File 029398
Law.com Article on Trump Rape Lawsuit with J. Cheney Mason Representation (File 029398)
Law.com legal analysis article by Jenna Greene examining a civil rape suit against Donald Trump filed by Jane Doe, allegedly involving incidents at Jeffrey Epstein's New York townhouse in 1994. The article discusses the involvement of criminal defense attorney J. Cheney Mason and raises questions about the lawsuit's legitimacy and timing.
Summary
This October 2016 Law.com article analyzes a rape complaint against Donald Trump filed by an anonymous plaintiff known as Jane Doe (previously Katie Johnson), alleging sexual assault when she was 13 years old at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence. Criminal defense lawyer J. Cheney Mason took on representation of the plaintiff, lending credibility to a case that had been previously filed and dismissed. The article expresses skepticism about the lawsuit's legitimacy, noting inconsistencies including the 22-year delay in coming forward (despite Epstein's 2008 conviction), the anonymous plaintiff's impossibly professional legal documents when initially pro se, and questions about the motivations of the legal team.
New Firepower in Shocking Suit Against Trump | Law.comhttp://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/10/10/new-firepower-in-shocking-suit-against-tr...Page 1 of 310/11/2016NOT FOR REPRINTClick to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.Page printed from: /sites/almstaff/2016/10/10/new-firepower-in-shocking-suit-against-trump/New Firepower in Shocking Suit AgainstTrumpBy Jenna GreenePublished: Oct 10, 2016Donald Trump, left, and J. Cheney Mason, right.Photos: lev radin/Shutterstock.com and Rick Runion/APIf you thought the presidential election couldn’t get any uglier, guess again. Because a suit againstDonald Trump alleging that he raped a 13-year-old girl has new life.On Monday, Florida criminal defense lawyer J. Cheney Mason—best known for successfullydefending Casey Anthony, who was charged with killing her 2-year-old daughter—filed court papersto represent “Jane Doe” in a suit against Trump and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.New Firepower in Shocking Suit Against Trump | Law.comhttp://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/10/10/new-firepower-in-shocking-suit-against-tr...Page 2 of 310/11/2016The rape suit isn’t exactly new. It was filed pro se by “Katie Johnson” in Los Angeles federal court inApril, dismissed, refiled in the Southern District of New York, withdrawn and refiled on Sept. 30. Butwith the addition of Mason—a media-savvy lawyer not known for shying away from thespotlight—the stakes have changed.Suddenly, it’s a lot more serious. Which is not the same as legitimate, butthe odds that the case will go away quietly are much slimmer given thefirepower of her new counsel. Especially now, in the wake of a 2005recording where Trump bragged about using his star power to kiss andgrope women.The allegations in the suit are truly awful. Jane Doe says that when she was13, she attended parties at Epstein’s New York City townhouse, enticed bypromises of money and a modeling career. She allegedly had sexualencounters with Trump on four occasions there.The complaint states, “Defendant Trump tied plaintiff to a bed, exposedhimself to plaintiff, and then proceeded to forcibly rape plaintiff. During thecourse of this savage sexual attack, plaintiff loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but with noeffect. Defendant Trump responded to plaintiff’s pleas by violently striking plaintiff in the face withhis 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 forprostitution, 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 complaintquotes his denial: “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest leveland clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There isabsolutely 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 libelsomeone 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 comeforward because she was “unrelentingly threatened by each defendant that, were she ever to revealany of the details of the sexual and physical abuse caused to her by defendants, plaintiff and herfamily would be physically harmed if not killed.”But Epstein in 2008 was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Why couldn’t she have come forwardthen?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 stinkbomb,” I called it.In large part, I was dubious because the person filing the complaint, “Katie Johnson,” claimed heronly past work experience was as a freelance model. And yet her pro se complaint was perfectlyformatted, with proper margins and numbering; it correctly cited statutes, got the venue andjurisdiction correct and contained no typos.New Firepower in Shocking Suit Against Trump | Law.comhttp://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/10/10/new-firepower-in-shocking-suit-against-tr...Page 3 of 310/11/2016It looked more to me like the secret handiwork of a lawyer intent on smearing Trump.If so, however, there was no way to hold anyone accountable. The phone number provided wasdisconnected and Johnson’s address was an abandoned, foreclosed house.The allegations in the latest complaint by “Jane Doe” are the same, albeit with fewer lurid details andno explanation why she is no longer Katie Johnson. But the biggest difference is that she’s gotlawyers now.In addition to Mason, “Jane Doe” is represented—improbably—by New Jersey patent litigatorThomas Meagher, the managing partner of nine-lawyer IP boutique Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg& Liao.Mason and Meagher did not respond to requests for comment.Campaign finance records show that Mason gave $2,000 to Hillary Clinton in February. Meagherduring this election cycle has donated to Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. He hasnever given money to a Democrat, according to Open Secrets data.So is the suit for real? Or is it an especially dirty way to attack Donald Trump?There’s a You Tube video of the plaintiff, with her faced blurred and her voice distorted, where sherecounts the rape. Under these conditions, it’s impossible to tell if she’s credible or not.The complaint also includes an affidavit from “Joan Doe,” a school friend who said the plaintiff toldher about the rapes in 1994, and from “Tiffany Doe,” who said she recruited the plaintiff to come toEpstein’s parties and witnessed the sexual assaults. So perhaps more evidence will emerge to bolsterJane Doe’s claims.On the other hand, if the complaint is determined to be without merit, Mason and Meagher could besanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit.Or Trump could respond like Alan Dershowitz, who was also accused of sexual misconduct with aminor in connection with Epstein. The Harvard Law School professor said lawyers for the accuseracted unethically and fabricated the allegations; in turn, they sued him for defamation. The casesettled earlier this year on undisclosed terms.In the Trump case, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams set an initial conference for Dec. 16. The realquestion: if Clinton wins, will this case simply disappear?Jenna Greene can be reached at jgreene@alm.com. On Twitter: @JgreeneJenna© Copyright 2016. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.