ADKO

ejean

5 min read

Here’s a summary of the text with the requested annotations:

The author, Miles Mathis, argues that the Trump Rape Trial was a staged event, a “farce” orchestrated by entities like the CIA, rather than a legitimate legal proceeding. He claims the mainstream media provides clues to this deception by highlighting the trial’s lack of legal sense, such as E. Jean Carroll’s inability to recall the year of the alleged assault and the judge’s controversial decision to allow other women to testify about similar experiences with Donald Trump without cross-examination. Mathis contends that character evidence of this nature is typically inadmissible. He also points to Trump’s refusal to appear in person, opting for a video deposition, as further proof of the staged nature.

Mathis questions the legal basis of civil suits, suggesting the notion that they are easier to prove than criminal cases is a fabrication used to win high-profile fake suits, citing the OJ Simpson case as an example. He disputes the common definition of “preponderance of evidence” as a “greater than 50% chance,” claiming this modern interpretation is a recent manipulation by “fake scholars” to facilitate such fabricated cases.

The author delves into E. Jean Carroll’s background, noting her past roles as Miss Indiana University, Miss Cheerleader USA, and her appearances on shows like “To Tell the Truth” and “Saturday Night Live.” He questions her qualifications for an advice column in Elle magazine. He also links her to black journalist John Johnson, who covered the OJ Simpson case and the Attica Prison Riot. Mathis suggests Carroll’s memoir title, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” is a thinly veiled Jonathan Swift reference and indicative of a “Men-are-Pigs” agenda designed to divide sexes and the country. He believes the Trump controversy is a ploy to promote Carroll’s book.

Mathis further criticizes the jury’s findings of defamation, stating the standard for defamation in the US is much higher. He questions how Carroll’s team proved battery and sexual abuse decades later, asserting the lack of verifiable evidence and the implausibility of a three-minute assault in a dressing room. He dismisses the testimonies of other women as unverifiable grievances, not evidence. He characterizes the court proceedings as a “clown show” with rewritten rules, where emotional speeches replace cross-examination and judges act with impunity.

Mathis speculates about E. Jean Carroll’s family history, tracing her to Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Columbus, Ohio. He suggests she might be using her mother’s name, Elizabeth Jean, and has possible links to J. K. Rowling through the Rowlands family. He hypothesizes that Trump and Carroll are cousins, a common thread in his analysis of theatrical productions. He links their potential connection through the Rowlands of Wales and Bulkeley Viscounts, extending to MacLeods and Campbells, noting Trump’s mother is a MacLeod and suggesting Carroll’s mother might be a MacKinnon. He also notes a potential connection to Paul McCartney.

In a later addendum, Mathis highlights a 2021 tweet where Carroll called herself a “massive fan” of Trump’s “The Apprentice,” which he deems nonsensical unless they are staged cousins from the “Phoenician Navy.”

A further addendum on January 30, 2024, identifies Lewis Kaplan as the judge and Roberta Kaplan as Carroll’s lead attorney, noting they are from the same law firm, Paul, Weiss, and were mentored by each other, suggesting a familial connection despite official denials. He also identifies Shawn Crowley as another attorney for Carroll, who clerked for Judge Kaplan and had her wedding performed by him, implying further kinship. Mathis’s attempts to verify the Kaplans’ relationship through ancestry sites were unsuccessful, leading him to believe they are using fudged names. He also investigates Crowley’s background, finding connections to Jupiter, Florida, which also appears in Roberta Kaplan’s search results. Mathis concludes that Crowley’s prior representation of Hillary Clinton’s side in a suit against Trump suggests a pattern of “actors” in staged events, implying Trump v. Clinton was also fake and that Crowley is a CIA actor attorney.

Finally, Mathis criticizes Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, noting her background in fashion with Marc Jacobs and her limited legal experience. He suggests she was hired as a “pretty face and actress” and that her previous cases for Trump, including the New York Times lawsuit and the case against Summer Zervos, were scripted to fail or conclude as “vaudeville.” He implies that the staged nature of these trials serves to distract the public from “real events” like vaccine genocide, manufactured wars, and bank thefts.

List of Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View