Beyond The Horizon
Stacey Plaskett And The Amended Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 3) (7/13/24)
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.
Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.
(commercial at 7:09)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 12m
- Broadcast on:
- 13 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
(upbeat music) - Okay, round two. Name something that's not boring. - Laundry? (buzzer) Oh, a book club. (buzzer) Computer Solitaire, huh? (buzzer) - Ah, sorry, we were looking for Chumba Casino. (upbeat music) That's right, Chumba Casino.com has over 100 casino style games, join today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. (upbeat music) Chumba Casino.com. - No, we're just asking, we're going to leave it by law. (upbeat music) - What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with Stacey Plaskett and her amended motion to dismiss the complaint filed against her by the Jeffrey Epstein survivors. Five, count three should be dismissed because the SAC fails to identify knowledge of an effort to enforce the TVPA against Epstein or any action taken to interfere with enforcement. Obstruction of the TVPA requires a showing of one, knowledge of an effort to enforce the TVPA and two, an intentional action to obstruct or attempt to obstruct enforcement. Though one versus Deutsche Bank, 671F.supp 3D 387 409 STNY 2023. The SAC fails to allege the Congresswoman had knowledge of any investigation or other attempt to enforce the TVPA against Epstein. It also fails to allege any action purportedly taken by the Congresswoman to obstruct enforcement. Count two should be dismissed. B, count four should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to plead nearly every element of a Rico claim. Civil Rico's trouble damages and almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on defendants renders it an unusually potent weapon. Cat's men versus Victoria's Secret catalog, 167FRD 649-655 SDNY in 1996. Courts therefore must scrutinize claims carefully and should strive to flush out frivolous Rico allegations at an early stage of the litigation. Plaintives have two burdens to state a Rico violation. First, they must establish Rico standing by showing they suffered an injury by business or property as the direct and proximate cause of a Rico violation. Moss versus Morgan Stanley Incorporated, 719F.2D 517 Second Circuit 1983. Beish versus Galena, 346, F.3D, 366, 372, Second Circuit 2003. This is more of a rigorous matter than standing under Article 3. Denny versus Deutsche Bank, 443, F.3D, 253, 266, Second Circuit, 2006. Second, plaintiffs must allege a substantive violation of the Rico statute, Moss 719F.2D at 17. The SAC fails both burdens. One, plaintiffs' Rico claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Civil Rico has a four-year statute of limitations running from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury, not from discovery of the pattern of racketeering activity. Rotella versus Wood, 528, US, 549, 552, 2000. Each plaintiff alleges personal injuries of which they were presumably aware at the time the injuries occurred. No injuries could have accrued after Epstein's arrest after July 6, 2019, which event put an end to Epstein's sex trafficking. The latest plaintiffs or a class could conceivably file a claim under Rico would be July 6, 2023. Plaintiffs file the first complaint on November 22, 2023. All plaintiffs' Rico claims fall outside the statute of limitations. Two, plaintiffs fail to establish Rico standing because they have failed to allege injury to business or a property. Plaintiffs cannot establish Rico standing because they allege only personal injuries. Not injuries to business or a property. US Code 18, Section 1964C, providing a civil right of action for those injured in their business or property by a Rico violation. RJR, Nabisco Inc., versus Eureka County, 579, US 325, 350, 2016, noting that the Rico private right of action excludes personal injury claims. Buscunan versus Alaska, 874, F.3D, 806, 817, Second Circuit, 2017, noting that a plaintiff cannot recover for personal injuries under Rico. Goany versus Sutton Park cap, LLC. Number 22-1830, 2023, WL, 823, 5019 at 1, Second Circuit, November 28, 2023. Observing Rico does not allow recovery for personal injuries, such as bodily harm or emotional distress. Three, plaintiffs cannot establish a violation of substantive Rico offense. To state a violation of US Code 18, Section 1962, plaintiffs must allege one that the defendant, two, through the commission of two or more acts, three, constituting a pattern, four, of racketeering activity, five, directly or indirectly invest in or maintains an interest in or participates in, six, an enterprise, seven, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce, Moss 719F.2D at 17. Plaintiffs fell to allege nearly every one of these elements. A, plaintiffs fell to allege the existence of a Rico enterprise, the existence of an enterprise in the Sydney Equinon of a civil Rico claim, Heinrich versus Dean, 655, F.SUPP, 3D, 184, 190, SDNY, 2023. There can be no Rico claim without a Rico enterprise. Thus many courts evaluate the existence of an enterprise before considering the other factors. Biznow, LLC versus Lopez Pierre, number 20, CIV, 3441, PAE, SLC, 2022, WL, 175, 405, 573, at 9. SDNY, November 2nd, 2022, report and recommendation adopted. Number 20, CIV, 3441, PAE, SLC, 2022, WL, 175, 0439, SDNY, December 5th, 2022, collecting cases. Plaintiffs report to plead an association and fact enterprise. An enterprise is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. United States versus Turket, 452, 576, 583, 1981. A Rico association, in fact, is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit, such as an enterprise, and it must have at least three structural features. A purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose, Boyle versus United States, 556, US, 938, 946, 2009. A plaintiff must also plead an enterprise distinct from its members and the alleged predicate acts. First Capital Asset Management Incorporated, versus Satin Wood, 385, F.3D, 159, 173, Second Circuit, 2004. First, plaintiffs fail to plead a common purpose to engage in a particular fraudulent course of conduct and work together to achieve such purposes. We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is helping meet rising demand and we're working to do it responsibly. Our next-gen tankless facilities reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our operations by more than 90% compared to our older designs, working to provide Colorado with energy that's affordable, reliable, and ever cleaner. So everyone can get to where they want to be. You've arrived. That's energy and progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless. Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck. I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse. We're family, canoles, and spins mean everything. Now, you want to get mixed up in the family business. Introducing the Godfather at chevron.com. Test your luck in the shadowy world of the Godfather slots. Someday, I will call upon you to do a service for me. Play the Godfather. Now at chevron.com. Welcome to the family. No purchase necessary. VDW Group, boy rep prohibited by law. 18 plus, terms and conditions apply. Satinwood, 385 F.3D at 174. Quoting First Nationwide Bank, First Gelt Funding Corporation. 820 F.SUPP, 89, 98, SDNY 1993. The SAC offers no plausible basis to infer that the purported members of the alleged enterprise acted on behalf of the enterprise, as opposed to on behalf of themselves in their individual capacities to advance their individual self-interest. Penguin Bros, versus City National Bank 587. Appendix 663, 668. Second Circuit, 2014. Quoting United Food and Community Workers Union and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, versus Walgreen Company. 719 F.3D 849, 854, Seventh Circuit, 2013. This is fatal to plaintiff's rego claim. Moss vs. BMO Harris Bank, North America 258. F.SUPP 3D 289, 299, Eastern District, 2017. Failing to allege that members of an association, in fact, enterprise shared a wrongful intent to violate rego as fatal to US Code 18, Section 1962. See also Penguin Bros, 587. Appendix 667, finding the complaint lacked any factual detail sufficient to allege a plausible common purpose among the rego defendants. Black vs. Ghanieva 619 F.SUPP 3D 309, 331, SDNY 2022. Holding a rego enterprise requires a common intent to violate rego or to act unlawfully. Second, the SAC fails to allege any ascertainable structure. It should be dismissed because the SAC contains no factual allegations allowing an inference of the existence of an ongoing organization formal or informal, or any evidence that the various associates of the alleged gender prize functioned as a continuing unit. Satinwood 385F.3D at 174. The SAC lacks any facts at all concerning the relationship between the members, how they came to an agreement, how they knew each other, whether they acted to benefit each other or any other consideration. Black 619 F.SUPP 3D at 334 and 335. Listing factors considered by courts when evaluating an enterprise's structure. At best, the SAC alleges mostly in conclusiony fashion that various defendants had agreements with Epstein and contains no allegations about the interpersonal relationships among the defendants. CID relationships among those associated with the enterprise are essential structural features of the rego association, in fact. Quoting Boyle 556 US at 946. It's well settled law that the rimless hub and spoke structure alleged by the SAC cannot be classified as a rego enterprise. Diadaro 901 F.3D at 101 second circuit 2018. All right, we're gonna wrap this episode up right here. And in the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off and finish this bad boy up. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. Judy was boring. Hello. Then Judy discovered Chumba Casino.com. It's my little escape. Now Judy's the life of the party. Oh baby, mama's bringing home the bacon. Whoa, take it easy, Judy. The Chumba life is for everybody. So go to Chumba Casino.com and play over 100 casino style games. Join today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prices. Chumba Casino.com. No purchase necessary for your work prohibited by law, 18 plus, terms, and conditions apply, see website for details.