 |
| click the image to enlarge and read |
In any event Matconis posted for the benefit of a grateful public, on Scribd, the complaint and attachment of the plaintiff's complaint, Superior Court of the State of California, No. BC696568, the Clifford complaint (with attachments). A comporable posting of such a document, in pdf format, was put online by MSNBC. The Scribd item when viewed, per sidebar info: "1.1 K views;" two thumbs up, no thumbs down.
Readers can track either source if wanting to while reading serious online analysis, here and here. No commentary or quotes, readers are urged to follow their will to know and see; or to dismiss some things as beneath reader dignity.
Neither serious attempt at critique gets to the question of whether the media properly use the term "affair" for what seems from coverage to be more of a single tryst, with follow up correspondence and another in-person contact, no sex the second time. At least that is reporting, and "affair" seems too encompassing a term for that pattern.
The claim that DD never signed paperwork, e.g., N.Y. Times here, ignores the Sect. 8.9 counterpart term, if DD separately signed, apart from the one public domain document. But then there is the problem of whether notice of such signing in counterpart was ever tendered to PP. And with Trump denying anything at all happened, DD signing in counterpart showing up at some point would cause attention and raise questions.
Counterpart availability it is a technical observation, with no practical help.
The apparent documentary obsession with "Property" having to all be handed over by the $130,000 recipient seems out of place in a situation where "nothing happened," so the justification by lawyer Cohen for such repeated "Property" wording is due, but so far not forthcoming.
Lawyer Cohen saying he paid out of pocket generated an interesting consequence; a claim of wilful violation of federal election law via an unreported "in kind" contribution to a campaign in excess of a spending cap. By attorney Cohen.
Why an LLC, and what business plan or prior or subsequent activity of the LLC happened, those facts attorney Cohen or someone should know, and those are arguably outside of attorney-client privilege as questions of factual things that happened or not, independent of any privileged communication between attorney and client. Other hush-money contracting, the fact of it happening or not via that or another LLC might, as in this one instance alleged by Cohen to have happened without any Trump conversation with Cohen about a six figure payment. Why pay if there's no substance to claims, that might be privileged if discussed between Trump and Cohen, but whether or not there was discussion, apart from things said, is fair game to ask.
Unusual observations not seen mentioned online elsewhere are twofold. First, p.3, Sect. 3.3 "DD shall have the right to register sole copyright in and to any of the Property with the US Copyright Office." WTF?
Second, PP and DD are each identified at the beginning of the document as individuals in the item with PP at times referenced by the pronoun "she" and with pseudonyms indicative of gender. At one part a definition is inserted for a "PP Group," separate from the individual PP. That is at p.6, Sect. 4.3.4.
In view of the totality of circumstances being reported about the situation, it is curious to see p.6, Sect. 4.3(b) the wording, "[...] and/or it is believed that any of PP, whether directly or indirectly, intends the release, use, display, [...] of any of the Property, then DD and his counsel shall be entitled to, at DD's sole discretion, (i) contact the respective member of PP, including with legal demands and related statements [...] and/or (ii) advance a civil action against the respective member of PP, [...]."
Well, that is not "PP Group" but PP, the individual, and there is no contract mention of any respective member of DD while it appears all dispute hinges on a question of whether respective members of the two individuals were brought together in a first instance. In a civil action or otherwise with rancor, and moreover, the exact wording, in the larger context, "contact the respective member of PP," can bring an image to one's mind if one has that kind of mind. Were I writing it, "affiliated person," or such wording besides "member" would have suggested itself as less provocative a word choice; together with being careful about PP and "PP Group," differentiation.
And adding ambiguity, the right mentioned is one "of DD and his counsel to contact the respective member of PP" - that is what the document says. Odd.
That's all I have to add, so let the press press on.
____________UPDATE_____________
WaPo flavors the dish. The dish itself is too salty.
To believe: Things were so hushed Trump heard not a whisper; Cohen being out $130,000 and still "Trump's lawyer." Clients who, ostensibly, hang the lawyer out for six figures usually get dropped from a client list. But for some, chrisma must reduce a seasoned contract negotiator to apprentice-like acceptance. Else, how wouuld you explain it?
A thousand words.
