The Unheard Lawsuit – How Katie Johnson Accused Donald Trump and America Looked Away

It was April 26, 2016, when a woman named Katie Johnson filed a civil lawsuit in the Central District of California. The complaint, typed and submitted without legal counsel, carried two names that were about to shake the moral foundation of the United States: Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. The allegation: repeated sexual abuse of a thirteen-year-old girl, under threat of physical violence, with witnesses, details, and a demand for one hundred million dollars in damages. The case was never heard. It was quietly dismissed – and what happened afterwards raises deep questions about power, media, and the American justice system.

The details of the complaint are precise, brutal, and legally unambiguous. Katie Johnson, as stated on page 2 of the complaint, describes four occasions between June and September 1994 during which she was forced, as a child, to engage in sexual acts – in Jeffrey Epstein’s house in New York, in the presence of both men. In paragraph 6, it states: “The plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to become the sexual slave of the defendants.” It was a language that almost breaks out of the legal form – and at the same time reflects the speech pattern of a girl who had learned to channel the unspeakable into legal terms. The first assault by Donald Trump, she claims, consisted of being forced to stimulate his genitals with her hand until he ejaculated. On the second occasion, she was forced to perform oral sex on him. On the third occasion, she was forced, together with another minor named Maria Doe, to carry out an “unnatural lesbian sex act” for Trump – again involving oral sex. The fourth assault, according to Johnson, was a brutal rape. She pleaded with Trump to use a condom. His response: a slap in the face. His words: “I do what I want.” What sounds like a grotesque allegory of patriarchal violence is, legally, clearly delineated. The complaint is based on two federal laws: 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (sexual violence under threat) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights). Both provisions are actionable when the abuse is systematic and coercive. That Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein threatened Johnson with death if she ever spoke out belongs both to the chronicle of horror and to the legal substance of the case: “Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and her family.” The complaint even names a witness – “Tiffany Doe,” a longtime employee of Epstein who claims to have been present during all four assaults by Trump and three by Epstein. In her sworn statement, which was part of the filing, Tiffany Doe says: “I saw Epstein and Trump abusing underage girls - regularly.” Why, despite this testimony, no interrogation ever took place remains one of the major blind spots of the case.

Legally, the lawsuit initially proceeded according to protocol. A “Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program” was issued on April 26, 2016, requiring participation in a court-directed mediation program. The document explicitly states that “all parties in civil cases must participate in an ADR proceeding.” But the hope for mediation was never fulfilled. The case was dismissed a few weeks later without comment. The reason: the plaintiff had gone into hiding, it was said. Media reported that she feared reprisals. Later statements claimed she had received death threats. Others claimed the case was fabricated. But what remains is the document. It was filed in court, signed, formal, with specific legal paragraphs and a demand for justice. And it has never been refuted – only silenced. The fact that the case was never heard, that no evidence was ever taken, that neither Trump nor Epstein was ever questioned about the allegations, does not make the dismissal a legal judgment – but rather a silencing of the law. It is a moment when the justice system seemed unable to stand up to the political and economic weight of the accused. That Epstein was later arrested and died in prison under unclear circumstances lends the case a retrospective gravity that can hardly be overstated. And Donald Trump? He became president – shortly after the complaint. That the Katie Johnson case remained little more than a footnote in public discourse is a failure of the media just as much as it is a signal of the imbalance between truth and power. It was the final sentence of the document that echoed like a call through the institutions, without ever being heard. Katie Johnson included it as a typed paragraph at the end of her complaint – factual in tone, unequivocal in content:


“I ask the Court for relief in the amount of $100,000,000.00 as a result of the violations of my Civil Rights by Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein.”


The state remained silent. The media hesitated. And society – looked away. We will also re-investigate this case – thoroughly, publicly, journalistically. Our research into it is already ongoing, and we can assure you: no one of significance in this case will have been unaware of our work. What was covered up will be made visible. What was silenced will be heard.

To be continued .....

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.