So the hearing has been vacated and the court decided {D} is not in default. We go to trial. Also they finally told me what I said to make me a terroir. I said I would be at every campaign event. How exactly would I be at multiple events if I was planning on being dangerous? Or I was dangerously unhinged? Fuck all of this.
Here is what I would have said in court tomorrow. Tho I what I spent the entire 4 day weekend working on:
Your Honor,
First, I would like to state clearly:
After the entry of default, the Defendant finally submitted an Answer. That Answer is not a good-faith response to my Complaint; it is a collection of provable falsehoods, contradictions, and personal attacks designed to discredit me rather than address the facts. Many of his denials are directly disproven by text messages, videos, and his own prior statements. His accusations about me are not based in truth, fact, or reality.
For example:
Paragraph 6: Defendant denies being under the influence of cocaine. His own text-message admissions in Exhibits 15-6 and 15-18 directly contradict this denial. He explicitly acknowledges using cocaine. Additionally, Video Exhibit 3-6 shows his behavior under the influence during the assault.
Paragraph 10: Defendant denies making threats against me. This denial is false. In multiple messages—Exhibits 15-2, 15-4, 15-8, and 15-9—he physically threatens me. I have to remind him of the murder-suicide threats he made and a sexual assault he perpetratrated while blackout drunk and did not remember the next day. These exhibits show, in real time, the conduct he now denies.
Paragraph 26: Defendant denies conduct that is plainly visible on the videos he watched before filing his Answer—see Exhibits 15-14, 15-23, and 15-28. The acts he denies are clearly depicted in the recordings, including Exhibit 6.
Fifteenth Affirmative Defense: Defendant asserts that I somehow consented to an arrangement where I could not say no. At no time in our six-year relationship did I ever consent to being unable to revoke consent; no such discussion ever occurred let alone an agreement. In fact, Early in the relationship, in 2018, I explicitly told him I do not like pain.
In the Opposition to my Notice of Improper Communication, the defense refers to me as “dangerously unhinged.” The defense has no medical records of mine, no psychological evaluations, and has never spoken to any of my treating professionals—my psychiatrist, therapist, nurse practitioner, or general practitioner. My diagnoses are major depression, complex PTSD, and an anxiety disorder. These are not conditions generally associated with being “dangerous.”
By contrast, the Defendant has openly disclosed psychopathy and exhibits clear alcohol addiction, consuming on average 30 ounces of hard liquor per day. This alcohol addiction is shown in Exhibits 15-27, 15-12, 15-17, and others. Both psychopathy and severe alcohol dependence are conditions far more likely to be associated with dangerous behavior in lay terms.
If the defense requests a psychological evaluation, I will gladly comply—provided the Defendant is evaluated as well and the defense bears the associated costs.
Now Your Honor, in one of the more usual stories in this case, the defense claims that Mr. . Cassetty was never contacted by law enforcement.
That is simply false.
On July 12, 2024, Capitol Police physically removed Mr. Cassetty from his state office.
He texted me himself as it happened — that he was being escorted out, that Nevada State Police were searching his vehicle, and that he was upset about the fact he left his tamale on his desk.
At that same moment, the victims’ advocate called me and said the police were arresting him right then.
The arrest did not occur, but the warrant request — Exhibit 2 — did exist, and I was told repeatedly the arrest was imminent.
When I told Mr. Cassetty this on July 14th, he immediately contacted an attorney who oddly offered him a job before referring him elsewhere.
The next day I was told it was a “jurisdictional issue.” But again the arrest was imminent.
Only later did I learn the truth: District Attorney Steve Wolfson refused to review the case and told detectives the Attorney General had to handle it, and the Attorney General’s Office then closed the case the very next day.
Further, the defense alleges I did not cooperate with the police? I simply refused to allow them to forensically search my personal cell phone. I provided them with additional video—exbit 6– and they sent the case to the attorney general again, an act I was told by the sergeant almost never happens. They rarely send a case up twice. It was declined again and they refused to look at the further evidence. The case was not closed until mid-September.
These are not minor inconsistencies—they are deliberate, material falsehoods contradicting the documentary evidence in this case.
I emphasize this because the Defendant is already in default, and his untimely “Answer” should not be considered—both because it is procedurally defective and because it contains deliberate falsehoods that undermine its reliability in every respect.
Your Honor, I am not an attorney — but even I know Rule 11 requires filings to be truthful, grounded in evidence, and not submitted for harassment or delay. What the defense filed does the opposite. The misconduct documented in my sanctions motion shows a pattern of false denials, personal attacks, and filings made in bad faith, with no regard for the record or this Court. This conduct goes beyond advocacy and directly violates Rule 11 and EDCR 7.60. At some point, this stops being error and becomes misconduct serious enough that bar oversight is appropriate.
And I want to be clear: this is not a single lapse in judgment. This is a sustained pattern — a deliberate choice to misrepresent facts, to ignore the evidentiary record, and to weaponize filings for delay and intimidation. That is not zealous representation. It is a misuse of the judicial process, and it undermines the integrity of these proceedings in my opinion and in way no court should tolerate
—————————————
Regarding the Default:
An attempt at personal service was made, but it was not completed because the Defendant became aware of the lawsuit the moment it appeared on my website. I have video evidence—Exhibit 7—showing him accessing the Complaint directly from my site. Multiple additional recordings show him returning repeatedly to reread it. He also plays the audio clips of the assault on a loop. I vomited when I saw that video because the defendant had told me that my screaming was part he liked.
Immediately after the Complaint was filed, he left town for an unknown reason, to an unknown location. His partner misrepresented his whereabouts to her own children—a fact relayed to me directly by her ex-husband—which strongly suggests he left to avoid service. Under Nevada law, actual notice is sufficient to satisfy the purpose of service. Price v. Dunn, 106 Nev. 100, 103 (1990).
I then publicly addressed him about the lawsuit in a blog post, which he also accessed. There is no question he had actual notice. Proof of these visits is supported by the defense themselves in their opposition where I am accused of “tracking” the defendant with my website, thus admitting he visited the website and accessed materials.
Because personal service could not be completed due to evasion, I petitioned this Court for alternative service by publication under NRCP 4.4(c), which the Court granted. The summons ran in the Burlington Free Press for four consecutive weeks, as required. I also posted the notice on Facebook and Twitter to ensure he saw it. Nevada law is clear that service by publication is valid when statutory steps are followed. Abreu v. Gilmer, 115 Nev. 308, 311 (1999).
Before the publication period ended, I was contacted by an individual claiming to be his attorney, using a generic Yahoo email address with no Bar listing and no firm information. On August 18—two months before I initiated the default process—she requested the Complaint. I complied immediately and provided full access to all evidence.
Despite receiving everything:
-She did not file a Notice of Appearance until after I filed for default,
-She never attached herself to the case prior to that,
-She repeatedly demanded documents she already had,
-She threatened legal action for materials already provided,
-And when the Court scheduled a hearing, she did not appear.
It was only after neither the Defendant nor his purported attorney appeared that I filed the motion for default. All filings were mailed to the Defendant at his last known address in a timely manner.
Your Honor, the Complaint was filed in June. It is now December. For six months, the Defendant has intentionally avoided this litigation despite receiving actual, constructive, electronic, physically mailed, and published notice.
Nevada courts have repeatedly held that evasion of service does not prevent entry of default when procedures are followed. Reno v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 299, 304 (2002).
The court need to also consider other factors in this default. Mr. Cassetty was a civil-trial-certified attorney licensed in multiple states and trained extensively in procedural deadlines. He is no longer in good standing in any jurisdiction; his licenses have lapsed everywhere, though he technically remains admitted in several courts — including the United States Supreme Court .
He is trained in the rules.
He is trained in service.
He is trained in defaults.
He is admitted to the highest court in the nation.
And he still made the deliberate, informed decision not to answer.
Default is not an accident.
Default is not confusion.
Default is a strategy
Under NRCP 55(a), when a party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend,” the clerk must enter default.
Under NRCP 55(b)(2), when damages are unliquidated, the plaintiff is entitled to a prove-up hearing.
Nevada law is explicit:
• Default admits liability. Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49, 53 (2010).
• After default, the only remaining issue is damages. Kahn v. Orloff, 108 Nev. 510, 516 (1992).
A prove-up hearing is required because the damages in this case — physical, psychological, emotional, and long-term — cannot be determined without testimony and judicial evaluation.
Nevada also holds that emotional-distress and trauma-based damages must be established through testimony and supporting evidence. Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 448 (1998).
Your Honor, the Defendant is in default. He has been in default in every meaningful way for months. He is liable under NRCP 55(a). The service requirements have been satisfied under NRCP 4.4. Nevada case law — Price, Abreu, Reno, Foster, Kahn — fully supports default where the Defendant had actual notice and evaded service.
The next step is the prove-up.
Period.
I want to speak plainly:
I initially wanted a trial in this case. I am frankly not certain I could handle a trial by myself. Perhaps default is the better option for me and for my sanity.
This case is not — and has never been — about money.
While I will accept whatever damages this Court finds appropriate, and I frankly intrigued to find out what kind of punitive damage will be awarded, I am here because:
• Mr. Cassetty needs treatment for the alcohol addiction and psychological issues he openly disclosed to me, including depression and psychopathy; and
• The safety of others depends on accountability.
I am also here for myself.
Every law-enforcement agency I approached told me the case “could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” despite the assault being recorded on video. District Attorney Wolfson personally told me he could “prosecute men who rape prostitutes, but you stayed with him.” That is not the law in Nevada.
Intimate-partner sexual assault is real, and the impact is devastating.
The Attorney General’s Office received this case twice from Nevada State Police, yet refused to view additional video evidence and did not respond to my written requests under Marsy’s Law for a meeting and explanation. I was forced to take them to court simply to compel acknowledgment of a public-records request — one now six months overdue.
The only meaningful records I received were from the Governor’s Office: an administrative synopsis sent in error stating that if this case became public, it would look bad for the state and possibly the governor. That synopsis was sent to me accidentally along with the video of my own assault.
After everything, I have tried to understand why a man with his litigation background would deliberately choose to default.
According to recent communication with disciplinary counsel in Vermont, he has effectively offered a permanent surrender of his law license, the functional equivalent of disbarment, under Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order 9, Rule 15(c). This surrender is directly tied to the conduct at issue in this case.
His attempt to surrender his Vermont law license, combined with his evasion of service and refusal to participate in these proceedings, makes the answer clear:
Default is his strategy to avoid a public hearing.
To avoid a record.
To avoid media coverage.
To avoid accountability.
I will never get a day in court to face the man who raped me.
I will never get a disbarment hearing.
But I can have a prove-up hearing.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor,
This case is about a sexual assault that was not merely described — it was recorded. My voice is on those recordings. My pain is on those recordings. My withdrawal of consent is on those recordings.
I want to begin with the basic legal truth that governs everything that happened:
“A woman who initially consents may revoke consent at any time.” (People v. John Z., 29 Cal.4th 756, 760 (2003))
And the companion law: “Penetration after withdrawal is without consent.” (State v. Robinson, 496 A.2d 1067, 1070 (Me. 1985))
And “lack of physical resistance is not consent.” (Commonwealth v. Lopez, 433 Mass. 722, 732 (2001))
That is the law. And everything in those videos is consistent with it.
At the start of the night, I did consent to try something new — with the clear understanding that I could stop at any moment. That is conditional consent. It is specific. It is time-limited. It does not carry forward. And it ends the moment the word “stop” is spoken.
What you see in the first video is me saying “stop.”
“Please stop.”
My voice breaks. My legs shake. My body pulls away.
Dr. Bessel van der Kolk calls these movements “reflexive trauma responses — not voluntary action but the body protecting itself.” (The Body Keeps the Score, 2014)
What you hear in the sound of my voice is exactly what Dr. Rebecca Campbell described to the Department of Justice:
“When survivors experience extreme pain or fear, the parts of the brain controlling speech and voluntary resistance shut down.” (NIJ, Neurobiology of Sexual Assault, 2012)
And his response was:
“Shut up.”
“Don’t be stupid.”
From that moment forward, every second was rape by the law’s own definition.
Between the first and second videos, the camera is off. During that time, I am injured. I am overwhelmed. I’m trying to regain control. I tell him: “No more fisting.” I refuse the full hand. I only agree to fingers because I am negotiating to reduce the level of harm.
Dr. Judith Herman writes, “Submission and compliance are survival strategies, not agreement.” (Trauma and Recovery, 1992/2015)
When the second video begins, he tries again. Not briefly. Not once. But repeatedly. You hear me saying “stop,” “no,” “you’re hurting me,” while he tells me he loves me for the first time in six years — at the exact moment I am trying to resist him.
Dr. Patrick Carnes calls that moment “fear–affection fusion… where danger and love collapse together, producing compliance.” (The Betrayal Bond, 1997)
Dr. Jennifer Freyd explains, “When the perpetrator is someone the victim depends on emotionally, the brain suppresses resistance to preserve connection.” (Betrayal Trauma Theory, 1996)
And the force he used matters. The Seventh Circuit has already said, “Insertion of an entire hand requires force far beyond digital penetration.” (United States v. Morris, 958 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2020))
By the time the fourth video begins, I am already injured. Swollen, inflamed, struggling. And now there are two men. What matters in that video is that I am not silent. I am not passive. I am not frozen. I am doing everything trauma survivors do when physical resistance is unsafe. I negotiate. I plead. I ask for breaks. I say “can we stop now.” I use a time-out signal — the universal sign to stop immediately.
Dr. Campbell explains: “Survivors may plead or negotiate because the brain has shut down the ability for physical resistance.” (NIJ, 2012)
Dr. Stephen Porges writes: “When escape is impossible, the body shifts into immobilization without fear — appeasement as survival.” (Polyvagal Theory, 2011)
None of my pleas mattered. None of my signals mattered. Because he was not listening for consent. He was listening for surrender.
And he said afterward — “The screaming was the part I liked” — tells you everything. My pain was the point. My fear was the point.
The DSM-5-TR explains that under extreme threat, “speech may fragment, motor resistance may fail, and involuntary compliance may occur.” (APA, 2022)
My voice breaking was not consent. My stillness was not consent. It was my nervous system trying to survive someone who had no intention of stopping.
My voice meant nothing to him that night.
And for a year and a half, my voice has meant nothing to prosecutors.
Nothing to the Attorney General’s Office.
Nothing to those who said they “did not need to see the remaining videos.”
Nothing to the DA who told me he could “prosecute men who rape prostitutes — but you stayed with him.”
I have lived in those screams for almost two years.
I have lived in that room.
I have lived in the moment when my body realized the man I trusted was willing to hurt me for pleasure.
And I need this Court to understand something:
I have been screaming ever since.
I screamed in those videos.
I screamed alone afterward.
I screamed in therapy.
I screamed in silence when I couldn’t make a sound anymore.
And every institution told me those screams didn’t count.
Your Honor, I am not here asking for revenge.
I am not here asking for a miracle.
I am asking for something smaller — and somehow harder.
I am asking you to hear me.
Because my screams meant nothing to the men in that room.
They meant nothing to the people who were supposed to protect me.
They meant nothing to anyone with the power to intervene.
But they can mean something here.
In this courtroom.
For the first time since that night.
Your Honor… please.
Let my screams finally matter.
Let my pain finally mean something.
Let the truth in those videos — the truth of my voice, my body, my fear — finally be recognized by someone with the authority to say, “Yes. This happened to you. And it was wrong.”
I need that.
I need someone in power to say it was wrong.
Because he never did.
Because the state never did.
Because no one ever has.
Please — let this be the first moment in two years where someone hears my voice and doesn’t turn away.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Add comment
Comments