Well, look at the Plaintiff and Defendant. Cernovich's name wasn't on there. Was he a party to this action? Did he put into have access to what Ghislaine Maxwell says if she's forced to testify? He would get a copy of affidavit if that were the case, and the testimony might be redacted because it's ongoing litigation. It's the same case number, I think. I glanced at it so I hope it saw what I think i saw. But even without finding it online, a look at the Plaintiff/Defendant does not show Epstein as the complainant or Cernovich as the defendant.
I really think he got rattled. There's been a lot going on and he might of forgotten requesting records. I'm more wondering if there was a final determination, and if not, what's going on. Cernovich's attorney would definitely be able to find that out.
It's an honest mistake. It shows what pressure these guys are under.
The Defendant is Ghislaine Maxwell and the plaintiff is Virginia Roberts (who was serially abused by Epstein). Churcher (who broke the Epstein story) was subpoenaed by Defendant, but refused to testify on grounds of reporters' privilege.
Absolutely NO connection to or even mention of Cernovich, or it must be in the ten redacted lines of this 20 page doc. Still absolutely nothing supporting his notion that he's being sued.
He mentions seeking legal counsel. Well that would have told him straight away that this has nothing to do with him. Sorry I can't see an honest mistake here.
It would seem to be. I think his saying he sought legal counsel was a bluff ... none of us are in positions to run to lawyers at the drop of a hat. I do think he got this one wrong.
view the rest of the comments →
quantokitty ago
Just saw this. It doesn't look like you're being sued. Not sure where you're getting that idea. Motion to Quash seems to be pertaining to the subpoena served to Ghislaine Maxwell. Here's the text online in pdf format. It appears to be the same case number: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv07433/447706/503/0.pdf
Singleservename ago
So this pertains to Churcher not Cernovich? Now I'm confused.
quantokitty ago
Well, look at the Plaintiff and Defendant. Cernovich's name wasn't on there. Was he a party to this action? Did he put into have access to what Ghislaine Maxwell says if she's forced to testify? He would get a copy of affidavit if that were the case, and the testimony might be redacted because it's ongoing litigation. It's the same case number, I think. I glanced at it so I hope it saw what I think i saw. But even without finding it online, a look at the Plaintiff/Defendant does not show Epstein as the complainant or Cernovich as the defendant.
Singleservename ago
Case number matches you're spot on. No coincidence here.
Makes me wonder what this Cernovich is up to though.
quantokitty ago
I really think he got rattled. There's been a lot going on and he might of forgotten requesting records. I'm more wondering if there was a final determination, and if not, what's going on. Cernovich's attorney would definitely be able to find that out.
It's an honest mistake. It shows what pressure these guys are under.
Singleservename ago
The Defendant is Ghislaine Maxwell and the plaintiff is Virginia Roberts (who was serially abused by Epstein). Churcher (who broke the Epstein story) was subpoenaed by Defendant, but refused to testify on grounds of reporters' privilege.
Absolutely NO connection to or even mention of Cernovich, or it must be in the ten redacted lines of this 20 page doc. Still absolutely nothing supporting his notion that he's being sued.
He mentions seeking legal counsel. Well that would have told him straight away that this has nothing to do with him. Sorry I can't see an honest mistake here.
@Vindicator this ought to be flared DEBUNKED
Vindicator ago
Did it.
quantokitty ago
It would seem to be. I think his saying he sought legal counsel was a bluff ... none of us are in positions to run to lawyers at the drop of a hat. I do think he got this one wrong.