Ford v. Kavanaugh: Motion to Dismiss

As long time readers of this blog know, I am, for my sins no doubt, a lawyer.  During the last 36 years I have been involved in over ten thousand cases.  Many of them have had disputes as to facts.  The ascertainment of those facts is often the chief element in the ultimate decision in a case.  Christine Blasey Ford in her allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court nominee, has named four other individuals who were present at the alleged party.  Here are the responses by the named individuals:


CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

“I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz said in response to Keyser’s attorney’s statement that it makes sense that Keyser wouldn’t remember, because Ford has said she did not share her allegations “publicly or with anyone for years.”

“It’s not surprising that Ms Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it,” Katz said in a statement. “It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.”

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said of those who allegedly attended the party, “One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party.”

The Washington Post reported late Saturday that it had talked to Keyser, who told the paper she believed Ford’s allegation.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was “flabbergasted” when he learned of them.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” he said after Ford came forward. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

In addition, two others have issued statements.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement. “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”


Go here to read the rest.  If this were a legal proceeding, and if I were representing Judge Kavanaugh, I would be drafting two motions now:  one would be a motion to dismiss, and the second would be a motion for sanctions on the ground that the decades old allegations of Ms. Ford rest in thin  air and have no factual basis, and that the suit containing the allegations was completely meritless ab initio as a result.  I would be next contacting opposing counsel and advising him or her, diplomatically of course, that unless they dropped this waste of time litigation immediately, there would be be shear hell for Ms. Ford coming in the very near future.

More to explorer


  1. What’s disconcerting about this is that (1) Democratic politicians and lawfare artists would stoop to trafficking in uncorroborated allegations about an ‘event’ which ‘happened’ 36 years ago and (2) street-level partisan Democrats take this seriously; I’m in contact with a nest of them in fora like this and over Fakebook and not one has admitted how egregious this all is.

  2. Dr. Ford is a liar.
    This planned S T A L L O U T was the latest pathetic trick of a desperate Left.
    It’s not going to work!

    The war on women has claimed sixty million lives plus, and counting.
    The war on women started in 1973 when women started to procure legalized abortion.

    This war on women and their “reproductive rights” is nothing more than a license to kill.

    The Left can’t handle it. They can’t see a future without the abortion mills ripping apart limbs and severing tiny heads. “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” is a common battle cry of the true antagonist in this war on women.

    Keep up the prayers sidewalk warriors!
    Keep praying the holy rosary for the lives of the unborn.
    Keep at it!

    The devil is furious. He’s using his minions for all the world to see.
    The Father of lies is running out of time. More acts of desperation are on the horizon.

  3. There are feminist womyn in the company for which I work who like Ms Ford would without hesitation falsely accuse any man – particularly a white middle aged successful man – of sexual misconduct with nary a second thought. I always avoid be caught in a room or even an elevator alone with any such feminist. Sadly I was not so circumspect in my youth, but luckily I am not nearly so successful to attract their attention. As for the successful older white men heading up a company – any company – and always being photographed with pretty young things, they know not the hell they will pay one day.

  4. What is left to testify about? Ford says vaguely yes. Kavanaugh and witnesses say adamantly no. There is no semen stained blouse. Any sudden new witnesses would only contradict Ford’s previous claims about the size of the gathering or the fact she told no one for 30 years. This is theater in which the two main characters will forever have their reputations damaged.

    I hope in November when suburban soccer moms are voting, they remember their husband’s or son’s lives can be ruined this easily by dirty leftists.

  5. Since we are drafting pleadings, here is my own suggestion:

    1. The pursuer’s averments being irrelevant et separatim being lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed.

    2. The pursuer’s averments, insofar as material, being unfounded in fact, the defender should be assoilzied.

    Conclusion for expenses in common form

  6. My doppelganger, far-left-wing twin agrees with me.

    It is not about the law. It is not about justice. It is about power politics to keep legal (and wink, wink government-financed) the flushing down toilets of 63 million human feti.

    Politics are essentially coercion and deceit. This is a prime example.

    I have said from day one: “She is lying.”

    In 2012, they were afraid Romney may win and started plotting the destruction of potential POTUS nominees. She said, “I went to a private HS in the DC area where some of us (promiscuous, rich girls) partied with boys from Georgetown Prep. I will say BK raped me.” Then, she started talking about it in couple’s therapy.

    Worse: Romney would have pulled this nominee.

    Trump isn’t an establishment GOP’er and he stood by BK.

    All four of the names Professor Fraud gave say they were never at a party with BK and/or Chrissie Ballsey Fraud.

  7. Ken,

    My brother’s (RIP) widow and her/his daughter are (godless) big-time libs and 100% behind this liar. That despite that fact that her son/her brother was arrested based on lies sworn to a crazy, lying woman.

    The left-wing mess may be explained when one presumes that the typical liberal is at war with itself: the dishonesty and stupidity constantly fighting for primacy.

  8. I know I should take what I read on the net with a grain of salt. But has any one explained libel to Dr. Ford

    published Check
    false Probably
    injurious Check
    unprivileged Check
    Actual malice Check

    That would seen a little to close for comfort. Probably not expedient for Judge Kavanaugh o act on any way

  9. The Commandments??

    I’m afraid the only commandments Dr. Ford holds dear are written by Saul Alinsky.
    Typical of radical feminist everywhere.
    Lie and cheat if you must. Whatever it takes to win. Hillary is a classic example.

  10. While there are significant differences between Brett Kavanagh / Christine Ford and Joseph / Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39, I have to wonder something. It took a famine in Egypt for justice to finally be done by Joseph. What will it take in America for justice to be done by Brett?

    This thing about women falsely accusing righteous men is an old, old story. God sees this. And His patience will not last forever. I’m not saying Brett Kavanaugh is God’s man for SCOTUS. But I am saying that Potiphar’s wife was the devil’s woman.

  11. Don, since you are an experienced lawyer, may I ask you a simple question- why doesn’t the law change whereby there is a window of opportunity for somebody to come forward and reveal a past sexual misconduct or assault committed against them? Say, a woman cannot come out after 20 years and claim she was sexually assualted- shouldn’t the cut off be 10 years or 15 years? Otherwise what stops any female (or male) suddenly fabricating a story decades down the line just to ruin another persons life. Memory doesn’t not serve a person well, nor does the memory of the victims witness hold ground. Even if this Kavanaugh is found innocent, mud sticks, and it’s hard to recover from false allegations (there’s always that shred of doubt in the public’s sub-conscience).

    Don’t know, just wandering why does the law not change?

  12. I despair of our country. A recent Fox poll cited 50% believed Ford and that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed and 40% believed him. What is the country coming to? Or, as P.T. Barnum said (I paraphrase) “you can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the public.”

  13. I don’t pretend to know whether or not something bad happened to Dr. Ford in the 1980s. Therefore, I won’t at this time call her a liar. But I cannot accept a charge against a fellow American without evidence, and she offers nothing but a vague memory with no date or place attached. If we leave the rules of evidence, we leave sanity along with them, as the French Revolutionary tribunals did when they allowed one citizen could denounce another and force his hapless victim to rebut charges without due process. But if I won’t yet call Ford a liar, I have worse names in stock for her “supporters” who only care about preserving their right to free-range fornication which they seem to think Kavanaugh threatens. Whether they’re abetting a liar or just exploiting a sad case, it’s still disgusting.

  14. “Don, since you are an experienced lawyer, may I ask you a simple question- why doesn’t the law change whereby there is a window of opportunity for somebody to come forward and reveal a past sexual misconduct or assault committed against them?”

    Depends upon the applicable statute of limitations in each state. Lately there has been a movement to do away with statutes of limitation in regard to rape or attempted rape. I regard this as lunancy. Get much beyond ten years, and if a case relies upon recollections rather than contemporaneous evidence, it cries out for a not guilty based upon reasonable doubt purely upon the unreliability of most memories over such a gulf of time.

    Of course this applies only to prosecutions. People can say what they wish forever, and take the risk of a suit for defamation being filed in response.

  15. So far, if I understand correctly, Judge Kavanaugh is the only one who has spoken under oath. Were these letters from the four “partiers” depositions taken under oath? Mrs Ford hasn’t spoken under oath. For that matter why should anyone accept Sen Feinstein’s timeline unless she is on the stand?Leland Ingham Keyser said through her lawyer that she doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Yet the Post reports that she believes Ford’s story.
    Everyone named comes before the Committee and testifies under oath. That includes Sen. Feinstein and her Dems in receipt of the Ford letters.
    This is a circus eating up our tax dollars. Enough!

  16. T. Shaw wrote:
    The left-wing mess may be explained when one presumes that the typical liberal is at war with itself: the dishonesty and stupidity constantly fighting for primacy.
    I’ve been thinking along the same line as you. It is Church teaching that God created ex nihilo. When you reject God and the image and likeness that God gave us that only leaves a return to the void from which we were created. This explains the near or not so near suicidal death wish that is so characteristic of the left. They act as if they want to return to the void through acts of pure nihilism.

  17. Is this all not being set up to dissuade any other men from stepping up to fill the potentially open Ginsburg’s spot? Is this all not being set up, merely to insure every pawn of the leftist base, moves to vote in Nov.? Isn’t this being set up to allow for busloads of the usual types of paid goons to riot in hopes the cops will bust heads (as in 1968) and trigger the BLM voters?

  18. @ Phillip
    Regarding your link;
    Well. There it is. BOOM!
    A logic that defies logic. An enigma shrouded in a nebulous vapor.

    Thank God she is former Governor of Michigan.
    We do not miss her to say the least.

  19. Donald R McClarey wrote, “Get much beyond ten years, and if a case relies upon recollections rather than contemporaneous evidence, it cries out for a not guilty based upon reasonable doubt purely upon the unreliability of most memories over such a gulf of time.”

    Well, it depends. Just as an exercise, I checked my journal for 24 September 1988 (a Friday). It records the names of three girls who were helping in the stable and exercising my horses. It was the first time one of them had rode with a Pelham.

    Now, this jogged my memory and I can recall details of a conversation with them about the English actor, Roy Kinnear, who had been killed by a fall from a horse during filming a few days earlier.

    Would any of the girls be able to recall that morning? Without some prompting, I rather doubt it. X might remember the first time she rode with a Pelham, but I doubt if she could fix the day, unless she kept a diary.

  20. I occasionally have to look at old files. It always astonishes me the amount of work that I performed that I have no memory of doing if the case is more than a decade in the past. Sometimes my memory is jogged, but if there was nothing that stood out about the case, often it is as if it was work performed by another person. Too many other cases to concentrate on momentarily and too much time elapsed.

  21. Donald R McClarey wrote, ” It always astonishes me the amount of work that I performed that I have no memory of doing if the case is more than a decade in the past.”

    I think we train ourselves to dump memories we no longer need to retain.

    Although I have always had a very good memory for some purposes, I find it literally impossible to recall things I do regularly (Did I order horse feed, for example) Is my memory a memory of doing it today, or yesterday, or some time in the past? This has always been the case with me not, as one might suppose, a symptom of incipient senility (People don’t SPEAK UP like they used to when I was a boy!)

  22. I just read all these comments. It was quite enjoyable. There was intelligence and wit. I know I am like minded, but I especially appreciate the civility in these posts, something that the left is particularly lacking.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: