Either Trump staffer lied about FEC filings, or The Trump Campaign did.
This played out yesterday.
We’ve been going back and forth in the court about this incident for over three years. The basics are that Trump’s security guy Eddie Deck attacked me at a non-Trump event, throwing me into a table, and going all WWE on me. He did so because I was trying to ask a question about getting roughed up at a previous event. This security guy, Eddie Deck, did so in collaboration with four Manchester cops and a New Hampshire State Rep, (Fred Doucette) at the No Labels Problem Solvers Convention on Oct 12, 2015.
This Monday, (April 1, 2019), Trump’s lawyers from Cleveland, Waters & Bass got caught lying to me (independent of Trump staff). They also got caught lying on behalf of Trump staff, (Either Deck or the Campaign). This means either Deck lied to the lawyers, or Trump lied to the FEC. The third option would be that the lawyers lied for some inexplicable reason. Because the case is ongoing, I’m not going to say much more than this, I’m just going to publish the emails and motions.
Here they are:
START PAGE 1
Case 1:18-cv-00931-LM Document 35 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
RODERICK WEBBER, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) EDWARD DECK, ET AL., ) ) Defendants )
PARTIALLY ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Defendants, Edward Deck, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Campaign”), and Rep. Fred Doucette, hereby move the court to extend the deadlines to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint to May 20, 2019. The plaintiff assents to the relief sought in this motion as to defendants Deck and the Campaign but has not yet assented to an extension for defendant Doucette. This motion rests on the following grounds.
The plaintiff filed his complaint on October 11, 2018. Complaint at 1 (Doc. 1, 10/11/2018). His claims arise from an event in Manchester from which he was removed by the Manchester Police Department. President Trump was a speaker at the event, and plaintiff alleges that the President, the Campaign, and Rep. Doucette and Mr. Deck acting on behalf of the Campaign, are responsible for his claimed damages.
After a series of unsuccessful attempts by the plaintiff to serve process upon these defendants, plaintiff requested, and the defendants agreed to, a waiver of the service of process requirements as to the President, the Campaign, and Mr. Deck pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) on March 18, 2019. Waivers of Service (Doc. 26, 03/22/2019); see Motion to Quash Service of
END PAGE 1/ START PAGE 2
Case 1:18-cv-00931-LM Document 35 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 3
Process (Doc. 14, 03/15/2019) (since denied as mooted by the waivers of service). Notwithstanding the waivers, plaintiff served the Campaign’s registered agent on March 20, 2019, though no proof of service has been filed with this court. Exhibit A. Defendant Deck also appears to have been served process on March 20, 2019, though, again, no proof of service has been filed with this court. Invoice for AT Attorney Support Services (Doc. 29, March 22, 2019).
Plaintiff did not request a waiver of service from the undersigned counsel for Rep. Doucette.1 Instead, he served Rep. Doucette on or about March 26, 2019. This would make Rep. Doucette’s response to the complaint due on April 17, 2019.
President Trump waived service of process and must file a response to the plaintiff’s complaint by May 20, 2019. Waivers of the Service of Summons (Doc. 26, 03/18/2019). Assuming plaintiff files returns of service on defendants Deck and the Campaign, they must respond to the plaintiff’s complaint by April 10, 2019, notwithstanding that they waived service once plaintiff requested it.
Defendants Deck, Doucette, and the Campaign move for an extension to file their responses to the plaintiff’s complaint to May 20, 2019, to coincide with President Trump’s response deadline. The requested extension will not prejudice the parties or otherwise affect the trial schedule, as the court has not yet issued a case structuring order. Plaintiff assents to the relief sought by Mr. Deck and the Campaign but has not yet informed undersigned counsel whether he assents to the relief sought by Rep. Doucette.
1 Because counsel was not engaged to represent Rep. Doucette until March 29, 2019, plaintiff would not have known to request a waiver from counsel until he notified plaintiff of his representation on the same date.
END PAGE 2/ START PAGE 3
Date: April 1, 2019
Edward Deck, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Rep. Fred Doucette, By Their Attorneys,
/s/ Bryan K. Gould
(xxx Address/ phone redacted xxxxxxxx)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 1:18-cv-00931-LM Document 35 Filed 04/01/19 Page 3 of 3
In accordance with the foregoing, the Campaign, Mr. Deck, and Rep. Doucette respectfully request that the court extend the deadlines for their responsive pleadings to Monday, May 20, 2019.
I hereby certify that a copy of the within document was this day mailed, postage prepaid, to Roderick Webber (pro se), xxxxxx address redacted xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I also hereby certify that the within pleading is being served electronically upon counsel listed below through the court’s ECF system.
Adam B. Pignatelli, Esq. Samantha D. Elliott, Esq. Christian Hinrichsen, Esq.
Date: April 1, 2019
/s/ Bryan K. Gould Bryan K. Gould, Esq.
WEBBER’S MOTION THE FOLLOWING DAY
Motion to receive written copy of “Electronic Filing Training”
Plaintiff, coming pro-se before this Court, hereby moves for the Court to grant him a written copy of the “Electronic Filing Training. I hate to bother the court for such a small thing, but the recent motion filed by Attorney Gould, (Cleveland Waters & Bass), suggests that I have not followed proper procedure or protocol, and it seems to have turned into something less than a small thing.
On March 28th I received an email from NHDdb_helpdesk <firstname.lastname@example.org> granting me access to the Electronic Filing System, in which I was “strongly encouraged” to take “electronic filing training.” I agree, and I would like to do so, very much. Unfortunately, the link which the Court provided to take the training is broken. I have emailed and called the Court a number of times about the issue, and have spoken to one of the tech experts there, at 603–225–1496. Unfortunately, though I have figured out some functions through trial and error, I still don’t know how to see any of the documents which have been filed with the Court. The only way I can keep up to date is what I receive via US Mail, and a paid service which monitors PACER. Unfortunately, it’s not a very good service, and I can’t even see online the things I have submitted.
This is the broken link in question: http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/content/ecf/nhcbt.asp
My lack of access to the system seems to have lead, (in my opinion), to me being left in the dark on some issues, which I concede may have lead to failures in procedure or protocol on my part. I simply have no way of verifying this at this stage. The Proof of Service which Mr. Gould alleges I did not file with the court, I believe I did file with the court, but once again, I can’t seem to access all of the ECF system properly.
Secondly, Attorney Gould insinuates that I did not assent to change the date for Mr. Doucette despite the fact that they waived service for their other clients. He is correct that I did not assent. However, he gave me hours to respond, when I had given him four days. I must also now point out that Mr. Gould made a series of untrue statements yesterday, some of which he submitted to the Court, and this gave me hesitation. Mr. Gould claims that I did not ask to waive service for Representative Doucette. This is a knowingly untrue statement, of which Mr. Gould should be cognizant. I emailed Mr. Doucette about this issue on March 15th, 2019, suggesting he get in touch with Mr. Gould about waiving service. On that same day, I spoke to Mr. Gould by phone about Mr. Doucette and waiving service. I even followed up with Mr. Gould by email the next day regarding waiving service for Mr. Doucette. Gould is correct when he states that I had Mr. Doucette served through a process server, (The Nason Group), but not for the reasons Mr. Gould claims.
I submit the following two emails to back up my statements:
ROD WEBBER <rodwebber@xxxxxxxxx>
Mar 15 at 1:33 PM
Mr. Doucette —
I need to have a process server serve you a legal complaint in which you and Donald J. Trump For President Inc., (among others), are named.
If preferable, you could certainly waive service, if you’d prefer a server not come to your home for service.
That said, you needn’t feel any obligation to respond at all.
The attorney’s for the Trump campaign are:
Bryan K. Gould of Cleveland, Waters and Bass,
(xxx Address/ phone redacted xxxxX)
ROD WEBBER <rodwebber@xxxxx>
Mar 16 at 2:45 PM
Hello Mr. Gould —
Thanks for talking to me yesterday about the potential waiver of service for Trump staffer/ New Hampshire State Representative, Fred Doucette. That’s quite the motion to quash which you filed after our conversation. Nice writing. I understand that you are not representing Representative Doucette, but since you do represent Mr. Trump, Mr. Deck and the campaign, I know that you are authorized to accept service on their behalf. Since your clients have retained your services, it is clear that they are aware of the claim I have filed, so t appears that you have actual notice. For the purposes of economy it seems like it would be preferable for you to waive service. The other defendants, who are not your clients, but who you mentioned in your motion have all agreed to waiver, with the exception of Mr. Doucette, who I have not heard back from.
My expectation is that you will turn me down, but I am trying to make this go as smoothly as possible considering that I am pro se, and not familiar with all the protocols and procedures. Of course, I want this to move things along as quickly as possible, and am prepared to send more servers out to wherever needed, if that becomes necessary. I am attaching the complaint and the summonses and another notice from the court for your defendants just so that we know that you do at least have it, and I have done everything in my power to speed this along and be as helpful as I can be in the process. I hope your day is going well.
Mr. Gould further claims that the courts did not receive process of service for the Campaign, (Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.) Unfortunately, without proper instructions on how to access the electronic filing system, I am not sure how to verify this. However, the fact they have produced their own copy of proof of service should indicate they are aware. Additionally, I know that Mr. Gould should at least have a copy of the process of service through Mr. Doucette who was sent all of the relevant materials March 23rd at 3:29 PM via his government-issued email, email@example.com. Setting aside that Cleveland, Waters & Bass already have the materials in question, I am happy to re-send the process of service to Attorney Gould and any other relevant documents he requests, bearing in mind that I am pro se, without a big legal team, and I have other responsibilities aside from this case which means I can’t always respond in a heartbeat.
Further, I received a phone call from Attorney Mortenson, (Cleveland Waters & Bass), on March 27th at 4:20 PM requesting to move the deadline for Deck and the Trump Campaign to May 20th. They were helpful in getting service waived when I requested it of their clients, and that was enough reason for me to be helpful to them and assent to their request to move the date to May 20th in regard to The Campaign and Mr. Deck. March 28th, (3:56PM) Gould emailed to say they’d be representing Mr. Doucette and asked if I would assent to moving his date to May 20th as well.
I followed up the next day with a request of my own. The brief backstory on that is that I had discovered what I believed to be evidence from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicating that Mr. Deck’s company XMark, LLC was involved in the incident described in the complaint, as they had been hired for security services. As it turns out, because Mr. Deck and his company are so intricately linked, and he has so many aliases and addresses, it appears that my servers and I confused the person Edward Deck with the company XMark, LLC and served XMark, LLC instead of Mr. Deck on February 15th at xxxxxxxxxxx Pinehurst, North Carolina. Since Mr. Deck is one of the principle owners of the company, and they effectively had service on February 15th, it is my belief that joining XMark, LLC to the complaint would not prejudice their appearance. So, I wrote an email asking Mr. Gould and Mr. Mortensen if they could speak to Mr. Deck about waiving service.
This is the email:
Cc:Matthew Mortensen, abp@xxxxxxxxx,chinrichsen@xxxxx,elliott@xxxxxxxxx
Mar 29 at 2:07 PM
Hi, Bryan/ Matt
I have one quick concern I was hoping we could address before signing off on your question about Mr. Doucette.
In my amended complaint, I plan to join Mr. Deck’s company, XMark, LLC. As you acknowledged in your motion to quash, I engaged a process server to deliver my papers on Feb. 14th and 15th at xxxxxxx Pinehurst, North Carolina. Since this is the address that XMark, LLC lists as it’s place of business on it’s website XMark2.com, it would be reasonable to conclude that XMark, LLC effectively has notice, and joining them to my complaint should not prejudice their appearance. If this is not convincing enough, there are a multitude of FEC filings indicating the Trump/ Campaign/ Deck/ XMark connection.
For these reasons, I was hoping you could ask Mr. Deck if we could waive service, in the interest of economy, and making things move along smoothly. Of course, I am aware that the decision is up to Mr. Deck, who will naturally have to confer with his partners. I’m sure the court would look favorably upon this.
I plan to file the amended complaint in the next couple of days.
Mr. Gould replied:
Bryan Gould <gouldb@xxxxxxxx>
Apr 1 at 11:14 AM
We don’t represent XMark. We did speak with Mr. Deck, and he told us that XMark had no relationship with the campaign at the time of the events described in your complaint.
In light of this, I would ask you to reconsider adding XMark as a defendant.
Do we have your assent to extend the time for Rep. Doucette’s response to May 20?
The statements made by Mr. Gould on behalf of Mr. Deck indicate to me that either Mr. Deck is not being truthful about XMark’s involvement in the Trump Campaign, or The Trump Campaign falsified their records to the Federal Election Commission. The Trump Campaign has paid extremely large payments to XMark, LLC beginning, (to my knowledge), with a payment of $2666.25 on October 1st, 2015. This would indicate that XMark, LLC indeed had a relationship with the Campaign at the time of the event described in the complaint. The third possibility is that Mr. Gould is falsely representing Mr. Deck. At this stage, it is difficult for me to trust what I am being told by the Attorneys at Cleveland, Waters & Bass.
Here is a link to the FEC filings regarding payments from the Trump Campaign to XMark, LLC:
Considering that I pointed out the FEC filings to the attorneys at Cleveland Waters & Bass, I’m shocked that they didn’t attempt to verify the veracity of Mr. Deck’s claim, which in my view, is mendacious. I realize that XMark, LLC has not officially been joined since I have not yet filed an amended complaint, but I wanted to give the Court the full context for my current request for relief. Shortly after Mr. Gould emailed me, (giving me little time to respond), he then filed his motion to the Court, otherwise I’m sure we could have worked things out without involving the Court with all of these details. Since things did not work out that way, I feel I am now left little choice but to share what I know.
In a single day, Mr. Gould filed untrue statements with the Court about Mr. Doucette and waiver of service, and Mr. Gould wrote untrue statements on behalf of Mr. Deck to me regarding XMark’s involvement in the Trump Campaign. More than anyone else, I would like these proceedings to be efficient, smooth and speedy, and naturally, I want to be in full compliance with any rules, regulations or procedures. A printed copy of the “Electronic Filing Training” would certainly go a long way toward this goal. I am dedicated to do better with procedural technicalities, but not without pointing out the falsehoods which were included about me in Mr. Gould’s critique of my procedural ability. I hope this allowable, and if I have erred in any way, I humbly apologize.
Plaintiff, hereby moves for the Court to grant him a written/ printed copy of the “Electronic Filing Training” guide (preferably via email), so that any of the procedural issues can be avoided in the future and we can get things moving forward.
Pro Se Plaintiff, Roderick Webber
Signed: _________________________________ April 2nd, 2019
APRIL 3rd EMAIL FROM GOULD:
Your motion for a written copy of the ECF procedures contains several statements demonstrating that our communications have led to misunderstandings.
I was not suggesting that you did anything wrong in connection with service of process. To the contrary, you seem to have been quite diligent in attempting to serve the defendants. You are unrepresented, so no one expects perfect compliance with the rules.
I was unaware before receiving your motion that you had asked Rep. Doucette to waive service. If you look carefully at what our motion says you will note that I said that you had not asked me to waive service on Rep. Doucette but stated in a footnote that you could not have known to ask me before last Friday because that’s when I was retained, and by then you had already served him.
With respect to XMark, my email reported to you exactly what we were told by Mr. Deck. If you had sent us the FEC filings we could have followed up with him for an explanation.
I would encourage you to contact us by phone or email before filing papers like this with the court. In fact, you are supposed to do that under the rules so that the parties don’t raise issues with the court that are based on misunderstandings or that could have been resolved informally.
APRIL 4th RESPONSE FROM WEBBER TO GOULD:
I share your desire for decorum. But, let’s be clear. The events, as you characterize them were not “a misunderstanding.” Your client, Mr. Deck, independent of Cleveland, Waters & Bass was either untruthful, or he, (or his company’s) employer, The Trump Campaign, was untruthful with the FEC. And, either you were untruthful independent of your client, or your memory is faulty to the point where it cannot be trusted. The net-effect is the same.
I’d like to get along. That said, remember that I am a documentarian — and as such, a meticulous note-taker. We did, in fact, speak about a waiver for Representative Doucette two weeks ago on the phone and by email. Your words were, “I have not gotten any indication that we will be representing him.” You were clear that you didn’t have the authority to grant a waiver, but that I should reach out to Fred. I did — and then I recommended to Fred that he seek the services of Cleveland, Waters & Bass regarding the case. I wasn’t expecting a finder’s fee, but I was hoping it would founder an establishment for trust between your firm and myself. Evidently, Fred did not offer up this information to you either.
You can choose to fixate on footnotes and nitpick over the word “me,” or that you weren’t yet Fred’s council at that time, but doing so is an exercise in irrelevance. It will not change that we did in fact speak by phone about the waiver for Fred, which was commemorated by email. Once you check your records, hopefully, you will find it in yourself to acknowledge the truth which is that the phone call and email about Fred’s waiver did take place two weeks ago.
As to the breach of etiquette which you seem to have perceived on my part, I offer my humble atonement toward the furtherance of things going smoothly. That said, if you want to keep the works from getting gummied up, it’s a two-way street. You were cognizant, or should have been cognizant that we spoke about Fred and the waiver, and certainly could’ve reached out to me, if you were having difficulty in recollecting our phone-call and email from two weeks in the past. Instead, you chose to submit your motion to the court, sullied by untrue statements without even giving me half a day to reciprocate your query. Surely, it was reasonable to expect these things to find their way into the record.
I understand that you are in the unenviable position of defending a client who you know to have mislead you, (either Mr. Deck, or the Trump Campaign). Assuming you haven’t dropped either client as a result of this deception, it would be best, (in my view), if we returned to the truthful, efficacious exchanges which had moved the case along in the past. To this end, I think it would be fruitful if you spoke again to your clients, Mr. Deck and The Trump Campaign about granting future waivers of service for when we join XMark, LLC and any Trump-Campaign-related companies to the case.
I hope we can find a mutually agreeable path forward, in which any and all issues can be dealt with efficiently. I eagerly await getting things back on track.