What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Summer Zervos Lawsuit Thread (1 Viewer)

caustic

Footballguy
Today a judge ruled that our president, who is facing a very normal amount of legal trouble, could be deposed in a lawsuit filed by Summer Zervos. Zervos is a former Apprentice contestant who claims that Trump groped her. She filed a defamation suit against him after Trump called the claims "a hoax" and "100% fabricated." While this may not be as juicy and jaw-dropping as conspiring with a foreign power to flip an election - I mean, we already knew of his #####-grabbing ways - a sitting president getting deposed probably warrants its own thread.

Judge: Trump can be deposed in Summer Zervos lawsuit

A judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump can be deposed in a defamation lawsuit brought last year by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice” who says Trump kissed and groped her after she appeared on the show.

Zervos is one of more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of unwanted sexual contact. The president has vehemently denied all of the women’s claims, which he called “100 percent fabricated,” and he retweeted a tweet describing Zervos’ claim as a “hoax.” Zervos filed a defamation claim against Trump in January 2017 over those denials.

Lawyers for both sides must issue their demands for documents as part of discovery by July 13, and those responses must be provided by Sept. 27, Judge Jennifer Schecter ordered Tuesday. Both parties are ordered to submit third party subpoenas by March 23, 2019.

Schecter ordered both parties to submit to depositions too, with a deadline of Jan. 31, 2019. All depositions of people who are “non-parties” to the case must be conducted by Feb. 28. She ordered fact discovery to be completed by April 12.

Trump could still avoid a deposition, though. His lawyers have appealed to New York's highest court in hopes of avoiding it. His legal team has argued that Zervos' lawsuit is politically motivated.

Schecter ruled earlier this year that the defamation case could proceed, despite Trump’s attorneys’ argument that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court. “No one is above the law,” Schechter wrote in her March 20 ruling.

The president’s attorneys appealed that ruling and last month unsuccessfully sought to delay the proceedings.

Trump's lawyers have taken the second appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, where they are awaiting a response.

Trump's attorney Marc Kasowitz said the issue of whether or not a sitting president can be sued in state court should be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, calling the matter a "critical constitutional issue" that should be resolved before the case moves forward.

Zervos' attorney Mariann Meier Wang said Trump's attorneys are trying to stall for time. Wang said her legal team had already issued a subpoena to the Trump campaign, which had been unwilling to hand over any information related to other women who've accused Trump.

"It became clear that the campaign's position is that any and all documents about other women who have alleged that the defendant subjected them to unwanted sexual touching or inappropriate conduct, that any discovery about them, they would draw a line there," Wang said.

Kasowitz said information about those women is "irrelevant" in the Zervos case. Schecter ordered both legal teams to give her a briefing on the issue.

Lawyers for both parties are likely to seek to shield any information obtained through discovery from the public, at least in part. Both legal teams intend to work together to draft a protective order to keep some of the information yielded in discovery confidential. 

 
So let’s say Trump loses his appeal.

He gets subpoenaed for the deposition.

He says no I’m not going.

Zervos’s lawyer files a motion with the judge for sanctions.

Judge imposes sanctions on Trump, eventually just granting a judgment to Zervos.

Trump pays the judgment from campaign funds or, what the hell, doesn’t pay at all, saying it’s an illegal witch hunt.  

Then what?  He’s still not getting impeached.  

Theres no way he’s sitting for a deposition.

 
So let’s say Trump loses his appeal.

He gets subpoenaed for the deposition.

He says no I’m not going.

Zervos’s lawyer files a motion with the judge for sanctions.

Judge imposes sanctions on Trump, eventually just granting a judgment to Zervos.

Trump pays the judgment from campaign funds or, what the hell, doesn’t pay at all, saying it’s an illegal witch hunt.  

Then what?  He’s still not getting impeached.  

Theres no way he’s sitting for a deposition.
He’ll probably lose the case with escalating consequences and damages the longer he holds out.

 
So let’s say Trump loses his appeal.

He gets subpoenaed for the deposition.

He says no I’m not going.

Zervos’s lawyer files a motion with the judge for sanctions.

Judge imposes sanctions on Trump, eventually just granting a judgment to Zervos.

Trump pays the judgment from campaign funds or, what the hell, doesn’t pay at all, saying it’s an illegal witch hunt.  

Then what?  He’s still not getting impeached.  

Theres no way he’s sitting for a deposition.
Not sure how all this works, but I think what would happen next would be up to Jeff Sessions.

 
So where is the point that it becomes problematic to him? I don't see it.
I'm not sure it really matters any more because nothing matters. But in most other democracies, and in our country until recently, a politician who openly defied a court order and/or who admitted to lying about an incident of sexual harassment (and by extension admitted to sexual harassment) would take a substantial hit on election day, as would any politician who continues to stand behind him. 

Obviously it matters less here because everyone already knows Trump sexually harasses women and considers himself to be above the law, but it's still likely that there would be some sort of negative consequences. At a minimum it would result in negative headlines, and the proceedings could start to run into the 2020 election cycle, assuming we're still holding free elections at that point.

 
I'm not sure it really matters any more because nothing matters. But in most other democracies, and in our country until recently, a politician who openly defied a court order and/or who admitted to lying about an incident of sexual harassment (and by extension admitted to sexual harassment) would take a substantial hit on election day, as would any politician who continues to stand behind him. 

Obviously it matters less here because everyone already knows Trump sexually harasses women and considers himself to be above the law, but it's still likely that there would be some sort of negative consequences. At a minimum it would result in negative headlines, and the proceedings could start to run into the 2020 election cycle, assuming we're still holding free elections at that point.
RIght. Sadly, he's going to do exactly what @fatguyinalittlecoat wrote and nobody will care.

 
So where is the point that it becomes problematic to him? I don't see it.
What’s problematic for Trump? Taped deposition where he’s humiliated and gives evidence leading to more lawsuits is one outcome. Clinton redux of civil perjury is another (throw it on the impeachment pile). Discovery into his NDA practices and his income. Settlement or judgement signifying guilt and requiring a high 6-7 figure payout is another. I mean, what are people expecting for Trump’s downfall in the first place? Maybe as the line goes nothing matters, we’ll see. For any other president this would be perilous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RIght. Sadly, he's going to do exactly what @fatguyinalittlecoat wrote and nobody will care.
Probably true, and I obviously understand the pessimism. But it's always possible that at some point people will start to care.  Not everyone of course, but enough to matter.  Nobody cared about sexual misconduct in Hollywood and the "casting couch," until they did.

At a minimum, if things go down the way fatguy predicts then there's a new avenue for political attack on Trump and the GOP on sexual misconduct.  The line on Trump at the height of #MeToo was always that the allegations were unproven and he'd denied them and that in any event voters had already heard it all and passed judgment.  That was always silly, but if he refuses to sit for a deposition and ultimately is found liable for defamation for lying about an incident it would also be untrue.

 
it would be cool if he does try to avoid the subpoena that the judge fines him like a billion dollars or something just some unbelievable high number that would rule and then he would file bankruptcy and the usa would get the presidency back and could give it to summer zevos take that to the bank bromigos 

 
I don't think he'd court a default judgment.  The fact of the judgment would be worse for him than the money (but still not Presidency ending or anything).  Bill Clinton testified in the Paula Jones suit (by video).  I imagine Trump will too.  He's been deposed a lot and he'll just play his normal game of claiming not to know anything.  

 
if you get a judgment against you for a billion dollars cant the guy you have to pay make you tell him where all your cash is and stuff take that to the bank lawyermigos 

 
I don't think he'd court a default judgment.  The fact of the judgment would be worse for him than the money (but still not Presidency ending or anything).  Bill Clinton testified in the Paula Jones suit (by video).  I imagine Trump will too.  He's been deposed a lot and he'll just play his normal game of claiming not to know anything.  
Trump got deposed a lot but that was before he assumed the throne.

 
Trump got deposed a lot but that was before he assumed the throne.
I get that (although he did sit for depositions in the thick of the campaign).  But it's not as if he has a legal leg to stand on after Jones v. Clinton.  I just don't see what he buys himself by courting a default judgment and civil contempt charges.  There doesn't seem to be nearly the perjury trap implications we saw with Clinton (where the Special Counsel's office bugged Tripp to talk to Lewinsky before Clinton's deposition and Lewinsky had preserved DNA evidence).  He'll be well coached to deny the unprovable stuff about the encounter with Zervos and plead ignorance about everything else.  

 
I get that (although he did sit for depositions in the thick of the campaign).  But it's not as if he has a legal leg to stand on after Jones v. Clinton.  I just don't see what he buys himself by courting a default judgment and civil contempt charges.  There doesn't seem to be nearly the perjury trap implications we saw with Clinton (where the Special Counsel's office bugged Tripp to talk to Lewinsky before Clinton's deposition and Lewinsky had preserved DNA evidence).  He'll be well coached to deny the unprovable stuff about the encounter with Zervos and plead ignorance about everything else.  
This all seems likely.  I don't see anything out there that she has any proof of her claims and she's digging for any recordings that may show anything.  Unless they're keeping something under wraps this seems like a he said/she said item.  

 
This all seems likely.  I don't see anything out there that she has any proof of her claims and she's digging for any recordings that may show anything.  Unless they're keeping something under wraps this seems like a he said/she said item.  
Until he says something obviously false under oath unprompted. 

 
This all seems likely.  I don't see anything out there that she has any proof of her claims and she's digging for any recordings that may show anything.  Unless they're keeping something under wraps this seems like a he said/she said item.  
The thing about civil suits is that you don't need proof, all you need is for what she says to be more likely than what he says. It's literally a he said/she said item. And a factor in that analysis would be whether he was lying about the other sexual misconduct claims, all of which would be fair game.

 
Trump presses immunity argument in Summer Zervos defamation case

++++++++++++++++++

NEW YORK — Lawyers for President Trump this week reiterated their argument that a defamation lawsuit from a woman who alleges Trump groped and kissed her without consent should be halted because the president is immune from lawsuits filed in state courts while serving in office.

A new 28-page court brief, filed Monday and released publicly by the New York State Court of Appeals on Tuesday, is Trump’s latest salvo in a multi-front legal battle to limit the ability of private citizens, Congress and even law enforcement to investigate him as a sitting president.

The release came on the same day that Trump’s lawyers argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the president should be able to shield his tax returns and private business records from subpoenas issued by Democratic-led House congressional committees and the Manhattan district attorney. They argued the president should be immune from requests he believed were political attempts to harass.

Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s tax returns, personal financial records

The filing in New York was also a pointed reminder that Trump continues to quietly battle two women in court who allege he sexually assaulted them, fighting their efforts to obtain testimony and documents that could shed light on their accusations. The women, Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll, are among more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of unwanted physical contact in the years before he was elected.

Trump’s efforts to fend off their legal claims come as his allies have sought to spotlight allegations that his Democratic rival, former vice president Joe Biden, sexually assaulted a Senate aide in 1993, a claim he has denied.

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment on the Zervos and Carroll cases.

This week’s filing came in a defamation case brought by Zervos, a former contestant on the reality show “The Apprentice,” who alleges that Trump aggressively groped and kissed her in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2007, at what she thought would be a meeting to discuss a job opportunity at the Trump Organization.

She first made the allegations in October 2016 after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump could be heard bragging about grabbing women between their legs.

Trump denied her claims, calling her and other women who accused him of sexual misconduct liars who are motivated by politics and money. In 2017, Zervos filed suit against the president, arguing that Trump defamed her by accusing her of lying about the episode.

Since then, the case has been slowly making its way through the New York court system. So far, lower-level state courts have rejected Trump’s immunity arguments and allowed evidence to be gathered.

New York appellate court allows Summer Zervos’s defamation suit against president to proceed

Phone records released as part of the case last year showed that Trump and Zervos exchanged six telephone calls over a three-month time period around the time when she said the assault took place, including on a day when Trump’s calendar showed he was visiting Los Angeles.

A judge had ordered that Trump be deposed in the case, and he had been scheduled to give sworn testimony about his interactions with the California restaurant owner by Jan. 31.

But the deposition was put on hold when a panel of New York judges agreed that Trump’s immunity argument should be heard by the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. Both sides have filed written briefs in advance of oral arguments before the court.

It is not expected to be heard until early 2021, although the coronavirus pandemic may delay proceedings even further, according to a spokesman for the court — meaning that the litigation is on hold until after the November election.

Arguments in the case have centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Clinton v. Jones, which found that a sitting president has no immunity against civil litigation. As a result, then-President Bill Clinton sat for testimony in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones.

The deposition later figured in Clinton’s impeachment after he lied in his sworn testimony about his relationship with a White House intern.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the Clinton ruling should only apply to civil lawsuits filed in federal court, like the Jones case. They argue presidents should not face lawsuits from private individuals in state courts while in office, and so Zervos’s litigation should be either dismissed or put on hold until Trump leaves office.

In the latest filing, Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz argued that state judges can’t “exercise any control . . . over the President while he or she is in office.”

Trump has also been fighting a lawsuit brought by Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and author who last year accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, which he has denied. The case is likewise in a holding pattern while a trial court judge in Manhattan determines how the Zervos case could affect it.

Magazine columnist accuses Trump of sexual assault more than two decades ago, an allegation he denies

Carroll sued Trump in 2019 after writing in her book “What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal” that she was raped by Trump in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a famous high-end Fifth Avenue department store, in 1995 or 1996.

Trump said that he’d never met Carroll, although they were photographed at the same event in the late 1980s.

In a statement to The Washington Post this month, Carroll said Trump had “damaged a reputation it took me decades of hard work to build.”

In addition to denying her claims, Trump had derided Carroll, now 76, as not his “type.”

“I have been mocked and doubted, harassed and threatened, and am now seen by many as some crazy old bat who is ‘not his type’ and who made up a story of rape in order to sell more books,” she said. “Every day that goes by with me unable to prove that I was telling the truth and that Donald Trump was not — is another day of waiting to obtain the justice that I deserve.”

Carroll’s lawyers have said the president’s lawyers have imposed delaying tactics from the start, writing in a February court filing that Trump “has done everything he can to stop the truth from ever coming out.”

The president sought a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that he couldn’t be sued in New York because he is a resident of Florida, where his Mar-a-Lago residence was declared his official home.

Carroll’s attorneys have also sought to collect Trump’s DNA, so it can be compared to material found on the dress she says she was wearing the day she says she was attacked, a request that is now on hold pending the judge’s decision about whether Carroll’s suit could be determined by Zervos’s arguments.

At one point, they said, Trump’s team argued that the Carroll and Zervos cases were so different they could not be handled by the same judge. Later, his attorneys argued the cases were so similar that Carroll’s needed to be on pause until the Court of Appeals ruling in the Zervos matter.

Carroll lawyer Roberta Kaplan wrote that the president’s “takes on this case and Zervos have been remarkably inconsistent (even contradictory),” but that he “deserves credit for consistently doing everything possible” to avoid proceeding.

Kasowitz, Trump’s attorney, did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump is ‘cherry-picking’ immunity argument in personal lawsuits, accuser’s lawyer contends

Trump’s position in court stands in sharp contrast with the political arguments being made against Biden by the president’s GOP allies. In recent weeks, they have pressed Democratic lawmakers to answer whether they believe former Biden aide Tara Reade and demanded that the presumptive Democratic nominee do more to answer the claim against him.

In an appearance on Fox News earlier this month, Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law and a campaign adviser, suggested that people innocent of sexual assault charges would engage in radical transparency to prove the allegations false.

“I would think if you were being accused of something and you were totally innocent you would go to any length possible . . . to try and clear your name, including allowing people to open up files like that and make sure you’ve turned over every single leaf to prove your innocence,” she said.

Biden requested that the secretary of the Senate search for and release any records related to a harassment complaint that Reade has said she filed against Biden’s office. The Senate secretary replied that federal law would not allow for such documents, if they exist, to be released.

Reade’s attorney this week sent Biden a letter asking him to open up his Senate office archives, maintained at the University of Delaware, and authorize a search any relevant records.

Former Senate aide Tara Reade calls on Joe Biden to withdraw from presidential race

Trump himself has sounded more sympathetic to his Democratic rival, saying on “Fox & Friends” last week that Biden is “is going to have to be able to prove whatever he has to prove, or she has to prove it, but that’s a battle he has to fight.”

“I’ve had many false accusations made, I can tell you that,” Trump added. “Many. And maybe it is a false accusation. Frankly, I hope it is, for his sake.”

++++++++++++++++++

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top