Judge Concludes Trump Organization Lawsuit – Ruling Has Trump Wigged Out


Back in October, four individuals, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization, specifically Trump and his three oldest children, for “deliberately enticing them to invest in companies in exchange of large, secret payments between 2005 and 2015.”

According to The New York Times:

‘The four plaintiffs have been described in court papers as a hospice worker, a self-employed formerly homeless man, a food delivery driver and a mother of three who works at a national retail store. Each invested in ACN, a telecommunications marketing company, after watching promotional videos featuring Mr. Trump, the suit said. The company paid Mr. Trump millions to endorse its products.

‘The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleged ACN was one of several get-rich-quick schemes that Mr. Trump promoted as legitimate business opportunities “to enrich themselves by systematically defrauding economically marginalized people.”’

It’s understandable that the plaintiffs would wish to remain anonymous, because as we all know, Trump has a history of using his status almost daily to lash out against those who dare to stand up to or go against him in any way. Just yesterday he proved that when using his favorite platform to deflect from his own ongoing lawsuits and lash out at the Clinton Foundation and former AG Eric Schneiderman.

Anyone who goes against Trump will suffer the above consequences, and likely worse from Trump’s “basket of deplorables,” so thankfully today, Judge  Lorna G. Schofield of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who is overseeing the above-mentioned lawsuit against the corrupt Trump Organization, ruled that the plaintiffs, in this case, may remain anonymous, stating that:

‘The manner in which the president has used his position and platform to affect the course of pending court cases is really without precedent.

‘Whether instigated by him or by his supporters, the harms at issue here are not hypothetical. They are real, significant and present an unwarranted obstacle to those who would seek to vindicate their rights in federal court.’

The plaintiffs may remain anonymous until the judge’s final ruling, and then attorneys for the plaintiffs may then seek further protection for their clients, if needed, once that decision is made.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot.