# Comment attachment by janedoe1

Source: https://lucycraig.blog/media/686
File: g6_7iXvRtpzVHlOV.mp4
Format: video/mp4
Description: Press Conference
Alt text: Press Conference

## OCR / extracted text



## Transcript

[00:00] Those of you who were in the courtroom, the judge asked a very important question
[00:04] regarding the other six of the so-called Cornell Seven.
[00:11] We believe that we have the right to bring this in the name of our client only.
[00:18] The question of whether or not a official who has already taken a public position is the right
[00:28] person to restore public confidence in an investigation and a prosecution.
[00:35] Transcends any one of the seven.
[00:40] And nonetheless, we're going to go back to our office.
[00:43] We're going to talk about it.
[00:45] And it is likely that we will consider joining the others so
[00:50] they can come and I happen to know most of them will be glad to make
[00:56] similar arguments to the ones we made. But again, the question I really think transcends
[01:03] any one person. And the question we all should be asking is, what is the best way for the
[01:08] public to have confidence in whatever the coming investigation holds? And based on statements
[01:18] made by the Attorney General prior to her appointment, we believe that she has already
[01:24] accepted as fact some of the critical elements of Jane Doe's claims.
[01:30] Why haven't the other six joined you so far?
[01:33] We haven't asked them candidly.
[01:35] It is permissive, not to overlaw this conversation, but whether we join other people or not
[01:41] is permissive, it's not required.
[01:44] The judge, I see, wants to hear from the other parties and he will.
[01:49] So you think you will be able to get the other six to enjoy?
[01:53] I think that we're going to look to get everyone who should be a party to this rejoin.
[01:59] Have any of them called you about it?
[02:01] I'm not going to comment on that, but the answer's yes.
[02:04] Mr. Meltonberg, do you think Judge Farrell asked the government-pointed questions about
[02:09] the social media post?
[02:10] I think he did, and I think reading between the lines while he was concerned with us
[02:15] about the issue of Joinder, I think the judge's questions were fairly clear that
[02:22] he found the statements that were made by the Attorney General were in core form,
[02:28] and not well made, and that the real question is not to cause chaos between judges,
[02:38] not necessarily whether the Attorney General made statements that were proper.
[02:44] My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that.
[02:48] I think the question is making certain that there is no
[02:53] chaos between the courts as to who is going forward with the investigation.
[02:57] And just a bit off topic, my apologies. Were you invited to participate in the
[03:03] Netflix talk? Did you know about it? So that's you know it's an interesting
[03:06] question which also brings up the where the states
[03:13] I'm sorry it also brings up where the state is on this issue.
[03:17] Apparently, there is a Netflix documentary coming out.
[03:19] Someone pointed that to me this morning.
[03:22] Apparently, Kathy Huckle, the governor and the attorney general,
[03:27] Letitia James, have been interviewed and are taking part in that.
[03:31] I can tell you confidently that no one in my office or
[03:37] any of the other defendants' offices has been asked to participate in the Netflix documentary.
[03:43] So I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious.
[03:49] I'm sure we'll all want to watch it,
[03:51] but I also know that it won't be the whole truth.
[03:54] If that is true and they were interviewed,
[03:56] and suppose the judge ruled against you here,
[03:59] do you have an opportunity to make another application based
[04:01] on continuing statements or what they're saying,
[04:03] or how does that work?
[04:04] I think that's something we'd have to consider.
[04:06] I think that it's a that the governor and the attorney
[04:11] general are on a very slippery slope here and I think continuing statements won't serve them well.
[04:19] One other question on the jointer issue, contact her or bring in the other six. How does that
[04:27] complicate or does it complicate defending the civil lawsuit and defending a potential
[04:32] civil invest criminal investigation? What in essence you have to acknowledge these other people
[04:37] they're you know maybe it defences that I wasn't there that kind of thing.
[04:40] So I don't think it prejudices either a criminal investigation or the civil case.
[04:47] The evidentiary standards in both are different.
[04:50] And I think that everyone's position of the seven will remain factually consistent with what their experience was.
[04:59] Remember, there were seven different experiences.
[05:02] There were seven different claims.
[05:04] There were seven different results from the Title I hearing.
[05:09] and bringing them into this matter
[05:14] on the issue of whether this is the right person
[05:18] to continue an investigation.
[05:20] I don't think it will intercede or intersect
[05:24] with the questions in the civil case in the criminal case.
[05:28] Is there anything that happened in there that leads you
[05:30] to believe that criminal charges are more or less likely?
[05:33] Absolutely not.
[05:35] I mean, we want, you know, look, a criminal investigation, the integrity of the investigation
[05:43] begins at the beginning to attempt to address what may be a predetermination after there's
[05:51] an indictment is something that I can tell you no lawyer would want for their client
[05:57] nor would I want for any of you.
[06:00] The time to do that is right now and that's what we're asking the judge to consider.
[06:03] No, there's no suggestion any more today than yesterday
[06:07] that criminal investigations are done.
[06:10] Was today a win for you?
[06:11] Was today a win for you?
[06:13] Every day that I wake up and can walk is a win for me.
[06:16] Was it a win for you on the path to getting a T-shirt J?
[06:19] I think we have some things to address,
[06:21] and I think the judge is keyed in on what the issues are.
[06:24] So we'll be back.
[06:26] And just in terms of the criminal investigation
[06:29] and the grand jury, sometimes, if the defense knows
[06:32] that's going on, you can submit evidence to mitigate that.
[06:37] And you guys have chosen not to or?
[06:43] To our knowledge, we have not any notification
[06:45] of criminal investigation.
[06:47] Even though Winston Lee's attorney found the judge,
[06:50] submitted a motion or a petition.
[06:54] Well, I think Winston Lee's attorney,
[06:55] I can be wrong, filed a motion.
[06:57] I don't know that it was based on
[06:59] that anything's actually going on.
[07:01] Okay.
[07:02] Are you confident you'll get the other six to join
[07:04] if not what happens.
[07:06] I'm confident that the other six will join
[07:09] whether they want to or not.
[07:12] And I think they're going to,
[07:14] and I think to the ones that may not want to,
[07:17] the judge will force them to join.
[07:20] The judge has the power to force them to join?
[07:22] Yes.
[07:23] Yes.
[07:24] As a defendant, that's what I'm saying.
[07:26] For this application?
[07:28] Yes.
[07:29] How would that represent the new application
[07:31] in the Comfort County?
[07:33] I do not know. I'm going to have to go back and check the chat sheet.
[07:37] I'm going to go back to the city now.
[07:40] Most of you have my cell number. Welcome to call me.
[07:44] We can discuss it. I have two hours back to the city, but I do have to go.
[07:48] Thank you so much.

## Machine-readable JSON

https://lucycraig.blog/media/686/index.json