Beyond The Horizon
Stacey Plaskett And Her Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 2) (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 8:27)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 14m
- Broadcast on:
- 11 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp, paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. America. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By honoring your sacred vocation of nursing, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. At Grand Canyon University, our online RN to BSN, MSN, or DNP degree programs allow you to balance online coursework with local, in-person, clinical, practicum, or immersion hours. Find your purpose at GCU-private-Christian-affordablevisitgcu.edu What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the Stacey Plaskit motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed against her. Subsection 1. Subsection 1 does not apply here, because Congresswoman Plaskit did not transact business in the state of New York. Even if she did, the claims in the amended complaint do not arise from the alleged transactions. Plaintiffs allege that Congresswoman visited Epstein in his home to request a campaign contribution and a donation to the Democratic National Committee that was never paid. Plaintiffs also allege that Congresswoman Plaskit visited Epstein in New York to request a campaign contribution. Plaintiffs further allege that Epstein and his colleagues donated or loaned $30,000 to one of her campaigns. These actions did not amount to transacting business in the state of New York. A person transacts business in New York when she purposefully avails herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the foreign state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Eduardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence 579f.supp3d456 473, 74, S.D.N.Y. 2022, quoting Best Van Lines Inc. v. Walker 490f.3d 239247 Second Circuit 2007. The primary consideration is the quality of the defendant's New York contacts as viewed by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the foreign defendant's contacts with the state. The act of discussing a transaction that never materializes does not consist of transacting business in New York. 3-5 Compounds Inc. v. Scramtex Inc. 11, CIV 1616, R.J.H., 2011, W.L., 583, 8697, at 11. S.D.N.Y. November 21st, 2011. Courts in this circuit have repeatedly and virtually universally declined to find that such meetings amount to the transaction of business, nor does the mere solicitation of a donation in New York. C.E.G. Epstein v. Thompson, #09, CIV, 8696, HB 2010, W.L., 31, 99, 838, at 3, S.D.N.Y., August 12th, 2010. Noting that solicitation of business within the state does not constitute the transaction of business within the state. C.E.L.s. v. Ronald Reagan, Presidential Foundation, Inc. 9, CIV, 1188, G.E.L., 2009, W.L., 14, 908, 528, S.D.N.Y., May 27th, 2009. Observing it may not be necessarily be the case that a registered charity transacts business in New York any time it solicit a contribution. C.E.L.s. also 3.5 compounds, 2011, W.L., 583, 8697, at 4.5. Noting that meetings subsequent to the formation of a contractual relationship must be essential to the business relationship or substantially advance it to confer jurisdiction. Even taking his true the allegation that Congresswoman Plaskit requested a campaign donation to the Democratic Party, the donation was never actually paid. The meeting is not alleged to have been essential to any involvement in Epstein sex trafficking activities or even related to them, nor does it appear to have substantially advanced any business relationship. In any event the donation was never made and so does not create a basis to assert jurisdiction. C.E.L.s. 3.5 compounds incorporated, 2011, W.L., 583, 8697, at 11. Plaintiffs also cannot rely on Epstein's alleged donation or loan to the Congresswoman's campaign. Notwithstanding plaintiff's allegations Epstein could only have donated a maximum amount of between 2,500 and 2,700 depending on the time of the donation. Federal election rules limit the amount and individual can contribute in any given year. That election committee, archive of contribution limits, last visited March 25th, 2024. What Epstein's colleagues donated, why they donated, where they donated, and how they donated remain unexplained, but certainly cannot be the basis to establish jurisdiction over Congresswoman Plaskit in New York. Plaintiffs also allege that the court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction because Epstein sent payments through a New York bank. This concusory claim unsupported by any factual detail cannot support jurisdiction. C.Burdo v.1 Coin Ltd. 561, F.SUPP 3D, 379, 400 SDNY 2021. Finding no jurisdiction because plaintiff offered only concusory allegations that failed adequately to allege any connection among defendant's conduct, named plaintiff's claims, and New York. Further, the mere passive receipt of funds to a campaign entity that were sent through a New York bank by another party do not create jurisdiction. ID at 403 and 404. Finding no jurisdiction where defendant was aware that funds would pass through a New York bank, absent allegations that the defendant directed the funds to be deposited or controlled the route of the plaintiff's funds through the correspondent account, and collecting cases. Finally, it's not clear from the amended complaint how either of these alleged meetings arise from Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. There is simply more of plaintiff's scattershot attempts to implicate the Congresswoman at any cost without regard for logic, law or facts. The amended complaint provides no plausible explanation as to why she should have known of the sex trafficking, how she would have learned of it, and what age she is alleged to have provided. Subsection 1 does not authorize jurisdiction. Subsections 2 and 4. Neither subsection 2 nor 4 can apply. Plaintiffs allege no tortious act in New York, subsection 2, and make no allegation that any injury arose from the use of property in New York. Subsection 3. Subsection 3 cannot apply. Congresswoman Plaskit does not regularly engage in a persistent course of conduct in New York that can have any relation to plaintiff's claims. CPLR 302A3. Nor does she derive income from commerce either in New York or internationally. Further, jurisdiction does not attach simply because plaintiffs are residents of New York. Trauma Entertainment Inc. for Centennial Pictures Inc. 729, F.3D 215-218, Second Circuit 2003. It is well settled that the residence or domicile of the injured party within New York is not a sufficient predicate for jurisdiction under Section 302A3B. The exercise of jurisdiction would offend principles of due process. Even if there was a statutory basis to find jurisdiction, the court must still determine that the exercise of jurisdiction can port with principles of due process. This is too prompt. One, does the defendant have minimum contacts with New York such that she could anticipate being held in the court here, and two, does the assertion of jurisdiction can port with a fair play and substantial justice? Three, five compounds, 2011-WL, 583-869-97, at six. The minimum contact analysis is similar to the Transacting Business Inquiry under CPLR 302A1. C. Dix vs. Peters, 374F.SUPP, 3D, 213-223, Northern District of New York, 2019. In assessing a defendant's minimum contacts, the court evaluates the quality and nature of the defendant's contacts. Importantly, the analysis focuses on the defendant's contacts with the forum, not the plaintiff's connection, to the forum. As described above, Congresswoman Plaskit has almost no contacts with New York, much less the minimum contacts required by the 14th Amendment. To evaluate whether fair play and substantial justice support jurisdiction, the court should conduct a reasonableness analysis and consider, one, the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant, two, the interest of the forum's state, in adjudicating the case, three, the plaintiff's interest, an obtaining convenient and effective relief, four, the interstate judicial system's interest, and obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and five, the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. "An official message from Medicare." A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save, too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp, paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Even if the amended complaint could survive a motion to dismiss, it does not belong in New York. Congresswoman Plaskit does not live here, and she does not work here. She has not availed herself of the laws of New York in any way related to any allegation in the amended complaint. The claims alleged by plaintiffs all accrued in the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands is where all likely witnesses will be located, and the Virgin Islands has a stronger interest in adjudicating this matter. Due process does not permit the exercise of jurisdiction over Congresswoman Plaskit in this jurisdiction. Two, the complaint should be dismissed for improper venue. Congresswoman Plaskit joins the motion to dismiss this action for improper venue asserted by co-defendants government of the Virgin Islands, Governor John Dajang, and First Lady Cecile Dajang. The Congresswoman does not state the same briefing here but relies on the briefing by these co-defendants. Three, plaintiffs allege injuries that accrued outside the statute of limitations. The TVPA claims alleged by Jane Doe's 4 and 5 and 16 are barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. Plaintives class actions should also be dismissed for all putative class members with claims accruing prior to November 22nd, 2013. A motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations may be raised by a 12B6 motion to dismiss the complaint where, as here, the defense appears on the face of the complaint. Plaintives allege one count the violation of the TVPA, count one, aiding and abetting the TVPA, count two, and conspiracy to violate the TVPA from 2001 to 2019. Count three, plaintiffs Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5 allege injuries that accrued between 2001 and 2009. Plaintives Jane Doe 6 alleged injuries that accrued in 2004. Plaintives putative class members include women with claims accruing between 2001 and 2019. The TVPA is a federal statute and imposes a 10-year statute of limitations. US Code 18, Section 1595, C&1. The initial complaint was filed on November 22nd, 2023. One, claims predating November 22nd, 2013, fall outside the statute of limitations. The continuing conspiracy or continuing violation doctrine does not apply. Plaintives 4, 5, and 6 do not allege continuing injury into the statutory period. They just try to revive their expired claims by bootstrapping them to timely claims. C. Smith vs. Husband 376F.SUPP 2D603613, Eastern District of Virginia 2005. Defining the continuing violation doctrine as applying where each of the defendant's acts that cause injury to a plaintiff renews the cause of action for purpose of the statute of limitations. C. also Suleiman vs. Laram 6, C.I.V. 8182, C.M. 2017, W.L. 116, 597.46, at 8. SDNY, April 4th, 2017. Claims of fraudulent concealment are equally unavailing because plaintiffs do not bother to offer any factual allegation supporting such a claim. Finally, claims predating December 19th, 2003, should be dismissed because they predate the passage of civil rights of action under the TVRA, and the civil right of action does not have retroactive effect. Jane Doe's four, five, and six claims under the TVPA, counts one through three, should be dismissed because they predate November 22nd, 2013. Class allegations predating November 22nd, 2013 should likewise be dismissed. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with part four, plaintiffs rely on improper group pleading. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.