Politicians Archives - Proof with Jill Stanley

Trump Lawsuit | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump, and Non-Disclosure Agreements

Celebrity News, Politicians, Stormy Daniels, Trump

Over two months ago, at the start of 2018, a story surfaced that an adult film star, Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford), had an affair with Donald Trump. As the story goes, back in 2006, while Melania was pregnant with Barron, Trump and Stormy had unprotected sex after meeting at a golf club in Lake Tahoe. When stories of that fateful night (which included tales that Trump is obsessed with and terrified of sharks. Hmm. Very odd) came to light, the White House dismissed them as “old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election.” What else is new? Denial is the buzzword these days.

However, Stormy also denied it and produced a letter that was signed saying that she did not have sexual relations with Trump. The came another letter, once again denying her involvement, even as others speculated she had been paid $130,000 by Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, to keep quiet just before the election. Cohen later admitted to paying Daniels but did not disclose his reasons for the payment. It must be noted though that allegedly the signatures on the documents are vastly different, and so, there’s speculation that the first denial letter came from the White House. There’s no concrete proof of this but we at PROOF don’t find the theory farfetched.

Then, the story started to become too big to contain and Stormy went on Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show and insinuated that she had not signed the document herself. Kimmel also managed to use logic and clever word play to get her to admit to having a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). And that’s what the lawsuit is focused on.

On March 6th, 2018, Daniels filed a lawsuit in an effort to get the non-disclosure agreement declared void. The grounds? Daniels claims that Trump did not actually sign the non-disclosure agreement himself. Both parties used aliases (hers was Peggy Peterson and his was David Dennison) and even with the fake name, Trump never signed the document. That decision is now catching up it him. Trump, ever the fighter is, of course, not going away despite the embarrassment factor of the whole thing especially given that Melania was pregnant at the time of the alleged encounter.

In response to Daniel’s filing, Trump and his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, countersued her and alleged that she violated her NDA “as many as 20 times” and could potentially owe upwards of $20 million dollars.

And, in the words of the Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti, it’s pretty “remarkable” that we have a sitting president suing a private citizen for over $20 million for talking about their relationship. Avenatti also criticized Trump and his camp for their intimidating and “thuggish behavior,” alleging that Daniels was “physically threatened. “He also accused them of “hiding the money trail.”

Daniels is set to go live on 60 Minutes to share her story. And so far, no court order has been issued to stop her.

And while Daniels is prepping for her tell-all, a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal is claiming that she too had an affair with Trump over a decade ago. She confirmed the affair to The New Yorker, saying that she authored a handwritten document that detailed the entire thing. She sold it to the National Enquirer, giving them exclusive rights to the story, and alleges that it was then buried with the aid of Trump (this reminds us at PROOF how Cosby’s legal team had a National Enquirer story buried about his behavior). The deal had netted the former playmate $82,500 and prevented her from talking about the affair on any other platform. Buying the rights to a story only to bury it later is known as the “catch and kill,” which is exactly what happened to McDougal’s story. And now she is silenced, worried about violating an NDA but knowing that our sitting president isn’t being honest as, naturally, they’ve denied all of McDougal’s claims.

“You’re Blocked!” Are the President’s Twitter Thumbs Violating His Critics’ Free Speech?

Politicians, Trump

There’s a reason the First Amendment is the very first one, it’s the cornerstone of our nation’s belief system, regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on. The First Amendment is what allows so many opinions to exist and flourish (here at PROOF we get a little patriotic just thinking about it). These days, there are two things that annoy people when it comes to freedom of speech, however: people who have opposing or polarizing views from our own, and the way social media allows people to say whatever they want under the protective guise of privacy or anonymity. As a result, allow us to introduce the perfect storm of a lawsuit, featuring free speech, social media, and the President of the United States.

President Trump, his Press Secretary Sean Spicer and his Director of Social Media, Dan Scavino, are currently being sued by seven Twitter users who claim that they have been blocked by the President’s Twitter account and as a result, their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The plaintiffs are alleging that they were blocked after posting tweets that criticized the current administration.

On behalf of the seven plaintiffs, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sent the President a letter explaining the reason for the lawsuit: “We write on behalf of individuals who have been blocked from your most-followed Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, because they disagreed with, criticized, or mocked you or your actions as President. This Twitter account operates as a “designated public forum” for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional… Blocking users from your Twitter account violates the First Amendment. When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum from which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical.”

President Trump did not respond to the letter from the Knight First Amendment Institute, though he and his staff have consistently maintained that his Tweets should be considered official White House statements. A past ruling (Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors et al) has already declared that public social media accounts may not “suppress public comment,” lest they “run afoul of the First Amendment.” While on its face that case seems to help plaintiffs, Davison may not be applicable precedent in that there is an argument that twitter blocking is not really a matter of free speech at all, rather, it is a private business decision and is up to Twitter itself, which allows blocking in the first place and sets the terms of agreement for all of its users. Twitter has not yet weighed in on the suit. One thing is for sure though, if this case is allowed to go forward (there are questions of presidential immunity), @realDonaldTrump may have to think before he taps that block button.

To read the complaint filed in this matter click here. It’s super easy to read and full of great information about the plaintiffs, who, for the most part, are just regular folks and include a doctor, a police officer, and a former professional cyclist.

Trump U Lawsuit Settles for $25M, But Not Everyone is Happy With the Deal

Donald Trump, Lawsuits, Politicians, Settlements, Trump Class Action

President Donald Trump officially settled a lawsuit brought by thousands of students of his Trump University real estate training program for $25 million, but at least one former student does not want to accept it.

Students joined together and sued after they claim they paid for real estate courses that didn’t deliver. They allege they were promised insider information but what they were taught could be found with a simple internet search.

Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel (who made headlines during the presidential campaign when Trump said he wasn’t capable of being impartial because he is Mexican-American) signed off on the deal in late March, finalizing it despite at least one student, Sherri B. Simpson, who wasn’t happy. Simpson of Florida has objected to the terms of the settlement and has asked Judge Curiel to release her from the class and allow her to sue the president on her own. She wanted Trump prosecuted for racketeering, and also wanted an apology. Curiel moved forward with signing off on the deal. Simpson can still appeal.

The terms of settlement allow for about 4,000 students to recoup about 90 cents on the dollar of what they paid for the alleged scam classes. Apparently many of the plaintiffs are elderly and desperately need the funds. The lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would waive their fees, and lawyer Jason Forge told the The New York Times, “Once in a long while, this profession yields some good feelings. This is one of those times.” We at PROOF agree with Forge–it is often hard to feel good feelings in the law even when you win. But Forge and the rest of the team “did good” here. They obtained an excellent settlement for the victims, 90 cents on the dollar is solid and the fee waiving means more money in victims’ pockets. Well done, Jason Forge, you earned those good feelings.

And, actually despite what some think about lawyers, doing legal work for free, which is referred to as pro bono, (short for pro bono publico, which in latin means for the public good) is an integral part of being a lawyer. So much so that the American Bar Association (ABA) considers it an obligation for attorneys to engage in pro bono work. Rule 6.1 of the ABA model rules of professional conduct (these are the rules that govern how an attorney should act in his/her legal capacity) states that: Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.

No doubt, the Trump U team spent well more than 50 hours on the case!

Trump, who, as part of the deal does not have to admit fault, claimed in November that the only reason he was settling was because of his presidential win, tweeting, “The ONLY bad thing about winning the Presidency is that I did not have the time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U. Too bad!”

If Trump hadn’t agreed to the deal, he could have found himself fighting a very public trial while also going through the transition to become president. That’s exactly what seems to upset Sherri Simpson so much. According to the New York Times, she said of the settlement agreement, “For him to go out there and say, well, ‘I didn’t do anything wrong,’ it’s disgusting. I want an apology.” We understand Simpson’s frustration (boy, do we understand your frustration, Sherri!) but in the bigger picture, with the victims recouping much of their money fairly quickly and the avoidance of public, messy lawsuit, we agree with Judge Curiel and the class’ legal team that settling is the better option at this point. We like a good, fair fight too Sherri and that apology would have felt good as well but with Trump that was never going to come easy–or quickly.

Seeking more celebrity news? Check out other PROOF articles. We cover celebrity news like no one else!

Trump Got Sued on His First Monday on the Job!

Celebrity Lawsuits, Donald Trump, Legal, Politicians

Donald Trump is no stranger to the justice system. He has filed lawsuits and has been sued many, many times. In fact, a USA Today analysis found 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump. 3,500!!! It’s almost unbelievable, isn’t it? Well, we can add one more to the list because on the first Monday of his new job, President Trump was slapped with a lawsuit (He was also sued last week by a former Apprentice contestant).

On January 23, 2017, leading ethics experts filed a massive lawsuit against Trump alleging that his business relationships with foreign powers and foreign players violates the Constitution, specifically they allege that his actions violate the little known emoluments clause. As with any constitutional claim the legal issues are complex but, simply stated, the emoluments clause prohibits federal officials from receiving financial benefits from foreign governments. President Trump’s companies have multimillion-dollar real estate deals with foreign powers and it is those dealings, among others, the suit claims, that violate the emoluments clause. Two easy to understand examples are that The Bank of China, one of the five biggest state owned commercial banks in China, is a tenant of Trump Tower and is also as a lender in another building in New York City in which Trump has a significant partnership interest.

Trump has been fighting the conflicts issue for months as it was continually raised during the campaign. In response to such complaints, Trump said that although he would not sell his ownership in his company, The Trump Organization, he would hand over control of it to his two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric. He also promised that his company would not make any more deals abroad and would donate profits from foreign governments that stay in his hotels to the U.S. Treasury (Hmmm. Let’s see if that happens!). Naturally, Trump’s camp has praised his actions to limit his conflicts. In fact one of his lawyers, called his efforts to do so, “extraordinary.” But that’s what his side is saying. Esteemed and widely regarded government ethics lawyers and experts say Trump’s steps to remove conflicts of interest are not enough and that is why this lawsuit was filed today.

The truth is that no other president has had such wide and deep foreign business dealings. The Trump Organization, has stakes in real estate holdings in 20 countries, including Turkey and South Korea. And, Trump has not lived a life of public service, his life, to date, has been about him, about how to amass wealth and how to serve his own interests. With this history in conjunction with the breadth of his foreign business dealings in a company he still owns, it’s hardly surprising that people are worried that Trump will put his personal financial interests above those of the people of the United States.

The pedigrees of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are impressive and include attorney Norman Eisen, an ethics adviser to Barack Obama, Richard Painter, a former George W. Bush adviser, and Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence H. Tribe, among others. But despite the background and experience of these scholars and attorneys, this is no open and shut case—at any level. In fact, whether the plaintiffs even have standing (the right to sue) and whether or not the emoluments clause even applies to the office of the president, and more specifically, to Trump’s actions, has already been raised.

Two things we do know for sure? This case is going be heavily litigated by both sides and that list of 3500 Trump lawsuits is going to continue to grow to over the next four years.

If you want more details about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v Donald J. Trump, click here for a copy of the complaint filed on January 23, 2017 in federal court in New York.

Are You DEPLORABLE? Here’s How You Can Find Out

Donald Trump, Politicians