UNBIASED - Zooey Zephyr Sues Montana, Trump's Defamation/Battery Case Explained, Trump's Motion for Mistrial Denied.

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

1. Montana Representative, Zooey Zephyr, Sues State of Montana Following Censure (2:39) (UPDATE: On Tuesday evening, the District Court Judge denied Zephyr's request.)2. Defamation/Battery Case Against Donald Trump Explained; Trump's Motion for Mistrial Denied (12:52)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news! Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.  All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your

political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. of my podcast is so informative that sometimes I question whether or not I should lay so much information on you at one time because I want you to be able to actually absorb it. So I made the executive decision when I finished recording that I was going to break this episode up. So now I'm going to release this episode on Tuesday like I was already planning, but it's only going to have two stories and not three. And then I'll release the third story Wednesday or Thursday just so you guys can have a little bit of time to process I I just like I said give you so much information I want you to have I don't want you to be overwhelmed in an hour

right but with that said going forward if you want me to just release hour-long episodes if I do have that much to say on a particular day. Feel free to let me know. You guys can always message me on Instagram at JordanIsMyLawyer. You can write in to me on my website. So if you have a preference, please by all means let me know. I don't mind either. You know, I record it all at the same time anyway. So with that said, today's episode, we're going to cover two stories. One is the lawsuit out of Montana by Representative Zoe Zephyr, who is suing the state following her censure. The second story is the defamation battery trial that's happening against Donald Trump right now. And I'm going to go

through the factual allegations in the complaint. We're going to talk about the motion for mistrial that was filed and denied, so a lot of stuff to talk about in that case as well. I hope you enjoy these next two stories. Please don't forget to leave me a review on whatever platform you listen, and on Wednesday or Thursday, expect an extra episode this week, and then I will be releasing an episode on Friday as well. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Monday morning, Montana lawmaker Zoe Zephyr filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana, the House Speaker, and the House Sergeant at Arms following her censure. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, and a temporary restraining order. So let's get into it.

First, what is a censure? It's not to be confused with censor, which is completely different. So a censure, when it comes to legislatures, is a type of punishment. So you can be punished in really one of two ways when you're a lawmaker, expulsion or censure. We just saw an example of expulsion in Tennessee. However, this is a little bit different. It's a formal condemnation, in a sense. It's a public record of disapproval, if you will. And in this case, Zoe Zephyr, according to the motion, the censure motion that was approved, she's allowed to remain as part of the House, but she's forbidden from participating on the House floor for the rest of the 2023 term.

So she can still vote on bills, but it has to be done remotely. And the way that this is a little bit different than expulsion is that where a representative or senator is expelled, they are no longer a representative or a senator, right? So in this case, Zoe's effort is still in the House of Representatives, but she is forbidden from participating on the House floor and can still vote on bills, but it has to be done remotely. So what happened that led to this? Well, on April 18th, there was a final floor debate over Montana's SB 99. What is SB 99? It's also called the Youth Health Protection Act. It does various things, but in part, it bans gender-affirming care for minors. This is something

we've seen a lot of states pass legislation on recently. It's been a hot topic of discussion. Well, at this debate, Zephyr, being a transgender herself, stood to speak in opposition to the bill. And as part of her speech, this is what she said. This is the sentence that got her into trouble. She said, quote, if you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there's an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands, end quote. And according to Zephyr, these comments represent the factual reality of gender affirming care. So according to her, it's a life-saving, gender affirming care can be a life her, it's a life-saving, gender affirming care can be

a life-saving treatment for transgender individuals. And therefore these representatives that are voting yes to this bill are in a sense, possibly leading to the death of minors. Following Zephyr's statement, the Montana Freedom Caucus issued a statement calling for her to be censured. The next day, the Speaker of the House threw a statement calling for her to be censured. The next day, the Speaker of the House, through a message relayed by the House Minority Leader, asked Zephyr to apologize. Zephyr said no, she wasn't going to apologize, and after the session that day, she had to attend a meeting where she was told by the Speaker that her comments broke decorum and that he wasn't going to recognize her until he believed that she could maintain decorum going forward. Well, then the following day, on April 20th, the day after she was asked to apologize,

she said no, and then, you know, the speaker told her he wasn't going to recognize her until he thought she could maintain decorum, she asked to be recognized to speak on another bill. And that bill, in part, defines sex based on one's reproductive systems. So you could see, for obvious reasons, why she wanted to have her voice heard on this bill. But the speaker didn't recognize her because, again, he had said before he wasn't going to recognize her until he believed she could maintain decorum. Now whether or not that's reasonable, that's not for me to say. But that is why he did not recognize her to speak. From there, the House Minority Leader objects to the Speaker's decision not to recognize her.

And the Rules Committee then votes to uphold the Speaker's decision. So now it's upheld by the Rules Committee that the Speaker will not recognize Zoe Zephyr until the Speaker believes she can maintain decorum. Well, then the motion to censure was taken up on April 26th, and the House voted to approve the motion 68 to 32. So now she's officially censured and the provisions of her censure, like I mentioned at the beginning of the story, say that she cannot vote on the House floor. She cannot attend House sessions for the rest of the term. It has to be done virtually, remotely. So she files this lawsuit. And what does the lawsuit say? Well, for one, it says that her

actions on April 19th are protected by Article 2, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution, which says in part that no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. And she says her attempts to speak in the days that followed, you know, that initial remark that she made that stirred up, stirred the pot, all of her attempts to speak in those days that followed were protected by Article 2, Section 7, and therefore they couldn't prohibit her from speaking. And Zephyr says that the passage of this decorum vote was retaliation against her protected speech, and because of the passage, she has suffered irreparable harm in the form of silencing. She says that she's going to continue

to suffer this harm for the remainder of the 2023 term while she remains prohibitive from participating in debate, and therefore she is seeking this permanent injunction of the speaker's rule that he refuses to recognize her. So her second claim is the same basis, just as it relates to the actual censure. So count one was in regard to the speaker's rule to not recognize her. Count two is in regard to the actual censure. So she's asking the court to enjoin the speaker and the sergeant at arms from enforcing the provisions of the censure that prohibit her from full participation in future house proceedings, because she says this is a violation of her constitutional right. Then you have the third claim, which is a violation of the equal protection clause. And her argument is that there are other representatives that have made the same level, if not worse, comments on

the House floor without being censured. And because this claim is based on Montana's constitution, she specifically cites to other Montana legislators that have said things that she believes are, again, the same level, if not worse, than what she said. And they were never reprimanded. They were never censured. So she's saying, why me? This is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And the two quotes that she cites too, one is from Senate Dan Solomon, who opened a hearing on April 7th saying, if debate gets out of line, I will use the gavel to knock you down, end quote. The other quote that she cited was Representative Carrie Seekins Crowe, who on March

23rd during one of the debates on gender affirming care suggested that, and this is again according to the complaint, suggested she would rather risk having her own child commit suicide than allow her to have gender affirming surgery. And again, she's asking the court to enjoin enforcement of certain provisions at the censure because she believes she isn't being treated like these other people in her state have. She's being censured. These other people weren't. And then her fourth and final claim is on behalf of all of the constituents, the 11,000 constituents that she represents. And she's basically saying this is a denial of their right to representation guaranteed by the Montana

Constitution. So she finishes the lawsuit by asking for a temporary restraining order. And we don't typically hear of temporary restraining orders in this in this sense and like in cases like this. So I just want to clarify, this is what the complaint says. It says, quote, plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order reinstating Representative Zephyr's legislative privileges and duties until such time as this court can set a hearing and consider plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction. Absent a temporary restraining order, Representative Zephyr and her 11,000 constituents will be denied the right to participate in the democratic process, end quote. So that is Zoe

Zephyr's lawsuit against the state of Montana. I did want to mention before we move on, she cited interestingly to some other statements that were made by other legislators around the country not in montana because obviously her claim in regard to the violation of the equal protection clause she's saying she's not being treated the same as other legislators in montana so these specific statements don't necessarily apply to that count but just to prove her point she said you know and these other statements were made outside the state of Montana, but I feel like they still apply. And what she's being punished for is using the term blood on your hands. And she's saying other legislators have used this phrase before, too. It's not just me. So she says Governor Greg Abbott from Texas said,

quote, this was in 2021, I believe, said, quote, the Democrats have blood on their hands for failing to step up and do their job. And quote, similarly, Alabama State Representative Coleman said once, quote, and I tell you, some of you are going to have blood on your hands because this piece of legislation passes, end quote. So I just found that interesting that in other states, legislators have used this phrase blood on your hands, and nothing happened. But in Montana, obviously, the House decided to take action. But now that you are familiar with that case, let's move on to the next case, which is the battery defamation case against Donald Trump. In case you haven't heard, there's a trial going on right now where

a woman named E. Jean Carroll is accusing Donald Trump of battery and defamation after he allegedly raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room 27 years ago. So Trump's attorneys filed a motion for mistrial yesterday, so Monday, after just a few days of trial. But the motion was denied on Monday morning shortly, you know, after the day started. Let's talk about it. Let's explain what's going on here, what the reason for the motion for mistrial was. But let's do a brief recap of this lawsuit. So I have this woman's lawsuit linked for you on my website. So if you want to read it, you can. It's only 29 pages. It's not that long, but it alleges both battery and defamation. Now, why not rape, you might ask? If it's alleging rape, why isn't he being criminally prosecuted?

Well, the short answer is that the statute of limitations ran out. And really, it's not even the short answer. That's the simple answer. That is the answer. But New York enacted a law in 2021 that gave victims of sexual assault a specific one-year period where they could file a lawsuit in certain circumstances where the statute of limitations had already run. So it allowed these civil suits to be brought between November 24th, 2022 and November 23rd, 2023. So Carol had already filed a defamation suit against Trump, but the day that that law took effect, she added a count for battery as well. And again, I have that law linked on my website. So all of these sources, if you guys are ever interested in looking into this for yourself, you're more than welcome. It's

there. Jordanismylawyer.com. So let's talk about the alleged facts. And I found that this complaint was interesting because it told these facts almost like a story, which you don't see a lot. I mean, it really depends on the attorney that's filing the lawsuit, but it makes for an interesting read. I will say it's not, it's not as mundane as you would expect reading a legal document. Like I said, it reads like a story. So I'm going to read you the factual allegations as they are set forth in the complaint. The complaint alleges facts in the plaintiff's favor. So I just like to put that reminder out there anytime I'm talking about a complaint. So this is what the factual allegations

say. Okay, it says, one evening between the fall of 1995 and the spring of 1996, Carol left work and went to Bergdorf Goodman, the luxury department store on Fifth Avenue in New York City. She was and remains a regular shopper at Bergdorf's. That evening, Carol did not find whatever she was looking for and prepared to leave Bergdorf's empty-handed. As she exited through Bergdorf's revolving side door on 58th Street, Trump arrived and entered through that very same door, which was across from the Plaza Hotel. Trump instantly recognized Carol on site. They had met at least once before and had long traveled in the same New York City media circles. In this period, Carol was doing the daily Ask E. Jean TV show, a small hit on the America's

Talking Network, started by Roger Ailes. She was also a frequent guest and commentator on the widely watched Today Show and Good Morning America. Trump and Carroll had previously been photographed at a party together. At the 58th Street revolving glass doorway of Bergdorf's, Trump put up his hand to stop her from exiting and said, hey, you're that advice lady. Carroll, struck by his boyish good looks, responded by saying, hey, you're that real estate tycoon. Trump said that he was at Bergdorf's to buy a present for a girl and ask Carol to come advise him. Carol was surprised but thrilled that Trump would want her advice. She stuck around, imagining the funny stories that she might later recount. Trump and Carol began searching for a gift that Trump could give to the unnamed girl. As they stood inside the

door, Carol pointed to the handbags. Trump made a face. He did not like that idea. Carol instead suggested a hat. Trump walked over, going straight for a fur hat, prompting Carol to object that no woman would wear a dead animal on her head. As Trump cuddled the fur hat, Carol asked how old the girl was. Trump did not answer, instead asking Carol how old she was. When Carol replied that she was 52 years old, he taunted her. You're so old. Trump then had an idea. He would buy lingerie instead. Trump and Carroll rode up the escalator to the lingerie department. When they arrived, it was uncharacteristically empty, with no sales attendant in sight. Sitting on the counter near them were two or three boxes and a see-through bodysuit in lilac gray. Snatching the bodysuit, Trump insisted that Carol

try it on. Bemused, Carol responded that he should try it on himself, adding that it was his color. Trump and Carol went back and forth, teasing each other about who should try on the bodysuit. Suddenly, Trump grabbed Carol's arm and said, let's put this on. Trump maneuvered Carol to the dressing room. As they moved, Carol laughed, thinking to herself she would make him put the bodysuit on over his pants. Strangely for Bergdorfs, the dressing room door was open and unlocked. Trump closed the door of the dressing room. Immediately, Trump lunged at Carol, pushing her against the wall, bumping her head quite badly, and putting his mouth on her lips. Carol shoved him back. Utterly shocked by Trump's unexpected

attack, Carol burst out in awkward laughter. She could hardly process the insanity of the situation. She also hoped, at least at first, that laughter would bruise his ego and cause him to retreat. But Trump did not stop. He seized both of her arms and pushed her up against the wall again, bumping her head a second time. While pinning Carol against the wall with his shoulder, Trump jammed his hand under her coat dress and pulled down her tights. Trump opened his overcoat and unzipped his pants. Trump then pushed his fingers around Carol's genitals and forced his penis inside of her. Carol resisted, struggling to break free. She tried to stomp his foot with her high heels. She tried to push him away with her one free hand as she kept holding her purse with the other. Finally, she raised a knee up high

enough to push him out and off of her. Carol ran out of the dressing room, out of Bergdorf's, and onto Fifth Avenue. The whole attack lasted two to three minutes. As soon as she was outside Bergdorf's, Carol pulled her phone out of her purse and called her friend Lisa, the author, journalist, and correspondent on TV morning shows. Carol was breathless and still reeling from the assault. She kept laughing, manically, her way of coping with the stress and trauma that she had just expected. Carol recounted to Lisa how Trump attacked her in the Bergdorf dressing room. He raped you, Lisa kept repeating. She begged Carol to go to the police and offered to accompany her. Still in shock and reluctant to think of herself as a rape victim, Carol did not want to speak to the police. She told Lisa that it was just a few minutes of

her life and it was all over. She implored Lisa to never tell anyone what had happened. Carol drove home and went straight to bed. So then it goes into another friend that she had told about this incident, and that friend advised her to tell no one. So she stays quiet. She stays quiet for 20 plus years. And in 2016, she starts hearing about multiple women revealing that Trump had engaged in sexual misconduct. And she thought that all of these stories from these women were actually making Trump more popular. So according to her, she didn't want to come out with her story then because she thought it would only bolster his campaign. Well, then in 2017, after he's elected president, she decides to write a book about conversations that she had with women and their relationships with men.

Keep in mind, this is still facts according to her. So then the Me Too movement starts following the allegations against Harvey Weinstein in October 2017. And this is when, according to her, she decides that she's finally going to tell her readers the truth. All of these readers all of these years have been reading her columns and her advice oftentimes about women getting sexually harassed by men, and now it's time that her readers finally know that she's been through something like this. Well, in June 2019, New York Magazine publishes Carroll's account of the attack on their website. And following the publishing, Trump makes many statements, but the one statement that is specifically referenced as defamation in this lawsuit is his statement on October 12th, 2022. And what he said was this,

quote, this Miss Bergdorf Goodman case is a complete con job and our legal system in this country, but especially in New York state, just look at peekaboo James is a broken disgrace. You have to fight for years and spend a fortune in order to get your reputation back from liars, cheaters, and hacks. I don't know this woman. I have no idea who she is other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago with her husband shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City department store and within minutes swooned her. It is a hoax and a lie,

just like all the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type. She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called event supposedly took place. The reason she doesn't know is because it never happened, and she doesn't want you to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper's interview with her, where she was promoting a really crummy book, you will see that this is a complete scam. She changed her story from beginning to end after the commercial break to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. Our justice system is

broken along with almost everything else in our country. And then he says some other things and he continues, in the meantime, and for the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth. She is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn't know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance. Now, all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyers phony attacks on me. This can only happen to Trump. So that was his statement on October 12th. The defamation claims specifically stems from that statement, because what what Carol and her attorneys are saying is that that was a published statement. He knew it was a fault. He knew it was false when he said it, or he recklessly disregarded the truth, which is the element for a defamation claim. He did it with ill will and spite, and it caused her to suffer reputational, emotional, and

professional harm. And so that is the defamation claim. And then, and then also there is the battery claim that stems from that New York law that was enacted in 2021, which gives sexual assault victims a year to file a claim. So like I said, she had already had this defamation suit filed. And then when that law was enacted, she added the battery claim. So what is she asking for? She's asking for an order from the court that Trump has to retract his October 12th statement, that statement I just read you, and compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. So as I said, this trial is now in its second week. It started last Wednesday, but then on Monday, Trump's attorneys filed a motion for

mistrial. Why? Well, they say that the judge overseeing the case is biased against Trump. They say that there have been several unfair and prejudicial rulings that, quote, manifest a deeper leaning towards one party over another, and that the judge has made comments where he openly expresses favoritism. And here are some examples they gave. So one is that the judge didn't let Trump's attorney question Carroll as to why she didn't seek security camera footage of the alleged rape. Another is that the judge made a comment that Trump might be, quote, sailing in harm's way after Eric Trump mentioned on Twitter that the LinkedIn co-founder, Reid Hoffman, was helping fund Carroll's case. And then the judge ruled last Wednesday that Trump's lawyers could not mention the LinkedIn co-founder at the trial because it was unfairly

prejudicial. So this case will go on, the trial will move forward as planned. Keep in mind that the burden of proof for this case is lower than if this were a criminal case. So Carol just has to prove her claims by preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it's more likely than not that Trump raped her and that Trump defamed her. So that is where that case stands. Obviously, the trial is still ongoing, so more is going to come out over the next week or two, and I'll update you if need be, but I hadn't covered that trial yet, so I wanted to do that and also cover that motion for mistrial so you guys are really in the loop as far as that goes stay tuned for my episode on wednesday or thursday about the case

out of the north carolina supreme court which held that the court cannot interfere with a legislature's drawing of redistricting maps really interesting decision they overruled themselves so it's definitely worth the listen and then i will also be dropping an episode on friday don't forget to leave me a review on whatever platform you're listening to this on and please share this episode with any of your family or friends or colleagues that also appreciate unbiased news you guys can really help me out by getting my name out there thank you so much And I will talk to you again in a day or two.