Trump Sued By Teen ‘Sex Slave’ For Alleged ‘Rape’ — Donald Blasts ‘Disgusting’ Suit

How in the Hell were you able to post this before Deckard?

Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein

Donald Trump, The Clintons And Jeffrey Epstein

New York magazine: Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Vanity Fair: Some of the businessmen who dine with him at his home—they include newspaper publisher Mort Zuckerman, banker Louis Ranieri, Revlon chairman Ronald Perelman, real-estate tycoon Leon Black, former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold, Tom Pritzker (of Hyatt Hotels), and real-estate personality Donald Trump—sometimes seem not all that clear as to what he actually does to earn his millions.

Why is Donald Trump’s Name in Pedophile Epstein’s Little Black Book?

Trump is all about getting the best deal, but the public needs to know what the real deal is with Trump and pedophilia. According to this article on Anti Media, when Trump was asked about the connection, his spokesman told Gawker that “Mr. Trump only knew Mr. Epstein as Mr. Trump owns the hottest and most luxurious club in Palm Beach, and Mr. Epstein would go there on occasion.”

How funny – only a real businessman could turn the negative connotation of being associated and/or implicated with pedophilia into an opportunity to market himself!

... the public needs to know what the real deal is with Trump and pedophilia ...

Why do you feel it necessary to post this innuendo associating Donald Trump to pedophilia?
Is it your intent to turn LibertyPost into a tabloid like National Enquirer, the Globe and the National Examiner?
Your mind is so rageful that It is out of your own control and so you need to reign it back in.

How in the Hell were you able to post this before Deckard?

I've been expecting it.

This is only the beginning.

The borking of Trump will only get worse.

Donald Trump, The Clintons And Jeffrey Epstein

Yeah, ol' Jeffrey is quite a piece of work.

Ties to a royal family across he pond, too.

Why do you feel it necessary to post this innuendo associating Donald Trump to pedophilia?

His ties to Epstein are certainly newsworthy, are they not?

Is it your intent to turn LibertyPost into a tabloid like National Enquirer, the Globe and the National Examiner?

Hey jackass - I didn't post the article, I merely added some relevant information.

Don't care

Are Trump's ties to Epstein newsworthy or not?

Don't care

Some people will.

And some more people will care with the next smear.

And a few more with the revelation after that.

Anybody can be borked.

if it was news, why then is a low end gossip site the only one posting it.

Not so - it's in several U.K. papers as well as the NY Daily News: www.nydailynews.com/news/...ects-categorically-false-charges- raping-teen-girl-article-1.2618137

Johnson’s complaint, obtained by Radar, alleges the duo forced “her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to [her] and also her family,” “making her their sex slave” from June to September 1994.

The alleged offenses occurred 22 years ago.

There may be an issue with the statute of limitations.

statute of limitations.

Does that apply to civil suits?

This case was filed in Federal court to attempt to take advantage of the Federal statute of limitations law as revised in 2006. This attempt appears to be futile. The COMPLAINT appears to have been pepared by an attorney and filed by Katie Johnson, Pro Per, so no attorney is listed.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-18/part-ii/chapter-213/section-3283/

2013 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001 - 3771)
Chapter 213 - LIMITATIONS (§§ 3281 - 3301)
Section 3283 - Offenses against children

Offenses against children - 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2013)

§3283. Offenses against children

No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 828; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330018(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2149; Pub. L. 108–21, title II, §202, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 660; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1182(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3126.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §584 (R.S. §1046; July 5, 1884, ch. 225, §2, 23 Stat. 122).

Words "customs laws" were substituted for "revenue laws," since different limitations are provided for internal revenue violations by section 3748 of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Internal Revenue Code.

This section was held to apply to offenses under the customs laws. Those offenses are within the term "revenue laws" but not within the term "internal revenue laws". United States v. Hirsch (1879, 100 U.S. 33, 25 L. Ed. 539), United States v. Shorey (1869, Fed. Cas. No. 16,282), and United States v. Platt (1840, Fed. Cas. No. 16,054a) applied this section in customs cases. Hence it appears that there was no proper basis for the complete elimination from section 584 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., of the reference to revenue laws.

Meaning of "revenue laws". United States v. Norton (1876, 91 U.S. 566, 23 L.Ed. 454), quoting Webster that "revenue" refers to "The income of a nation, derived from its taxes, duties, or other sources, for the payment of the national expenses." Quoting United States v. Mayo (1813, Fed. Cas. No. 15,755) that "revenue laws" meant such laws "as are made for the direct and avowed purpose of creating revenue or public funds for the service of the Government."

Definition of revenue. "Revenue" is the income of a State, and the revenue of the Post Office Department, being raised by a tax on mailable matter conveyed in the mail, and which is disbursed in the public service, is as much a part of the income of the government as moneys collected for duties on imports (United States v. Bromley, 53 U.S. 88, 99, 13 L. Ed. 905).

"Revenue" is the product or fruit of taxation. It matters not in what form the power of taxation may be exercised or to what subjects it may be applied, its exercise is intended to provide means for the support of the Government, and the means provided are necessarily to be regarded as the internal revenue. Duties upon imports are imposed for the same general object and, because they are so imposed, the money thus produced is considered revenue, not because it is derived from any particular source (United States v. Wright, 1870, Fed. Cas. No. 16,770).

"Revenue law" is defined as a law for direct object of imposing and collecting taxes, dues, imports, and excises for government and its purposes (In re Mendenhall, D.C. Mont. 1935, 10 F. Supp. 122).

Act Cong. March 2, 1799, ch. 22, 1 Stat. 627, regulating the collection of duties on imports, is a revenue law, within the meaning of act Cong. April 18, 1818, ch. 70, 3 Stat. 433, providing for the mode of suing for and recovering penalties and forfeitures for violations of the revenue laws of the United States (The Abigail, 1824, Fed. Cas. No. 18).

Changes were made in phraseology.

AMENDMENTS

2006—Pub. L. 109–162 inserted ", or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer" after "of the child".

2003—Pub. L. 108–21 substituted "Offenses against children" for "Child abuse offenses" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years."

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "Child abuse offenses" for "Customs and slave trade violations" as section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "No person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any violation of the customs laws or the slave trade laws of the United States unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after the commission of the offense."

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
Congressional Research Service
October 1, 2012

[excerpt - page 2]

Limitation-related constitutional challenges arise most often under the Constitution’s ex post facto and due process clauses. The federal courts have long held that a statute of limitations may be enlarged retroactively as long as the previously applicable period of limitation has not expired. The Supreme Court recently confirmed that view; the ex post facto proscription precludes legislative revival of an expired period of limitation. Due process condemns pre-indictment delays even when permitted by the statute of limitations if the prosecution wrongfully caused the delay and the accused’s defense suffered actual, substantial harm as a consequence.

1994.

Don't care

When did he stop, or did he? In 2012 he endorsed pedo activist Willard Mitt Romney. Mittens made his infamous pedo scout plea in '94. Maybe trump was inspired by Willie-Mitt....

The borking of Trump will only get worse.

No doubt ...

Does that apply to civil suits?

The Federal Criminal Statute of Limitations does not apply to civil suits. Plaintiff has cited a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 2241 and a Federal civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. 1985.

The civil rights statute would follow New York state law. For personal injury, it would be three years. For a victim of a crime, a criminal conviction is a prerequisite.

The cited Federal criminal statute does not currently have a time limitation for commencing a prosecution. However, after the alleged offenses, and before the 2006 removal of the time limitation, the time was limited to when the child turned 25 years old.

This does not appear to be a serious complaint, but something filed to look official, be used for political purposes, and forgotten about.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, asks the court for relief against the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, in the amount of $100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Dollars) as a result of the Defendants aforementioned acts upon which they willfully and maliciously violated the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff as stated in 18 U.S.C. ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing the then 13 year old Plaintiff Johnson under threat of harm to her and her family, and 42 U.S.C. ; 1985 by the Defendants conspiring to deny the Civil Rights of Plaintiff Johnson by making her their sex slave.

18 U.S.C. § 2241 is a criminal statute.

Aggravated sexual abuse - 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (2013)

§2241. Aggravated sexual abuse

(a) By Force or Threat.—Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—

(1) by using force against that other person; or

(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) By Other Means.—Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—

(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or

(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—

(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and

(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(c) With Children.—Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.—In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

(Added Pub. L. 99–646, §87(b), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3620, and Pub. L. 99–654, §2, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3660; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330021(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2150; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, §101(a) [title I, §121[7(b)]], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009–26, 3009–31; Pub. L. 105–314, title III, §301(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2978; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1177(a)(1), (2), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3125; Pub. L. 109–248, title II, §§206(a)(1), 207(2), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 613, 615; Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title V, §554, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2082.)

As a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2241 has no Federal time limitation for prosecution.

http://www.statuteoflimitation.info/federal-statute-of-limitations.html

18 U.S.C. § 2241 -- Aggravated sexual abuse -- No Federal time limitation

However, note the text of the law after the alleged offenses and before the Federal time limitation was removed in 2006.

2003—Pub. L. 108–21 substituted "Offenses against children" for "Child abuse offenses" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years."

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-18/part-i/chapter-109a/section-2241/

42 U.S.C. § 1985 is a civil statute.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-i/section-1985/

Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights - 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2013)

§1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

(R.S. §1980.)

A civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conforms to state statute of limitations law, in this case New York where the offenses are alleged to have happened.

http://civilrights.uslegal.com/post-civil-war-federal-civil-rights-acts-civil-provisions/provisions-against-conspiracies-to-interfere-with-civil-rights-42-u-s-c-%C2%A7-1985/

State limitation periods apply to actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

The New York statute of limitations for a civil action to recover damages for a personal injury is three years.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules

§ 214. Actions to be commenced within three years: for non-payment of money collected on execution; for penalty created by statute; to recover chattel; for injury to property; for personal injury; for malpractice other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice; to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud. The following actions must be commenced within three years:

1. an action against a sheriff, constable or other officer for the non-payment of money collected upon an execution;

2. an action to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute except as provided in sections 213 and 215;

3. an action to recover a chattel or damages for the taking or detaining of a chattel;

4. an action to recover damages for an injury to property except as provided in section 214-c;

5. an action to recover damages for a personal injury except as provided in sections 214-b, 214-c and 215;

6. an action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort; and

7. an action to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time the plaintiff discovered the facts constituting the fraud, but if the plaintiff is a person other than the spouse whose consent was obtained by fraud, the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time, if earlier, that that spouse discovered the facts constituting the fraud.

The New York statute of limitations for a victim of a criminal offense applies only following a criminal conviction, and varies from 7 years from the date the crime was committed, and 10 years the defendant was convicted of the specified crime.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:

§ 213-b. Action by a victim of a criminal offense.

Notwithstanding any other limitation set forth in this article or in article five of the estates, powers and trusts law, an action by a crime victim, or the representative of a crime victim, as defined in subdivision six of section six hundred twenty-one of the executive law, may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant:

(1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime or

(2) convicted of a specified crime as defined in paragraph (e) of subdivision one of section six hundred thirty-two-a of the executive law which is the subject of such action for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within ten years of the date the defendant was convicted of such specified crime.

Is it your intent to turn LibertyPost into a tabloid like National Enquirer, the Globe and the National Examiner?

It's been his intent to trash both LP and LF will yella pro drug driven bullshit since he lost his professional life to criminal charges... and now his life long ambition is to discredit the police.

You must wake at night with your shirt wet from a Mitt nightmare sweat... and your adult diaper filled with a big fear driven turd.

The only people in person (off line) that I ever hear still trashing GW or Mitt... are the few rabid libtard socialists I know. Most are in higher education. You share good company. lol

It's been his intent to trash both LP and LF will yella pro drug driven bullshit since he lost his professional life to criminal charges...

Looks like we got a couple of cowards sniping from behind the safety of the bozo filter.

I will state this again - I did NOT post the article, I made a post which added some relevant information about the ties between Trump, Clinton and Epstein.

And as for you, GrandSphincter - Your drunken idiocy continues unabated. Your spurious claim about any criminal charges against me is a slanderous, baldfaced lie, but I expect no less than lies from you and others of your reprehensible ilk.

I mean for Pete's sake - look at you two on the other thread, delusionally asserting that a couple who owned a salvage business and reported a stolen car to the cops were automatically criminals.

Seriously?

In your "cops are gods and can do no wrong" mindset - the people were guilty.

The cop who attempted to extort them, well he was just "doing his job".

I post stories about corrupt and criminal cops.

You, Gatslime and the other bootlickers don't like to see the police held accountable for their actions.

She filed the lawsuit herself — without legal representation — and is suing for $100 million.

My guess is she filed this without representation because she couldn't find any lawyer willing to waste his time on this frivolous lawsuit. Trump needs to counter sue.

trashing GW or Mitt...

Hang on to your man crushes for GW Booosh, Mittens, and Donnell McTrumpkin, to get you through those long lonely hours at the crosswalk.

In your "cops are gods and can do no wrong" mindset - the people were guilty.

In your "criminals are gods" and could do wrong mindset, -the cops are always guilty.

F' off. Posters here know what you are behind the ID.

The trained you well at the cop academy.

you through those long lonely hours at the crosswalk.

Being a Bucky copycat is like eating shit and thinking being a toilet is cool

You might get run over if you don't.

My guess is she filed this without representation because she couldn't find any lawyer willing to waste his time on this frivolous lawsuit. Trump needs to counter sue.

My guess is that this was drafted and caused to be filed by a lawyer or someone with a legal background. Katie Johnson will prove to be a fictitious ghost. "She" gave a false address, a false phone number, and the Complaint looks nothing like an amateur pro se filing.

My guess is that this was drafted and caused to be filed by a lawyer or someone with a legal background. Katie Johnson will prove to be a fictitious ghost. "She" gave a false address, a false phone number, and the Complaint looks nothing like an amateur pro se filing.

I'm not sure why you would think it has to have been caused by someone with a legal background when you also say it was an amateur pro se effort. Why would a professional even bother filing something like this? It seems a clumsy effort, at best.

In any event, this is going nowhere. The MSM is ignoring it, and if there was anything here, they would pounce on it.

I'm not sure why you would think it has to have been caused by someone with a legal background when you also say it was an amateur pro se effort.

What I said was, "the Complaint looks nothing like an amateur pro se filing."

I say it was drafted by somebody with a legal background because it is blatantly obvious on its face.

If you think not, try sitting at your computer and replicating the effort, including the formatting.

Why would a professional even bother filing something like this? It seems a clumsy effort, at best.

The the precise purpose it has served. It has served to create a bullshit smear in the press, and it appears in form to be a valid and serious legal document.

It provides a complainant with a phony address and phone number, and alleges the offenses occurred on unknown dates during the months of June-September 1994, at the residence of Jeffrey Epstein, no address provided.

In any event, this is going nowhere. The MSM is ignoring it, and if there was anything here, they would pounce on it.

The MSM has ignored it because it is a hoax and does not pass the smell test.

What I said was, "the Complaint looks nothing like an amateur pro se filing."

Well, I guess I misread what you posted before.

If you think not, try sitting at your computer and replicating the effort, including the formatting.

There are boilerplate documents available where all you have to do is fill in a few details.

There are boilerplate documents available where all you have to do is fill in a few details.

Show me the boilerplate document with that formatting and that complaint text.

Take all the time you need. Presumably you have similar skills as those of the alleged pro se complainant.