@matheasysolutions: I am flairing this "Accuracy in Question" because Cernovich did not tweet anything about pedogate at all tonight. You may want to review your Twitter feed for the link I sent you, as well.
Yeah the tweet was about McMaster trying to start WW3 with fake intel. I got notified about your tweet, but I can't see it on Twitter anymore. I have noticed that tweets / replies get hidden by Twitter lately... #censorship
Basically, it's a post linking to Cernovich saying he is being sued by Epstein, which was debunked by investigators here who dug into the legal documents and discovered Cernovich is actually helping Epstein's lawyer Derschowitz try to get the court records of Epstein's victim unsealed. Not in the thread is the fact that Derschowitz starred in the free speech documentary Cernovich just released, Silenced.
I don't know what kind of game Cernovich is playing, but the legal documents show he is a pedophile supporter. He filed a legal motion to expose a trafficking victim, and then claimed HE was Epstein's victim. Complete lie, verifiable in the legal documents. @RebelSkum and @JrSlimss have a great article about it on the Pizzagate.wiki page.
I've seen those posts and those are wrong. He is not suing anybody... He is trying to get court documents to see if their were names being named and not "expose" the victim. He also never said he was being sued either. The Epstein legal team sent a letter to "Quash" his request to obtain court documents yet redacted the entire letter, ie they don't want to tell him why because they likely have little legal reason not to.
In the documentary he mentions there there are many people in it that he doesn't like or agree with, I haven't seen it yet but I haven't seen anything to make me think negatively about him.
The Epstein legal team sent a letter to "Quash" his request to obtain court documents yet redacted the entire letter, ie they don't want to tell him why because they likely have little legal reason not to.
Unfortunately, that isn't true. The Motion to Quash was not directed at Cernovich - it was directed at Virginia Giuffre (there are like a billion motions going on in that case). Even though the whole thing is redacted, you can tell by the attorneys it was sent to at the very bottom ("Certificate of Service"). It was not sent to Cernovich's attorney, it was sent to the attorneys representing Virginia Giuffre. Cernovich's attorney is Jay Marshall Wolman. Also, attorneys don't get sent a redacted letter - that's only what the public gets to see.
I don't know why Cernovich is lying here, but it is to say the least, disheartening. I always stand with the victim and if Giuffre's attorneys don't trust Cernovich in this instance, I'm intensely hesitant to do so either.
Reading his articles, he is lying in this one as well, because his motion in opposition to unseal was filed by attorneys at Boies, Schiller - they represent Giuffre, not Ghislaine Maxwell - the madam Cernovich refers to in the article: http://archive.is/f0Pn9#selection-251.0-271.40
Feel free to double check any of this by going on PACER, but these are the filed documents provided by the court.
I'm confused as to which part he is "lying". From what you wrote above, I don't see anywhere that is deliberately "lying". To me all that I gather is that he said he was served the motion to quash and presented those papers, and was himself confused what that meant. I am confused as to what that means too and I don't see any "lying" here. I'm also confused as to your comment. What is he lying about? Are you saying he is just lying about receiving that letter because it was redacted and not "directed" to him? He says it was and presented it as is. He doesn't seem to be trying to hide anything about what is inside the letter, so I'm not understanding your point. Please clarify if you can.
Look - I have a legal background so this stuff is admittedly easier for me to follow. But all you need to know, is his attorney's name - Jay Marshall Woolman (who does work for/with Marc Randazza - which is who Cernovich said his attorney was) does not appear in the Motion to Quash he is citing. Cernovich was not served papers by Epstein, Giuffre was. Also the filing against Cernovich's motion to unseal was by Virginia Giuffre's attorney - not Ghislaine Maxwell's - BIG DIFFERENCE!
I've looked into this a bit more, and it appears that:
Cernovich wants to be granted "Intervenor" status to be able to release a single filing, which is the alleged child trafficker Maxwell's Motion of Summary which includes 700 pages of exhibits.
Cernovich doesn't want to see any other sealed documents nor the alleged child victim Giuffre's documents.
Cernovich believes since the lawsuit is a public proceeding that the case should never be sealed.
Maxwell and Giuffre don't want the courts to follow Cernovich's request.
Giuffre files a motion against Cernovich's request.
Cernovich includes a quote "The accused madame is shook!" when speaking about the Giuffre's motion.
Cernovich claims that Epstein handed him the Quash letter which is fully redacted
The letter doesn't mention Cernovich's lawyer.
Cernovich includes that letter in his article
Cernovich is himself confused about the letter
From this it appears that Cernovich wants to make a specific portion of the proceedings made public (Maxwell's Motion of Summary etc.), because he believes it is in the public interest (I agree with this too because I believe Epstein and his associates would be exposed even more). Maxwell and Giuffre don't want this made public, for obvious reasons. They are in a court proceedings and it is reasonable they want everything made private. Giuffre's lawyers argue that they don't want a possible one-sided portion of the proceedings to be released (i.e. Maxwell's Summary). They also attack Cernovich's character and associate him with Dershowitz because Dershowitz had previously also wanted to release documents from that proceeding but was rejected.
As for Cernovich "lying", the only thing that I find somewhat "deliberately" misleading was his one quote "The accused madame is shook!". I don't know what to make of it because on the one hand I agree that Maxwell is "shook" but the article was referencing Giuffre's filing.
Cernovich's claim that Epstein handed him the Quash letter is confusing, and confusing for Cernovich as well. The letter clearly doesn't say it was sent to Cernovich's lawyers but Cernovich does not try to hide this fact either. Thus all I have to gather from it is he claims Epstein gave him that letter, thus I can't call this "lying".
This whole case seems more about legal issues and less about Cernovich being a "pedophile supporter" as Vindicator stated. Personally I agree with Cernovich's pursuit of making the legal documents public, even despite Giuffre's lawyers opposing it. The public needs to know just how vast Epstein's crimes were and who were involved so I think Cernovich is doing a great service. He just needs to be more clear about some of the legal terms and issues he brings up.
As for Cernovich "lying", the only thing that I find somewhat "deliberately" misleading was his one quote "The accused madame is shook!". I don't know what to make of it because on the one hand I agree that Maxwell is "shook" but the article was referencing Giuffre's filing.
Ok, so you got this part. Next...
Cernovich claims that Epstein handed him the Quash letter which is fully redacted
That is a term of art and has a very specific legal definition. If he was "served," his attorney would have been listed on the Certificate of Service. He also would not have been served a redacted motion because then he would not have a chance to argue it. You'll note that if you read Marc Randazza's quote very carefully, it never says that Cernovich was served the Epstein motion either - Randazza is just arguing that they want to see more details of the case.
I would be tempted to say Cernovich was "confused," but he himself went to law school (granted it was Pepperdine). As the Giuffre motion against him states - Cernovich was inspired to go to law school by Dershowitz.
Just read the motion from Giuffre against the unsealing. That told me all I needed to know. And if you want to know how truly big of a piece of shit Dershowitz is, read Trafficking by Conchita Sarnoff about the Epstein cases. In particular, you'll notice Dershowitz hired PI's to intimidate witnesses and prosecutors on the case. According to Giuffre, the document Dershowitz and Cernovich wanted here would dox the witness list and then they'd be able to intimidate these new witnesses as well.
Regardless of whether he was "served" or "handed" the Quash letter, the letter is freely available on his site for all to see. There doesn't seem to be any malintent on the part of Cernovich. The only issue he may have is that his article, if not legally accurate, could hurt his chances of having the courts rule in his favor.
From the Giuffre motion, you get the expected arguments that one would make if they want privacy of their court documents. Yes they argue that the privacy and possible intimidation may occur if the documents are made public. Cernovich argues that the proceedings should never have been made public. Who the court sides with is up to legal interpretation. Personally, I would want documents that reveal the extent of Epstein's crimes and connections to be exposed because I believe more good could come of it.
I haven't looked in Dershowitz's background, but yes Giuffre argues Cernovich's connection to him as more reason for the court to rule against unsealing. Again, this is up to the court's interpretation, and I rather not dive into it at the moment.
Whether the courts favor for or against Cernovich, I don't think he is deliberately "lying" which would only hurt his chances of getting the courts approval.
Last response on this. I know your reputation for being a good researcher, so I feel like this convo is worth the time.
Cernovich was not requesting for everything to be unsealed in the case - only a specific document that matches the one Dershowitz also requested previously.
As for Cernovich's motion, I believe the court already rejected it because of Giuffre's response in opposition.
Also the court doesn't know he's lying - Cernovich is primarily just lying to his readers. There's nothing illegal about that (it wouldn't even be a strong case of defamation if claimed by Epstein or Maxwell).
Believe me, I've been following the Epstein case before the term "pizzagate" even existed. I really want to know the facts - I've even considered reaching out to Giuffre's attorneys to see if I could help in some way. That said, I don't want to know the facts so badly if puts victims in jeopardy for a second time.
This case is very confusing, especially with Cernovich's very unclear articles, and commentators rushing to label him a "shill" or "pedo supporter" without having all the information. I'm not sure why Cernovich would "lie" to his audience while attaching the documents that can easily be verified by people like you that those documents could not be as he stated.
This reminds me of when Cernovich gave credit to a Twitter user for decoding the Wikileaks Vault 7 pre-release tweet when it was actually ME that first decoded haha (he also was wrong about the monument in the decoded image). I bring this up in my video: https://youtu.be/X5a7dAoBu40?t=9m32s
Cernovich could have easily double-checked his Vault 7 claims, but I attribute him to being lazy and not lying. These are different cases, but as someone that tends to over-analyze and research topics, I try to be very careful before negatively labeling someone. Anyways great discussion with you as I've learned a lot about the Law biz!
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
@matheasysolutions: I am flairing this "Accuracy in Question" because Cernovich did not tweet anything about pedogate at all tonight. You may want to review your Twitter feed for the link I sent you, as well.
matheasysolutions ago
Yeah the tweet was about McMaster trying to start WW3 with fake intel. I got notified about your tweet, but I can't see it on Twitter anymore. I have noticed that tweets / replies get hidden by Twitter lately... #censorship
Vindicator ago
This was the link: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1692116/8290885
Basically, it's a post linking to Cernovich saying he is being sued by Epstein, which was debunked by investigators here who dug into the legal documents and discovered Cernovich is actually helping Epstein's lawyer Derschowitz try to get the court records of Epstein's victim unsealed. Not in the thread is the fact that Derschowitz starred in the free speech documentary Cernovich just released, Silenced.
I don't know what kind of game Cernovich is playing, but the legal documents show he is a pedophile supporter. He filed a legal motion to expose a trafficking victim, and then claimed HE was Epstein's victim. Complete lie, verifiable in the legal documents. @RebelSkum and @JrSlimss have a great article about it on the Pizzagate.wiki page.
matheasysolutions ago
I've seen those posts and those are wrong. He is not suing anybody... He is trying to get court documents to see if their were names being named and not "expose" the victim. He also never said he was being sued either. The Epstein legal team sent a letter to "Quash" his request to obtain court documents yet redacted the entire letter, ie they don't want to tell him why because they likely have little legal reason not to.
In the documentary he mentions there there are many people in it that he doesn't like or agree with, I haven't seen it yet but I haven't seen anything to make me think negatively about him.
JrSlimss ago
Unfortunately, that isn't true. The Motion to Quash was not directed at Cernovich - it was directed at Virginia Giuffre (there are like a billion motions going on in that case). Even though the whole thing is redacted, you can tell by the attorneys it was sent to at the very bottom ("Certificate of Service"). It was not sent to Cernovich's attorney, it was sent to the attorneys representing Virginia Giuffre. Cernovich's attorney is Jay Marshall Wolman. Also, attorneys don't get sent a redacted letter - that's only what the public gets to see.
*Here's the motion (Document 657 in Case: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS) and note the attorneys served at the end: http://pizzagate.wiki/images/4/4d/Epstein_Motion_to_Quash.pdf
*Here's Cernovich's article which cites Document 657 in Case: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS: http://archive.is/1Vo9P
*Here's the docket for Case: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS which shows who Cernovich's attorney is (Jay Marshall Woolman who works with Marc Randazza): http://pizzagate.wiki/images/0/08/Giuffre_v._Maxwell_SDNY_CM_ECF.pdf
*Here's what Virginia Giuffre's attorneys filed in opposition to Cernovich's motion in Case: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS: http://pizzagate.wiki/images/7/72/Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Intervene_-_by_Mike_Cernovich.pdf
I don't know why Cernovich is lying here, but it is to say the least, disheartening. I always stand with the victim and if Giuffre's attorneys don't trust Cernovich in this instance, I'm intensely hesitant to do so either.
Reading his articles, he is lying in this one as well, because his motion in opposition to unseal was filed by attorneys at Boies, Schiller - they represent Giuffre, not Ghislaine Maxwell - the madam Cernovich refers to in the article: http://archive.is/f0Pn9#selection-251.0-271.40
Feel free to double check any of this by going on PACER, but these are the filed documents provided by the court.
matheasysolutions ago
hmmm thanks for the reply.
I'm trying to follow along but your comment is all over the place.
Cernovich presented the Motion to Quash on his article (https://www.dangerandplay.com/2017/03/03/billionaire-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-files-secret-legal-papers-against-mike-cernovich/)) which included a screenshot that was "directed" at Virginia Giuffre. I'm not sure what that means but it appears that Cernovich is not trying to mislead anyone. He basically said he was served these papers and those were it, which were redacted.
I'm confused as to which part he is "lying". From what you wrote above, I don't see anywhere that is deliberately "lying". To me all that I gather is that he said he was served the motion to quash and presented those papers, and was himself confused what that meant. I am confused as to what that means too and I don't see any "lying" here. I'm also confused as to your comment. What is he lying about? Are you saying he is just lying about receiving that letter because it was redacted and not "directed" to him? He says it was and presented it as is. He doesn't seem to be trying to hide anything about what is inside the letter, so I'm not understanding your point. Please clarify if you can.
JrSlimss ago
Look - I have a legal background so this stuff is admittedly easier for me to follow. But all you need to know, is his attorney's name - Jay Marshall Woolman (who does work for/with Marc Randazza - which is who Cernovich said his attorney was) does not appear in the Motion to Quash he is citing. Cernovich was not served papers by Epstein, Giuffre was. Also the filing against Cernovich's motion to unseal was by Virginia Giuffre's attorney - not Ghislaine Maxwell's - BIG DIFFERENCE!
matheasysolutions ago
hmmm this is pretty interesting (and confusing).
I've looked into this a bit more, and it appears that:
From this it appears that Cernovich wants to make a specific portion of the proceedings made public (Maxwell's Motion of Summary etc.), because he believes it is in the public interest (I agree with this too because I believe Epstein and his associates would be exposed even more). Maxwell and Giuffre don't want this made public, for obvious reasons. They are in a court proceedings and it is reasonable they want everything made private. Giuffre's lawyers argue that they don't want a possible one-sided portion of the proceedings to be released (i.e. Maxwell's Summary). They also attack Cernovich's character and associate him with Dershowitz because Dershowitz had previously also wanted to release documents from that proceeding but was rejected.
As for Cernovich "lying", the only thing that I find somewhat "deliberately" misleading was his one quote "The accused madame is shook!". I don't know what to make of it because on the one hand I agree that Maxwell is "shook" but the article was referencing Giuffre's filing.
Cernovich's claim that Epstein handed him the Quash letter is confusing, and confusing for Cernovich as well. The letter clearly doesn't say it was sent to Cernovich's lawyers but Cernovich does not try to hide this fact either. Thus all I have to gather from it is he claims Epstein gave him that letter, thus I can't call this "lying".
This whole case seems more about legal issues and less about Cernovich being a "pedophile supporter" as Vindicator stated. Personally I agree with Cernovich's pursuit of making the legal documents public, even despite Giuffre's lawyers opposing it. The public needs to know just how vast Epstein's crimes were and who were involved so I think Cernovich is doing a great service. He just needs to be more clear about some of the legal terms and issues he brings up.
JrSlimss ago
Ok, so you got this part. Next...
This is incorrect. Cernovich claims Epstein "served" him. http://archive.is/1Vo9P#selection-209.64-209.70
That is a term of art and has a very specific legal definition. If he was "served," his attorney would have been listed on the Certificate of Service. He also would not have been served a redacted motion because then he would not have a chance to argue it. You'll note that if you read Marc Randazza's quote very carefully, it never says that Cernovich was served the Epstein motion either - Randazza is just arguing that they want to see more details of the case.
I would be tempted to say Cernovich was "confused," but he himself went to law school (granted it was Pepperdine). As the Giuffre motion against him states - Cernovich was inspired to go to law school by Dershowitz.
Just read the motion from Giuffre against the unsealing. That told me all I needed to know. And if you want to know how truly big of a piece of shit Dershowitz is, read Trafficking by Conchita Sarnoff about the Epstein cases. In particular, you'll notice Dershowitz hired PI's to intimidate witnesses and prosecutors on the case. According to Giuffre, the document Dershowitz and Cernovich wanted here would dox the witness list and then they'd be able to intimidate these new witnesses as well.
matheasysolutions ago
Hmmm yup this case is more confusing.
Regardless of whether he was "served" or "handed" the Quash letter, the letter is freely available on his site for all to see. There doesn't seem to be any malintent on the part of Cernovich. The only issue he may have is that his article, if not legally accurate, could hurt his chances of having the courts rule in his favor.
From the Giuffre motion, you get the expected arguments that one would make if they want privacy of their court documents. Yes they argue that the privacy and possible intimidation may occur if the documents are made public. Cernovich argues that the proceedings should never have been made public. Who the court sides with is up to legal interpretation. Personally, I would want documents that reveal the extent of Epstein's crimes and connections to be exposed because I believe more good could come of it.
I haven't looked in Dershowitz's background, but yes Giuffre argues Cernovich's connection to him as more reason for the court to rule against unsealing. Again, this is up to the court's interpretation, and I rather not dive into it at the moment.
Whether the courts favor for or against Cernovich, I don't think he is deliberately "lying" which would only hurt his chances of getting the courts approval.
JrSlimss ago
Last response on this. I know your reputation for being a good researcher, so I feel like this convo is worth the time.
Cernovich was not requesting for everything to be unsealed in the case - only a specific document that matches the one Dershowitz also requested previously. As for Cernovich's motion, I believe the court already rejected it because of Giuffre's response in opposition.
Also the court doesn't know he's lying - Cernovich is primarily just lying to his readers. There's nothing illegal about that (it wouldn't even be a strong case of defamation if claimed by Epstein or Maxwell).
Believe me, I've been following the Epstein case before the term "pizzagate" even existed. I really want to know the facts - I've even considered reaching out to Giuffre's attorneys to see if I could help in some way. That said, I don't want to know the facts so badly if puts victims in jeopardy for a second time.
matheasysolutions ago
Thanks for the response and info!
This case is very confusing, especially with Cernovich's very unclear articles, and commentators rushing to label him a "shill" or "pedo supporter" without having all the information. I'm not sure why Cernovich would "lie" to his audience while attaching the documents that can easily be verified by people like you that those documents could not be as he stated.
This reminds me of when Cernovich gave credit to a Twitter user for decoding the Wikileaks Vault 7 pre-release tweet when it was actually ME that first decoded haha (he also was wrong about the monument in the decoded image). I bring this up in my video: https://youtu.be/X5a7dAoBu40?t=9m32s
Cernovich could have easily double-checked his Vault 7 claims, but I attribute him to being lazy and not lying. These are different cases, but as someone that tends to over-analyze and research topics, I try to be very careful before negatively labeling someone. Anyways great discussion with you as I've learned a lot about the Law biz!