Beyond The Horizon
Stacey Plaskett And Her Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 3) (7/11/24)
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.
What do the facts tell us?
Let's dive in and find out.
(commercial at 7:48)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 14m
- Broadcast on:
- 11 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What if you could have a career where the opportunities are as fast as our nation where it's not about mission statements but a shared mission? At US Customs and Border Protection we go beyond to protect more than borders from ship to shore, air to ground, cities to local communities. CBP agents and officers are keeping people safe. Join US Customs and Border Protection and go beyond for something far greater than yourself. Learn more at cbp.gov/careers. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where we left off with Stacey Plaskit and her motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Epstein survivors. 4. Plaintiffs rely on improper group leading. The amended complaint should be dismissed because it improperly relies on group leading making it impossible to determine what Congresswoman Plaskit has said to have done. Plaintiffs cannot simply lump defendants together for pleading purposes. Monterey Bay, Militant House LLC versus Assurance Company, 531, F.SUPP, 3D 673, 728, SDNY. The amended complaint violates federal rule a 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 homes versus all state corporation. 11 CIV.1543, LTS, DF, 2012, WL, 62, 72, 38, at 22, SDNY, January 27, 2012. Nearly every allegation in the amended complaint relies on the defendant or some other group moniker. It is impossible to determine what facts underpin the allegations against Congresswoman Plaskit. Likely there are none. Congresswoman Plaskit is entitled to a clear statement of the claims against her, not some amorphous nameless group of generic defendants. Plaintiff may not skate past this obligation by lumping all defendants together into an amorphous mass. The amended complaint violates rule 8A and should be dismissed. Five, plaintiffs failed to state claim on which relief can be granted. The amended complaint should be dismissed under rule 12B6 because plaintiffs do not plead factual allegations sufficient to nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. Ashcroft versus Zickball, 556 U.S. 662, 680, 2009. Quoting Bell Atlantic Corporation for his Twombly 550 U.S. 444, 570, 2007. A plausible claim requires more than the sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully, particularly when a lawful explanation is equally as likely. A complaint pleading facts that are merely consistent with the defendant's liability does not state a plausible claim. Only well-pleated facts may be considered when analyzing a complaint under rule 12B6, IDA 679. The presumption of truth does not match to thread-baricidals of a cause of actions elements, IDA 633, or a conclusionary allegations masquerading as factual conclusions. Jackson versus County of Rockland, 450, Appendix 15, 19, Second Circuit, 2011. Citing Courage versus Liberty Media Corporation, 449, F.3D, 388, 398, Second Circuit, 2006. The Supreme Court suggests using the two pronged approach employed in Twombly, identify and disregard the mere conclusions because they are not entitled to the presumption of truth and then consider the remaining well-pleated facts against the defendant to determine if they plausibly state a claim. Hayden versus Patterson, 594F.3D, 150, 161, Second Circuit, 2010. Citing Iqbal, 556, US at 662. Undertaking such an exercise here, reveals just how defective the amended complaint is and the degree of wrong that has been imposed upon Congresswoman Plaskit by her inclusion in it. Most of the amended complaint relies on recitations of legal standards or bald-conclusionary allegations. Even some of the facts alleged are not true facts. plaintiffs attempt to dress up one-conclusionary claim by prefficing it with information and belief. plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Congresswoman Plaskit was the EDC attorney responsible for recommending that the EDC provide these benefits to Epstein and his companies and enterprise. Upon information and belief in front of a conclusionary allegation does not render it nonconclusionary citizens United versus Schneiderman 882F.3D, 374, 384, and 85 Second Circuit, 2018. This allegation is entitled to no more deference than the other conclusionary allegations in the amended complaint. Facts pleaded upon information and belief must either be the facts that are within the possession and control of the defendant or where the belief is based on factual information that makes the inference of culpability plausible. Even then statements made upon information and belief must be supported by some factual allegations making them plausible. May Flower International Incorporated vs. TriStar Food Wholesale Company Incorporated, No. 21, CV02, 891, RPK, PK, 2022, WL, 453, 957, 7, at 4 EDNY, September 28, 2022. The factual allegations are not only lacking in the amended complaint. They are directly contradicted by Virgin Island statutory authority, the chief executive officer, or the assistant chief executive officer, not the general counsel, is tasked by statute with making recommendations to the commission, the chief executive officer, or at his discretion, the assistant chief executive officer shall have the following powers and duties. A) conduct preliminary investigations with regard to all applications for economic development benefits, B) submit the recommendations with regard to economic development benefits applications to the commission as required under this sub-chapter. Out of the entire complaint, then, there are just three factual allegations against Congresswoman Plaskit, one that she received campaign contributions from Epstein and his colleagues, two, that she solicited $30,000 in donations from Epstein for the Democratic National Committee, and three, that some unidentified point in time she served as general counsel for the EDC when Epstein or his company has received tax breaks. Plankton's plead no other facts in 228 paragraphs. The amended complaint fails under Rule 12b6 for the sheer of failure to plead facts, giving rise to a plausible claim for relief. A) count one should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to raise any plausible claim against Congresswoman Plaskit for a violation of the TVPA. The amended complaint purports to state a beneficiary claim under the TVPA, US Code 18, Section 1595, against Congresswoman Plaskit. To state a beneficiary claim for a violation of the TVPA, plaintiffs must establish that one, the defendant knowingly received a financial benefit, or something of value, two, from participating in a venture, three, that the defendant knew or should have known was engaged in a violation of the TVPA. S.J. vs. Choice Hotels International Inc. 473, F.SUPP3D. 147, 152 and 53, Eastern District of New York 2020. Quoting AC vs. Red Roof Inn's Inc. 2020 WL32, 56, 261 at 4. S.D. Ohio, June 16, 2020. Courts are split as the weather a defendant must have knowledge of a violation against a specific plaintiff or the venture as a whole. Compare dough number one vs. Red Roof Insurance Inc. 21f.4. 714, 725 and 26, 11 Circuit 2021. Holding that a plaintiff must plead that the defendant knew of a violation as to the plaintiff, and dough PB vs. Windham Hotels and Resorts Inc. Number CV231493ZNQRLS, 2023 WL, 889 02929, at number four. Holding that a defendant must have knowledge of a violation of the TVPA as to the plaintiff's state of a claim, with G.G. vs. Salesforce.com Inc. 76F, 4th, 544 and 56, 7 Circuit 2023. Holding that the TVPA does not require a showing of knowledge specific victim was trafficked. The court need not reach the question here because plaintiffs must at a minimum plead facts that if known to the defendant, would or should have put her on notice of sex trafficking by a particular venture. The amended complaint alleges only a campaign contribution donation by Epstein, a donation to the DNC, and the vague statement that Congresswoman Plaskit worked with or for the EDC sometime between 2001 and 2019. These allegations do not raise even the specter that Congresswoman Plaskit had any reason to know that Epstein's sex trafficking, much less that she knowingly received the benefit from it. Count one should be dismissed. B. Count two should be dismissed because there is no cause for action for aiding and abetting a violation of the TVPA. In count two, plaintiffs allege liability for aiding and abetting a violation of the TVPA. There's no cause of action for aiding and abetting a violation of the TVPA. Del one versus Deutsche Bank, 671 F.SUPP 3D, 387-411, SGNY 2023, Noble versus Weinstein, 335 F, SUPP 3D, 504-525, SGNY 2018. Further, under the common law, the point of aiding and abetting is to impose liability on those who consciously and culpably participated in the tortot issue. Twitter Inc. versus Tomah 598, US 471, 506-2023. Plaintiffs fell to allege either knowledge or participation by Congresswoman Plaskit. Count two should be dismissed. C. Count three should be dismissed because plaintiffs fell to establish a cause of action for civil conspiracy. To allege conspiracy, plaintiffs must that each defendant entered into a joint enterprise with consciousness of its general nature and extent. Del versus Deutsche Bank, 671 F.SUPP 3D, 387, 412, SGNY 2023. Plaintiffs must show that the defendant actually agreed to participate in Epstein's sex trafficking venture. Observing that an agreement to provide banking services with knowledge that they would be used to assist sex trafficking venture is different than agreeing to participate in a sex trafficking venture. The mere assertion of an agreement and actions in line with that agreement does not suffice to state a claim. Chen Gang versus Zao Zizin, number 304-CV-1146 RNC 2017-WL 436, 69-67, at one. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts sufficient to infer that Congresswoman Plaskit ever had reason to know of Epstein's trafficking, much less that she agreed to join his operation. Count 3 should be dismissed. D. Count 4 should be dismissed because plaintiffs fell to allege any cause of action for negligence against Congresswoman Plaskit. Count 4 alleges negligence, but the basis for the allegation remains unclear. Both under the New York and Virgin Islands law, negligence requires one, a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, two, a breach thereof, and three, injury, approximately resulting there from. David versus Weinstein company, LLC, 431, F.SUPP 3D-290-305, SDNY 2019. Plaintiffs do not indicate what duty Congresswoman Plaskit is alleged to have owed. What was the duty? From whence did it arise? And on what basis was it founded? To whom specifically was the duty owed, the amended complaint only vaguely states that the defendants had a duty to care, to ensure that citizens, aliens, and travelers to the Virgin Islands are protected by the Virgin Islands. The amended complaint offers no clue as to the specifics of any legal duty purportedly owed by Congresswoman Plaskit. Plaintiffs also allege that she was negligent in carrying out her job. Like with much of the amended complaint, the allegation is nothing more than a bald concusory statement lacking any supporting facts. It's hard to even know what this allegation is intended to mean. The remainder of the negligence allegations border on nonsensical as they allege actions by federal employees and private companies not Virgin Island agents. Custom agents in the Coast Guard fall under the management of the Department of Homeland Security. Air traffic controllers are employed by Federal Aviation Administration. Gate agents and baggage handlers are employed by the airlines. Only the police are under the Virgin Islands control and nothing supports a claim that Congresswoman Plaskit ever had supervisory authority over the police. As to Congresswoman Plaskit, plaintiffs do not plausibly allege duty breach or damages. Plaintiffs negligent claims should be dismissed. No aspect of the amended complaint can survive a 12B6 motion to dismiss. The amended complaint should be dismissed. Conclusion. The amended complaint fails every pleading standard. The scant factual allegations, pled by plaintiffs, offer no support for the defamatory offensive and baseless allegations leveled against the Congresswoman. Plaintiffs failed to offer any concrete allegations to support the exercise of jurisdiction, venue, or to plausibly state a cause of action for any of the counsel alleged. The amended complaint fails in every way possible and should be dismissed. Alright, so that's the Stacey Plaskit motion for dismissal after she found herself caught up in the survivor lawsuit, and as you can imagine, there is plenty more on the way. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description