LOS ANGELES – A lawsuit filed by adult performer Stormy Daniels (AKA Stephanie Clifford) has given new life to the story about her alleged affair with now-President Donald Trump, and raises new questions about the way Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, handled the execution of a confidential settlement with Daniels.
The complaint, the prior non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement (NDA) signed by Daniels and a related side letter were all obtained and published by NBC News.
In the complaint, Daniels claims that because Trump never signed the NDA (which is referred to in the complaint as the “Hush Agreement”), the agreement “together with all of its terms and conditions, was null and void.”
The complaint further alleges Trump “purposely did not sign the agreement so he could later, if need be, publicly disavow knowledge of the Hush Agreement and Ms. Clifford.”
The complaint also formally makes an argument previously advanced by Daniel’s manager, Gina Rodriguez, that Daniels isn’t bound by the agreement, due to Cohen’s public comments about the agreement and the related payment to Daniels.
“On or about February 13, 2018, Mr. Cohen released a public statement regarding Ms. Clifford, the existence of the Hush Agreement, and details concerning the Hush Agreement,” the complaint states. “He did so without any consent by Ms. Clifford, thus evidencing Mr. Cohen’s apparent position (at least in that context) that no binding agreement was in place.”
“Importantly, at no time did Mr. Cohen claim Ms. Clifford did not have an intimate relationship with Mr. Trump,” the complaint continues. “Indeed, were he to make such a statement, it would be patently false.”
The complaint also alleges that “the attempts to intimidate Ms. Clifford into silence and ‘shut her up’ in order to ‘protect Mr. Trump’ continue unabated.” These attempts to silence Daniels include Cohen allegedly “surreptitiously” initiating a “bogus arbitration proceeding against Ms. Clifford in Los Angeles.”
“Remarkably, he did so without even providing Ms. Clifford with notice of the proceeding and basic due process,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint also touches on possible ethical concerns regarding Cohen’s conduct in the matter, both with respect to Trump’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of the agreement with and payment to Daniels and his more recent alleged actions in trying to assure Daniels’ continued silence.
“The extent of Mr. Trump’s involvement in these efforts is presently unknown, but it strains credibility to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting on his own accord without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump,” the complaint states. “Indeed, Rule 1.4 of New York Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys required Mr. Cohen at all times to promptly communicate all material information relating to the matter to Mr. Trump, including but not limited to ‘any decision or circumstance with respect which [Mr. Trump’s] informed consent [was] required’ and ‘material developments in the matter including settlement or plea offers.’” (Italicized emphasis in the above quote appears in the original document.)
The upshot of the complaint is that Daniels is seeking declaratory relief from the court stating that she is not bound by the NDA and side letter included as exhibits in the complaint.
“Plaintiff seeks an order of this court declaring that the agreements in the forms set out in Exhibits 1 and 2 between Plaintiff and Defendants were never formed, and therefore do not exist, because, among other things, Mr. Trump never signed the agreements,” the complaint states.
In addition to its non-disclosure and non-disparagement stipulations, the confidential settlement agreement at issue contains extensive language concerning the reassignment of all rights, and copyrights specifically, from Daniels (who is referred to as “Peggy Peterson” and “PP” in the agreement) to Trump (referred to as “David Dennison” and “DD”).
“PP shall deliver to DD every existing copy of all tangible Property,” the agreement states. “PP shall completely divest herself of any and all artistic media, impressions, paintings, video images, still images, e-mail messages, text messages, Instagram message, facebook posting or any other type of creation by DD. PP shall transfer all physical, ownership and intellectual property rights to DD.”
The agreement also bars Daniels from making further contact with Trump or his family “for any reason whatsoever,” to disclose the names of anyone to whom she revealed “Tangible Confidential Information” and to “permanently cease and desist from any posting or dissemination or display of the Confidential Information, Tangible and/or Intangible Confidential information created by or relating to DD and/or Property, including the Images (including, but not limited to, any form of media outlet, on any blog or posting board, on the Internet, or otherwise).”
The agreement also includes a “liquidated damages” section, in which any breach or violation of the agreement on Stormy’s part carries a hefty price tag.
“(I)n addition to disgorgement of the full amount of all monies or other consideration… PP shall be obligated to pay, and agree to pay to DD the sum of One-Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00 as a reasonable and fair amount of liquidated damages to compensate DD for any loss or damage result from each breach,” the agreement states. (Underlined emphasis and lack of closed parenthesis in the quote above both appear in the original document.)
YNOT has reached out to attorneys for their comment on and analysis of the complaint and related documents. This post will be updated, or a follow-up post will be published, when such commentary and analysis is received.
