Avenatti releases name and account of accuser

a reply to: Deetermined

It seems like Kavanaugh could sue her for defamation.

a reply to: Deetermined

Nothing that he says has anything to do with what happened in the past. He was not there.

That he has plenty to tell is your own contribution and imagination at this time. And he is an ex so who knows how he feels about her now or how the relationship ended. In case you are not aware men lie too. Just a little FYI.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Sure... can he prove its not true? It has to be a lie it has to be published and it has to cause harm.
Anything less oh well too bad so sad.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Deetermined

It seems like Kavanaugh could sue her for defamation.

He could and he should, but he may just decide to put all of this behind him and move forward with his life and his new job knowing that he can't sue every crazy person who has made allegations over the last week.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

No woman is to be believed if she claims that someone next to trump is a sexual predator or an abuser. That is the final word. Period end of report do not pass go do not collect two hundred dollars. I mean not one of the men accused who are in trumps circle have been guilty according to him. Not one is the man the women are claiming they are. They are all great men. Very honorable men. Men who are just being smeared by filthy lying women. And every woman who makes an accusation is a lying bitch. Without fail. every one. The wives the ex wives the girlfriends all of them are just lying bitches. The world according to trump.
NEXT?

Glad you finally understand. Not one case has made it further than an accusation. When this whole #MeToo movement started, it was the left's attempt to bring down Trump. All they did was trap themselves starting with Weinstein and Spacey the gay pedophile. It's gotten so bad that now the movement is ignored because so many prominent democrats are caught.

It really has to suck to set your own bear trap and step in it right after you cover it with straw. Me? I laugh my effing ass off.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Deetermined
It looks like Julie Swetnick is going to make her first television appearance on Sunday on the Showtime series, "The Circus". How appropriate.

The full interview with Swetnick, who was accompanied by attorney Michael Avenatti, will air on Sunday's episode of the Showtime series.

thehill.com...

According to Lindsey Graham, Julie Swetnick will be going on Showtime to tell her story, but she has refused to face the Judiciary Committe to tell her story. She's done.

She's mentally unstable. To tell her story to Showtime is equal to telling it on Facebook and blocking anyone that can expose you. She knows nobody will ask her questions that expose her lies.

a reply to: LSU2018

I agree. She only wants to tell her side of the story. Avenatti is still coming up with the same old excuse that she won't face the Committee until there's been an FBI investigation. You know, the investigation that everyone, including Avenatti, knows will never happen because the FBI has already said so. I'm tired of these Democrats playing stupid with everyone.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh, no, those investigations would have, not might have, would have uncovered anything like what is being accused here. Of that, I have no doubt.

FBI Background checks are not perfect. That has been proven countless times.
Specifically sexual assault is an area that is often not reported or discussed.

I believe that you believe what you posted.
I also believe it is a view not supported by reality.

Ever read about someone who has passed multiple background checks being charged or found guilty of something surprising?

Many people pass background checks until they don't.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Deetermined
It looks like Julie Swetnick is going to make her first television appearance on Sunday on the Showtime series, "The Circus". How appropriate.

The full interview with Swetnick, who was accompanied by attorney Michael Avenatti, will air on Sunday's episode of the Showtime series.

thehill.com...

According to Lindsey Graham, Julie Swetnick will be going on Showtime to tell her story, but she has refused to face the Judiciary Committe to tell her story. She's done.

NVM

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am fully aware.

Are you?

A sworn declaration (also called a sworn statement or a statement under penalty of perjury) is a document that recites facts pertinent to a legal proceeding. It is very similar to an affidavit, but unlike an affidavit, it is not witnessed and sealed by an official such as a notary public. Instead, the person making the declaration signs a separate endorsement paragraph at the end of the document, stating that the declaration is made under penalty of perjury.

... in many instances, especially in preliminary or uncontested proceedings, a court will allow testimonial evidence to be given in a document filed with the clerk of court. Traditionally, this has required an affidavit: the person must put his testimony into written form and then sign the document in front of an official, such as a notary public or clerk, swearing to the official that the contents of the document are true.

...

In recent years, however, to provide for even greater economy of time and money, courts have increasingly allowed persons to omit the step of swearing before a notary public or official. Instead, the affiant puts a separate paragraph at the end of the document, such as the following (for United States federal courts):

I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

Where allowed, such an endorsement gives the document the same weight as an affidavit, per 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The document is called a sworn declaration or sworn statement instead of an affidavit, and the maker is called a "declarant" rather than an "affiant", but other than this difference in terminology, the two are treated identically by the court.

So, you were saying?

Maybe I am fully aware of what I'm talking about, and possibly you're wrong?

You know, since I was a paralegal and all...

I promise that I don't just say things to try to sound smart--I really do know what I'm talking about. Can we move on now and just be happy that some people learned something new today?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am fully aware.

Are you?

A sworn declaration (also called a sworn statement or a statement under penalty of perjury) is a document that recites facts pertinent to a legal proceeding. It is very similar to an affidavit, but unlike an affidavit, it is not witnessed and sealed by an official such as a notary public. Instead, the person making the declaration signs a separate endorsement paragraph at the end of the document, stating that the declaration is made under penalty of perjury.

... in many instances, especially in preliminary or uncontested proceedings, a court will allow testimonial evidence to be given in a document filed with the clerk of court. Traditionally, this has required an affidavit: the person must put his testimony into written form and then sign the document in front of an official, such as a notary public or clerk, swearing to the official that the contents of the document are true.

...

In recent years, however, to provide for even greater economy of time and money, courts have increasingly allowed persons to omit the step of swearing before a notary public or official. Instead, the affiant puts a separate paragraph at the end of the document, such as the following (for United States federal courts):

I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

Where allowed, such an endorsement gives the document the same weight as an affidavit, per 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The document is called a sworn declaration or sworn statement instead of an affidavit, and the maker is called a "declarant" rather than an "affiant", but other than this difference in terminology, the two are treated identically by the court.

So, you were saying?

Maybe I am fully aware of what I'm talking about, and possibly you're wrong?

You know, since I was a paralegal and all...

I promise that I don't just say things to try to sound smart--I really do know what I'm talking about. Can we move on now and just be happy that some people learned something new today?

Right...now look up where these are allowed in court and you'll have your answer....not every state allows them.....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

Sure... can he prove its not true? It has to be a lie it has to be published and it has to cause harm.
Anything less oh well too bad so sad.

The funny thing about burden of proof--at this point in the game, it lies on the accuser. If she's found to be lying, of course he can then sue her. I don't think that this order of operations is lost on BlueAjah.

Of course, as logic dictates, you can't prove a negative, which is why 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the actual metric.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're missing the point--the original comment to which I replied claimed that this was not a legal document at all.

I was arguing that it is. You argued that it wasn't, without ANY modifier concerning state allowance of such things. Yes, that obviously matters, but you made a blanket statement, and you were wrong. If you want to add modifiers after the fact, that's fine, but don't call out my understanding as a former paralegal when your blanket statement was wrong at the start of the conversatoin.

If you wanted to talk about, say, Washington D.C.'s laws specifically, you should have said that at the start instead of just generalizing your statement. As for D.C., a place that I've never been a paralegal nor lived, I do know that they began allowing signed declarations with the "penalty of perjury" verbiage in civil cases back in 2011, and is also applicable to other courts, although I did not see criminal court listed specifically (again, though, this was back in 2011 at the time of the article.

However, under the Code of the District of Columbia, "§ 22–2405. False statements.:"

(a) A person commits the offense of making false statements if that person wilfully makes a false statement that is in fact material, in writing, directly or indirectly, to any instrumentality of the District of Columbia government, under circumstances in which the statement could reasonably be expected to be relied upon as true; provided, that the writing indicates that the making of a false statement is punishable by criminal penalties or if that person makes an affirmation by signing an entity filing or other document under Title 29 of the District of Columbia Official Code, knowing that the facts stated in the filing are not true in any material respect or if that person makes an affirmation by signing a declaration under § 1-1061.13, knowing that the facts stated in the filing are not true in any material respect;

It seems quite evident that Swetnick stands to face criminal penalty for making a false statement if her Signed Declaration is knowingly false. That seems like a pretty legal document to me, even in D.C. where the events supposedly happened and the accuser still lives.

If you would be so kind and to reciprocate my willingness to provide direct quotes and links, please show proof that Signed Declarations are treated as you imply that they are in Washington, D.C.--mainly, that it wouldn't be accepted as a form of or a replacement for testimony in a criminal or other court proceeding. I'm not immune to learning something new today, too, although I have a tendency to require some actual evidence that I'm wrong.

a reply to: grey580

The process has been made a mockery of. Anyone can fling mud without evidence. Run the vote now!

Glad to see the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats make total fools of themselves today.

Complete and Total fail.

Dianne Feinstein outed as a liar.

"Dr Ford" proved unstable and created mucho reasonable doubt.

✅😎✅

a reply to: Grambler

Having been through a background check in order to obtain a security clearance I can attest to how detailed they are.

Kavanaugh has been through 6.

They would have found this type of conduct easily during any 1 of those and passed it up to the agency asking for the background check.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why is this declaration not notarized and/or signed by a witness?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Glad to see the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats make total fools of themselves today.
Complete and Total fail.
Dianne Feinstein outed as a liar.
"Dr Ford" proved unstable and created mucho reasonable doubt.
✅😎✅

Best suck it up, Buttercup!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Hey Buttercup, you'll be sucking up your Snowflake tears when Kavanaugh is sworn in.

These types of smear tactics are not going to stop. They will go on and on until the cows come home.

Blasey-Ford's GoFundMe already has $700,000 in it.

Avenatti's gal probably has one set up, too. (I'm sure Avenatti has already negotiated his cut.)

$$$$$$$$$$ + 15 minutes of fame + TV appearances + a chance to stick it to The Man (whichever one they hate at the time)