Melania, the movie, premiered this week at the (Donald J. Trump) Kennedy Center. And in other Melania news: In the next stage of the (grinding) legal process in Michael Wolff vs. Melania Trump, her lawyers, after announcing they would move for dismissal or a change of venue, have now formally filed their papers.
Their basic argument has three parts:
1. She was not served properly.
To be sure, we have indeed not been able to hand our papers to the first lady, who is guarded by one of the world’s most highly trained and experienced security forces. Certainly no approaching her on the street, and it’s a no-go at the White House. We did try to serve her lawyer, Alejandro Brito, in Florida; Brito had otherwise directed us to have all communications intended for Mrs. Trump go through him—except not this. We served him, but he refused to accept.
And then we tried her residence, Trump Tower in New York, where she has maintained an apartment for many years, and where, according to our best information, she spends most of her time. The front desk concierge at Trump Tower confirmed that she does, in fact, live there, but no way were they accepting service either.
You see the rub here: by virtue of being the first lady of the United States, Melania, or anyone in her position, can’t be sued, because they can’t be served. Hence, we asked the court in New York to acknowledge our efforts to serve her and deem her served, or to provide an alternative means of service.
But then she asked for the case to be moved to federal court, staying any decision—and thereby allowing her in federal court to yet maintain she hasn’t been served.
In other words, she hasn’t been served because she can’t be served, and a shift in venue makes it impossible to provide for any other way to serve her.
2. My suit against her is merely a publicity stunt.
You might recall that my suit was filed against Melania Trump after she threatened to sue me for $1 billion because I had linked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, certainly, I would not have sued her without her threatening to sue me. My position is that her suit against me was solely for the purposes of interfering with my perfectly legal speech—in other words, an effort to intimidate me. She threatened to sue me frivolously and maliciously, but because I sued her first, I am the one, in her argument, acting frivolously and maliciously.
Read more: This Is What I’m Going to Ask Melania Under Oath
The proof of this, she states in her papers, is that I have raised $800,000 in contributions to a GoFundMe campaign to fund this lawsuit. Raising the money, in other words, to be able to fight someone with unlimited legal resources is evidence that mine is not a serious effort.
Further proof that I am just a publicity seeker and not a serious litigant, her case asserts, is that I continue to write and talk about Mrs. Trump. Because I am suing her after she threatened to sue me to try and shut me up, I should… shut up, seems to be the reasoning here.
3. My suit against her should be moved to Florida.
If the court, on the basis of these circular arguments, does not find a reason to dismiss the case, then, Mrs. Trump argues, the case should be moved to Federal Court in Florida, a venue famously deferential to the president.
Indeed, one reason it should be moved to a more favorable jurisdiction, she argues, is that New York, with its stricter laws against using libel statutes strictly for the purposes of intimidating allowable speech, might be more favorable to me. This “would not just violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice—it would be a complete perversion of justice,” say Mrs. Trump’s lawyers, seeming to make the case for red state justice over blue state. In other words, we should not want to protect free speech too much.
The problem with this argument and moral position is that Melania Trump actually appears to live in New York, where I live—in other words, a place both congenial and convenient for both of us, and, as well, for many of our witnesses. What’s more, New York is the center of the activities involving Melania and Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s that are at issue in the claims she made in her threat letter.
The Trumps, of course, in late 2019 announced with great fanfare, together with a broadside against New York and its Democratic voters, that they were leaving the city and moving to Florida. They both appear to vote there. But many people, particularly wealthy people, have a flexible idea of where they vote, which is frequently at odds with where they live.
So, we know that while they would prefer to litigate this in Florida, ideally even in the courtroom of Judge Aileen Cannon (“future Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon,” as they say in the White House), it is in fact New York where Melania Trump’s heart and body are, as well as, in this case, the plaintiff.
That’s their case. In two weeks, we will make ours.
The post Opinion: The Real Blockbuster? Not ‘Melania’ the Movie, but Melania the Court Case appeared first on The Daily Beast.
