LEAKED: ABOVE TOP SECRET – INTERNAL REPORT“Operation Central Park: Free Speech, Immunity, and the Legal War on Trump” – ORIGINAL DOCUMENT – TRUMP COPY✌

📜 **“Operation Central Park: The Legal Firewall”**
Behind sealed filings and political firestorms, Trump’s legal team deploys a speech-shield doctrine to stall courtroom battles over past words—and reshape the limits of immunity in the age of weaponized litigation.

🗂️ ABOVE TOP SECRET – INTERNAL REPORT
“Operation Central Park: Free Speech, Immunity, and the Legal War on Trump”
Confidential Briefing Document – Classified Level 4-B / For Investigative Analysts Only

GET THE FULL DOSSIER AND THE TRUMP COPY AT

https://www.patreon.com/posts/leaked-above-top-135377727?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

FREE FOR DONORS AND PATRONS

🔍 CODE NAME: “UPEPA SHIELD STRIKE”

SUBJECT: Donald J. Trump vs. Yusef Salaam et al.
JURISDICTION: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
CASE FILE: 2:24-cv-05560-WB
DOCUMENT TYPE: Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
DRAFTED BY: Attorney Karin M. Sweigart, Dhillon Law Group
DATE FILED: July 30, 2025

🧠 CORE INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY

Donald J. Trump, now a defendant in a federal lawsuit linked to public commentary regarding the Central Park Five, invokes UPEPA (Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) as a legal force field—claiming immunity from litigation designed to punish constitutionally protected speech. Trump argues that this statute, recently adopted in Pennsylvania, was specifically crafted to shield political figures and citizens alike from SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

The document represents Trump’s legal counterstrike, requesting a full stay of court proceedings while his appeal for UPEPA immunity is under review.

🧾 EVIDENCE & KEY CLAIMS:

Statutory Immunity Invocation: Trump’s attorneys argue UPEPA provides not just a defense—but full immunity from the burden of trial itself. This includes shielding defendants from legal costs and stress stemming from frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits.
Parallels to Federal Immunities: The filing draws parallels between UPEPA and long-established federal immunities like qualified immunity and absolute immunity, noting both are immediately appealable and preclude trial.
Free Speech & First Amendment: Trump’s legal team claims this lawsuit is a “SLAPP,” punishing him for his past public speech—a clear violation of protected expression in political discourse.
Procedural Maneuvers: Trump’s motion asserts that even without formal state procedure adoption (pending in the PA Supreme Court), the substantive immunity clause of UPEPA is already enforceable.
Chilling Effect Concerns: A stay is requested on the grounds that failing to pause litigation would create a national chilling effect, deterring public figures from participating in open debate and commentary.

🧩 CLASSIFIED NOTES:

This filing may set a precedent for political speech defense in federal court using state-level anti-SLAPP laws.
The timing—amid Trump’s numerous legal entanglements—suggests this is strategically aimed at neutralizing one front of legal pressure.
If accepted by the court, it would represent a rare successful invocation of state immunity statutes in diversity jurisdiction federal trials.

📁 SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS:

Excerpts from UPEPA (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.12)
Transcript: PA Senate Floor Remarks on SLAPP abuse – July 9, 2024
Cited Cases:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct v. Metcalf (1993)
- HIRA Educ. Servs. v. Augustine (2021)

🚨 ABOVE TOP SECRET RISK INDEX

Category Rating Notes Legal Precedent 🔴 Critical May shape immunity law nationally Political Fallout 🟠 Elevated Could escalate Trump vs. DOJ war Free Speech Impact 🟢 Supportive Strengthens anti-censorship cases Media Sensitivity 🔴 Volatile Central Park Five case reopens

🧵 FINAL BRIEF:

This case is not just about Trump.
It’s about whether a former President—and by extension any political voice—can be silenced via strategic litigation designed to punish speech. UPEPA’s deployment here represents a new legal frontier where expression meets immunity. The courts must now decide: will political speech in America survive the courtroom crosshairs?

🔒 END OF REPORT
Prepared for internal briefing distribution via berndpulch.org / OP-Central Repository. For classified eyes only. Unauthorized duplication prohibited.

🔍 OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SOURCES

🇬🇧 English

🟢 Primary Domain: BerndPulch.org
🔄 Mirror: GoogleFirst.org
📁 Archives: Rumble • WordPress

🇩🇪 Deutsch

🟢 Hauptdomain: BerndPulch.org
🔄 Spiegel: GoogleFirst.org
📁 Archive: Rumble • WordPress

🇪🇸 Español

🟢 Dominio principal: BerndPulch.org
🔄 Espejo: GoogleFirst.org
📁 Archivos: Rumble • WordPress

🇫🇷 Français

🟢 Domaine principal: BerndPulch.org
🔄 Miroir: GoogleFirst.org
📁 Archives: Rumble • WordPress

🇵🇹 Português

🟢 Domínio principal: BerndPulch.org
🔄 Espelho: GoogleFirst.org
📁 Arquivos: Rumble • WordPress