U.S. accuses author of Melania Trump tell-all book of breaking nondisclosure pact

[webfact]

U.S. accuses author of Melania Trump tell-all book of breaking nondisclosure pact

By Steve Holland

 

FILE PHOTO: First lady Melania Trump hosts a roundtable discussion on Sickle Cell Disease inside the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., September 14 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday accused Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, author of a tell-all book about first lady Melania Trump, of breaking their nondisclosure agreement and asked a court to set aside profits from the book in a government trust.

 

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Justice Department lawyers said Winston Wolkoff, a former aide who fell out with the first lady, failed to submit to government review a draft of her book, "Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady," which offers an unflattering portrayal of President Donald Trump's wife.

 

Lawyers for Winston Wolkoff were not immediately available to respond to a request for comment.

 

The complaint said the Justice Department has jurisdiction in the case because of the first lady's traditional public role dating back to Martha Washington, wife of the first U.S. president, George Washington.

 

The government asked that any profits Winston Wolkoff might realize from the book and subsequent movie deal or documentaries be set aside into a "constructive trust," with the monies ultimately going to the Treasury Department.

 

Published six weeks ago, the book was for a time on the New York Times best seller list. It sells for $16.80 on amazon.com.

 

"The United States seeks to hold Ms. Wolkoff to her contractual and fiduciary obligations and to ensure that she is not unjustly enriched by her breach of the duties she freely assumed when she served as an adviser to the first lady," said a copy of the complaint seen by Reuters.

 

It says Winston Wolkoff and Mrs. Trump in August 2017 sealed a "Gratuitous Services Agreement" related to “nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information” that she might obtain during her service under the agreement.

 

"This was a contract with the United States and therefore enforceable by the United States," said Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec.

 

The government action was similar to Justice Department attempts to stop publication of a book published in June by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.

 

Bolton was accused of divulging national security secrets, a charge he denied. Publication went ahead any way and a court battle continues over his book, "The Room Where It Happened."

 

Winston Wolkoff's tenure at the White House ended in early 2018 after it was disclosed that her company had received $26 million to help plan Trump's inauguration in January 2017.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland; additional reporting by Sarah Lynch; Editing by Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-14

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

I don’t care do you?

[placeholder]

Another case where the Justice Dept sees itself as the private counsel for the Trumps. They're already defending Trump in a civil suit alleging rape for alleged incidents that occurred before he was President.

[Sujo]

Why is the justice dept involved n this, she holds no office.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why is the justice dept involved n this, she holds no office.

I guess the contract signed by the "employee" is with the Office of the President(or some such entity) not she Melania) herself.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I guess the contract signed by the "employee" is with the Office of the President(or some such entity) not she Melania) herself.

You would think so but apparently not. The Justice Dept is not claiming that. Rather they are asserting that because the Office of the First Lady is a defacto part of the government, the justice dept has the right to enforce a private non-disclosure agreement.

[bendejo]

There's always something involving going to court to keep people from talking with this bunch. 

It's not clear if The Royal Consort herself is involved in the charge.  It would clash with the IDCDU agenda.

 

 

 

[Walker88]

Most folks who join DoJ think they're going to go after organized crime, drug traffickers, terrorists, traitors, etc. Few or none think they will have to put actual crime and threats aside, and instead do the personal bidding of the POTUS, who never wants the truth to get in the way of the myth. Thus, EVERYTHING is apparently under eternal NDAs.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Most folks who join DoJ think they're going to go after organized crime, drug traffickers, terrorists, traitors, etc. Few or none think they will have to put actual crime and threats aside, and instead do the personal bidding of the POTUS, who never wants the truth to get in the way of the myth. Thus, EVERYTHING is apparently under eternal NDAs.

Even his covid doctors are silenced under nda.

[J Town]

Those nda's never stick. Just ask Bolton.

[Rimmer]

Some troll posts and replies removed

[JusticeGB]

The profits from the book are going to the coffers of the USA and not Melania Trump so she isn't making a cent from this case but merely enforcing a non disclosure agreement by ensuring that the breaker of it can't profit from the breach. 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

The profits from the book are going to the coffers of the USA and not Melania Trump so she isn't making a cent from this case but merely enforcing a non disclosure agreement by ensuring that the breaker of it can't profit from the breach. 

If Melania wants to sue  Wollkoff for  breach of an NDA agreements fine. But she should not be using the resources of the US government to do so.

[Phoenix Rising]

7 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

The profits from the book are going to the coffers of the USA and not Melania Trump.....

They are?? Is the author donating the profits to "the coffers of the USA"?

[Opl]

24 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

The profits from the book are going to the coffers of the USA and not Melania Trump so she isn't making a cent from this case but merely enforcing a non disclosure agreement by ensuring that the breaker of it can't profit from the breach. 

Anyway, 

How much does Melania Trump think her Trump brand as 1st lady is worth?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-07/melania-trump-says-article-deprived-her-of-a-chance-to-cash-in

 

How much for "emotional distress"

"the article "impugned her fitness to perform her duties as First Lady of the United States" and caused her "significant humiliation in the community and emotional distress."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/news/a9514/melania-trump-lawsuit/

Edited October 14, 2020 by Opl

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Opl said:

How much is Melania Trump brand as 1st lady worth?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-07/melania-trump-says-article-deprived-her-of-a-chance-to-cash-in

I can't wait to read a book by the author of the slogan "Be Best!".

[Opl]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I can't wait to read a book by the author of the slogan "Be Best!".

didn't she signed a NDA - like Ivanka's mother?

[Proboscis]

Even the words used by the DoJ, "fiduciary and contractual," belong to civil law, not criminal law. If the so-called wronged party sues, and in this case it is the USA, the USA has to show how it has been damaged by the contents of the book. My guess is that this is a political stroke by the Trump influenced DoJ and the case has no legs. It will be very difficult to establish harm to the USA or the Federal Government from this book. I mean, the book has been published - so show us the harm between before the book was published and after it was published.

 

The fact that the DoJ draws a parallel between this book and that of Bolton's book says it all. Bolton was the subject of a breach of contract based on an allegation that he had not received the result of the security review. Given that at least one review had been done and another subsequently started by the White House, the Texas judge agreed that the book could proceed. The declaration by Trump that every conversation with him is by definition classified was not taken on board.

 

Having lost the breach of contract case, the DoJ empanneled a Grand Jury, said to have started in September 15th, to investigate whether there are indeed instances of classified information in Bolton's book. Given that the first review did not find any, that is indeed a bit of a reach. Given that the law on classified information is as creaky as hell and some of it is probably unconstitutional, there is little chance that this procedure is anything more than a 'hail mary' and probably just a way of punishing Bolton and keeping Trump happy.

 

So, using the Bolton case as a parallel gets the Melania book nowhere. Even if the book demonstrably damages Melania, the case brought by the Feds cannot appeal to that. They have to show actual damage to the country. A significant reach, to say the least.

[MaxYakov]

48 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Majority of comment snipped. The entire comment is HERE [TVF permalink].

:

So, using the Bolton case as a parallel gets the Melania book nowhere. Even if the book demonstrably damages Melania, the case brought by the Feds cannot appeal to that. They have to show actual damage to the country. A significant reach, to say the least.

Maybe it will wend it's way to the SCOTUS where, by then, the court may be 'fully-packed' and it will certainly not stand a chance. WDYT?

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by MaxYakov

[wwest5829]

11 hours ago, Tug said:

I don’t care do you?

Only so far as the principle that no one can sign away their Constitutional Right of free speech.

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Only so far as the principle that no one can sign away their Constitutional Right of free speech.

Well, actually they can in the case of an NDA. If the NDA is valid. But they're not valid for government workers so the Justice Dept has no business trying to enforce an NDA between 2 private citizens.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

Only so far as the principle that no one can sign away their Constitutional Right of free speech.

 

Sure they can.  Doctors do it.  Lawyers do it.  Priests do it.  Everyone with security clearance does it.  Even the guys who mix up the secret batter for KFC do it.

 

Edit:  The existence and legality of NDA's isn't the issue.  It's why the Justice Department is standing in to represent a private citizen to enforce an NDA with another private citizen.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by impulse

[unblocktheplanet]

USA always thinks it holds the cards to shut down whistleblowers. Didn't start with Trump but he's surely following presidential practice. Shameful what's happening to Julian Assange. Bill of Rights? Free speech?

[wwest5829]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Sure they can.  Doctors do it.  Lawyers do it.  Priests do it.  Everyone with security clearance does it.  Even the guys who mix up the secret batter for KFC do it.

 

Edit:  The existence and legality of NDA's isn't the issue.  It's why the Justice Department is standing in to represent a private citizen to enforce an NDA with another private citizen.

 

Sorry, but as a principle of US law, push comes to shove it has be found that they cannot.

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Sorry, but as a principle of US law, push comes to shove it has be found that they cannot.

 

Tell that to Anthony Levandowski.

 

Oh, and Julian Assange.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by impulse

[herfiehandbag]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

If Melania wants to sue  Wollkoff for  breach of an NDA agreements fine. But she should not be using the resources of the US government to do so.

Perhaps it is by way of "Legal Aid"? In the UK if you cannot afford legal assistance you can apply for the government to pay for a lawyer. This may be the same idea? After all, the Trumps are apparently pretty broke - only liable to pay $700 or so in tax...

????

[wwest5829]

51 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Tell that to Anthony Levandowski.

 

Oh, and Julian Assange.

 

Why would either come under what I have stated?

[IAMHERE]

14 hours ago, Tug said:

I don’t care do you?

Only so far as the principle that a signed contract is a contract.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Only so far as the principle that a signed contract is a contract.

Then Melania Trump should sue Wollkoff. It should be of no concern to the Justice Dept.

Edited October 14, 2020 by placeholder

[Proboscis]

5 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Maybe it will wend it's way to the SCOTUS where, by then, the court may be 'fully-packed' and it will certainly not stand a chance. WDYT?

 

 

Only those cases that bring in an original question about the interpretation of law and the constitution ever get to SCOTUS - and SCOTUS turns down most appeals to them. Besides, by the time such a case got to SCOTUS, we might all be dead or at least have forgotten about it.

 

But in keeping with my claim that the cases both against Bolton and the author of the Melania book are vexatious is in keeping with the Attorney General/DoJ hiding the fact that they were unable to bring any charges regarding the "unmasking scandal" - that was the claim that officials in the Obama administration, specifically Susa Rice, used requests to unmask redacted names in raw intelligence reports to get at certain Republicans, specifically against Michael Flynn. The allegations looked at also included whether Obama administration officials provided stories to reporters using this method. Unfortunately for Attorney General Barr and the DoJ, their investigation unearthed absolutedly nothing. But instead of announcing this, they decided not to release the result of their investigation publicly.

 

Yet another vexatious case initiated by the Trump White House/DoJ