General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA reminder: Julie Swetnick's claim is still out there and she's going on TV on Sunday.
This article includes her affidavit.
So the week's delay buys some time for the public to react to her appearance on Sunday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html
A third accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh publicly identified herself Wednesday and alleged that Kavanaugh and others in the early 1980s spiked the drinks of girls at high school parties with intoxicants to make it easier for them to be gang raped.
The woman, Julie Swetnick, said Kavanaugh lined up with other boys, including his close friend Mark Judge, waiting to rape those girls at many parties and that she once became a victim herself.
The allegations were detailed in an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that was released by Swetnick's lawyer, Michael Avenatti. Her statement was sent to a senior staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)Stallion
(6,473 posts)Calista241
(5,584 posts)Is that shes both sued a previous employer for sexual harassment, and been sued by yet another previous employer for sexual harassment. If either of these accounts is true, she may not have that much credibility.
https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/09/julie_swetnick_one_of_kavanaug.html
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)barred it from ever being brought again -- which is unusual. That's another way of saying the lawsuit was a crock of shit.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick-defamation-lawsuit-webtrends/
However, Judge James R. Ellis ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice. This means that the case was dismissed and the plaintiffs could not bring the back the same case back. The records indicate that the case was dismissed with prejudice Pursuant to ORCP 54A. A look at ORCP 54 reveals that this is a voluntary dismissal, which means that the dismissal happened by the request of the plaintiff, who voluntarily withdrew their claim.
triron
(21,914 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Calista241
(5,584 posts)I wouldn't say it was a crock of shit lawsuit because we don't know why they withdrew. The dismissal could have happened for any number of reasons, including the case being a crock of shit. Given the volatility of the case against Kavanaugh, I wouldn't expect to learn anything more from Webtrends on this legal matter.
Tech companies don't have a reputation of suing former employees without cause; but Webtrends does have a pretty shitty rating on Glassdoor, so who knows. They were acquired by Oracle in 2017, which has undoubtedly made it a worse place to work.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Meaning, there wasn't any circumstance under which the judge wanted to see it again.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)I believe her 100 percent.
She is risking a lot to come forward.