Beyond The Horizon
Stacey Plaskett And The Amended Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 2) (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 8:41)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 12m
- Broadcast on:
- 13 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
We're Colorado's oil and natural gas industry, and we're working with lawmakers and environmental groups to find common ground. We're outpacing our target goals for reducing emissions every year. We're building a strong economy for Colorado families, and we're contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue for new transportation and parks and wildlife conservation. That's responsibility in action. Shared for by Coloradans for responsible energy development. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where we left off with the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint made by the Epstein survivors against Stacey Plaskett B. The exercise of jurisdiction would offend principals of the due process. Courts conduct a two-pronged inquiry when considering whether the exercise of jurisdiction offends principals of due process. One, does the defendant have minimum contacts with New York such that she should anticipate being held in the court here, and two, does the assertion of jurisdiction can port with fair play and substantial justice. The minimum contacts analysis is similar to the transacting business inquiry under CPLR 302A1. See Dixverse Peters, 374, F.SUPP3D213, 223, NDNY 2019. When assessing a defendant's minimum contacts, the court evaluates the quality and nature of the defendant's contacts. The analysis focuses on the defendant's contacts with the forum, not the plaintiff's connection to the forum, IDEA 223. As described above, Congresswoman Plaskett has almost no contacts with New York, much less the minimum contacts required by the 14th Amendment. Fair play and substantial justice requires a reasonable analysis that considers, one, a burden, that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant, two, the interest of the forum, state and adjudicating the case, three, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, four, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and five, the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies, metro life insurance company versus Robertson, SecoCorp 84, F.3D 560, 568, Second Circuit 1996. This action does not belong in New York. Congresswoman Plaskett does not live or work in New York, defending this case here would be a burden. Nearly all defense witnesses will be located in the USVI and the majority of discovery would have to take place in the USVI. This of course places a tremendous financial strain on a defendant who must either bring witnesses here or send lawyers to the USVI. To the extent any forum has an interest in this litigation, it is the USVI. Due process does not permit the exercise of jurisdiction over Congresswoman Plaskett in this jurisdiction. Two, the SAC relies on improper group pleading and should be dismissed. Plaintives simply cannot lump defendants together for pleading purposes. Honorary Bay, Millhouse, LLC versus Assurance Company, Corporation 531, F.SUPP 3D, 673, 728, SDNY 2021. The SAC violates federal rule of civil procedure, 8A, because it fails to give each defendant of the fair notice of the claims against her, ID at 728 and 29, quoting Holmes versus Allstate Court number 11, CIV, 1543, LTS, DF, 2012, WL, 62, 72, 38, at 22, SDNY January 27, 2012. Nearly all allegations in the amended complaint relies on the defendant or some other group moniker. For example, in count 5, negligence, every paragraph pleads either the USVI or the defendant's. The EG SAC 314, defendants use their money and influence to ensure that these laws were affirmatively violated without any hindrance or repercussion. 320, defendants also permitted Epstein to leave the USVI without any hindrance. The rest of the SAC is no more specific. For example, paragraph 65 makes the claim Epstein defendants and his co-conspirators threatened that harm would come to plaintiffs and other victims if they did not comply. With almost universal use of group pleadings makes it impossible for Congresswoman Plaskit to determine what she has ledged to have done to be included in the SAC. This is likely because no such facts exist. The use of group pleadings makes it impossible for Congresswoman Plaskit to identify the claims against her and violates rule 8A. The SAC should be dismissed. 3, the SAC should be dismissed under rule 12B6 for failing to state claims on which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss plaintiffs must plead factual allegations sufficient to nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. A plausible claim requires more than the sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully particularly when a lawful explanation is equally as likely. Only well-pleated facts may be considered when analyzing a complaint under rule 12B6 IDA 6.79, the presumption of truth does not attach to threat-bearer-citals of a cause of actions elements, IDA 6.33, or a conclusion allegations masquerading as factual conclusions. See Jackson v. County of Rockland 450, F.APPX 1519, Second Circuit 2011, a complaint must be evaluated on the factual allegations remaining after the bear conclusions are discarded. Take Ball 556 U.S. at 6.79. The SAC contains almost nothing but the "wrote" recitation of legal elements or "conclusion allegations" with no factual support. Once these bear allegations are stripped away, the SAC cannot state any cause of action against Congresswoman Plaskit. A, counts 1 through 3, plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for violation of the TVPA. 1. Allegations are crewing before December 19, 2003 predate the civil right of action under the TVPA and should be dismissed. Plank to seek to state claims for violations of the TVPA, count 1, conspiracy to violate the TVPA, count 2, from 2001 to 2019, an obstruction of an attempt to enforce the TVPA, count 3. Claims predating December 19, 2003 should be dismissed because they predate the passage of the civil right act of action under the TVRA and the civil right of action does not have a retroactive effect. Belez v. Sanchez, 693, F.3D308, 325 Second Circuit 2012. 2. All TVPA claims predating November 22, 2013 are barred by the statute of limitations. Count 1, 2, and 3 make allegations for injuries purportedly arising from violations of the TVPA from 2001 through 2019. The TVPA is a federal statute with a 10-year statute of limitations. US Code 18, Section 1595, C1. Planktiff first filed on November 22, 2023. Claims predating November 22, 2013 fall outside the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. The Markle American Insurance Company vs. Mr. Demolition Inc., F.SUPP3D, 21, CV6998, 2024 WL63422, at 4, EDNY, 14, 2024. A statute of limitations defense can be raised on a motion to dismiss where the defense appears on the face of the complaint. Planktiff also fails to plead fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Fraudulent concealment requires a showing of 1) wrongful concealment by defendants 2) which prevented Planktiff's discovery of the nature of the claim within the limitations period and 3) due diligence and pursuing discovery of the claim. There are no allegations, even in conclusiony fashion, that Congresswoman Planktiff took any action to conceal anything. To the contrary, one of the only concrete facts pleaded by Planktiff, that Epstein donated to Congresswoman Planktiff's campaign as a matter of public record. Chain donations are easily located by a search of the FEC's database. Jane Doe 1 makes claims under the TVPA counts 1-3 for injuries accruing between 2001 and 2019. Jane Doe's 4-5 alleged injuries accruing between 2001 to 2009. Jane Doe's 6 alleged injuries accruing in 2004, and these claims and class claims accruing prior to November 22, 2013, should be dismissed as falling outside the limitations. "We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is working to responsibly meet rising energy demand. So everyone can get to where they want to be. You've arrived. That's Energy in Progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless." 3. Count 1 should be dismissed because the SAC fails the state of cause of action for violation of the TVPA. The state of beneficiary claimed for a violation of the TVPA, plaintiffs must establish that 1) the defendant knowingly received a financial benefit, or something of value, 2) participating in a venture, and from that venture, 3) that the defendant knew or should have known that they were engaged in a violation of the TVPA, S.J., vs. Choice Hotels International Inc. 473, FSUPP 3D-147, 152 and 53, Eastern District of New York, 2020. Quoting AC vs. Red Roof Insurance Inc., 2020, WL-32, 56-61, at 4, SD, Ohio, June 16, 2020. At a minimum, plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to show that the defendant would or should have been on notice of sex trafficking by the specific ventured alleged. H.G. vs. Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, 489, F.SUPP 3D-697, 705, Eastern District of Michigan, 2020. Holding general knowledge of a sex trafficking problem does not satisfy the men's rea of the TVPA claim. Congresswoman Plaskit learned the Vepstein's crimes along with the rest of the country in July of 2019 after his arrest. Members can point to "no well-pleated" fact in the SAC that raises even an inference otherwise. The conclusory allegations that Congresswoman knew or joined the sex trafficking venture does not suffice to state a claim. 4. Count 2 should be dismissed because the SAC fails to allege that the Congresswoman joined a conspiracy to violate the TVPA. To allege conspiracy, plaintiffs must that each defendant entered into a joint enterprise with a consciousness of its general nature and extent. Though 1, 671, F.SUPP 3D at 412, quoting United States vs. Lessi, 638, F.2D, 466, 473, Second Circuit, 1980. Plaintiffs must show that a defendant actually agreed to participate in Epstein's sex trafficking venture. Plaintiffs offer only the conclusory allegations that Congresswoman Plaskit agreed to join Epstein's sex trafficking venture. Plaskit entered into an agreement to facilitate the sex trafficking venture. This conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show legality. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, C. also Chen Gang vs. Zao Zhizhen, 3-04-C.V-1146, RNC, 2017-W.L. 436, 69, 67 at 1, Connecticut, September 30th, 2017. Complaint lacks factual content allowing for a reasonable inference that the defendant entered into an agreement to do acts that violated the TVPA. Count 3 should be dismissed. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with 5. Count 3 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. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.