< =