If called as a witness in any action, I could and would testify competently, under oath, from my own personal knowledge, to each and all of the following facts, except for those facts that I have stated under information and belief and those that I believe to be true.
- I use the name "Caroline Pierce" as my entertainment name.
- I first met Zak Smith aka Zak Sabbath ("Zak") on the set of a movie in 2006 and first met his then girlfriend (Mandy's real name redacted) aka Mandy Morbid ("Mandy") on the set of a movie in 2007.
- We have been friends since they got married here in Las Vegas.
- I have observed Zak and Mandy as a couple at work, at leisure, in private and in public. Being from out of town, I didn't see them often but we'd see each other when I was in LA or they were in Vegas.
- I used to drive Mandy around on errands and to doctor appointments when I was in Los Angeles when I had a free day to do so. I have spent time alone with her, in which she never spoke of anything negative happening in her relationship with Zak.
- I have spent time alone with Zak. I stayed over at their apartment on a Los Angeles work trip, during a time when Mandy was in Canada visiting her family. I have never once even remotely felt uncomfortable being alone around Zak. I have never witness Zak mistreating or being abusive towards a woman.
- I did not witness any signs of abuse or manipulation between them. What I saw were two people incredibly well matched for each other. The Mandy I knew was in control of her own thought and own actions. She has a very strong personality.
- From my observation of their relationship, I am of the opinion that Mandy's needs were the priority in the relationship, be it medical/health needs or sexual, and that Zak wasn't begrudging about that in any way. I saw respect and love. The relationship I saw between them was very much about compatibility and their personalities fitting so well together.
- I did not see Zak treat Mandy like a trophy wife as she claims, and I did not see Zak treat her as an owned object as she claims.
- Mandy and I have had talks about not wanting children and how it was unfair that young women aren't usually able to make that medical choice and have tubal ligation. Her accusation about pregnancy/abortion makes no sense in the context of the Mandy I knew because she would never have wanted to, or been able to, carry a baby anyway
Does a statement using a stage name have any real legal weight?
ReplyDeleteAlso strange that she doesn't mention her legal name, but freely drops Mandy Morbids birth name.
In the statement used in the legal filings she uses her real name, of course.
DeleteThat's a weird question: these women aren't going to all the trouble to make statements just for fun.
I certainly don't think "fun" would be a motivation here. But it just stands out that the lady doesn't seem to want her true name revealed, but goes to the trouble to specifically drop Mandy's true name. That to me seems "weird."
DeleteI have no dog in this fight. Just stood out to me is all.
It should not have stood out. It's a legal declaration, and the things you point out have achingly obvious explanations--
DeleteWe removed Caroline's real name before putting it up here in public because she's a porn actress, and she used Mandy's legal name bc it's a legal document.
Caroline's twitter handle is there if you have any other random questions you can contact her.
and she used Mandy's legal name bc it's a legal document. "
ReplyDeleteI'm not rereading all the statements, but the previous one didn't use the Mandy's real name. As a matter of fact, the "official" portion made a point of stating Mandy's real name is redacted.
Therefore what exactly?
DeleteLike are you developing some conspiracy based on the fact that all these legal declarations aren't put on the blog in the same format?
I'm not developing anything. But we have to admit conspiracies happen, right? We are assuming a conspiracy on the part of Mandy and her several witnesses, right? So things are possible.
DeleteIf one name must be real on a legal document, then all must be, right? Could this witness use the porn name in court in a sworn statement? Also, Mandy did porn. One could go and look at her work. That this lady feels the need to out Mandy's full true name while protecting hers, it kind of stinks. Maybe she has a beef with Mandy in a similar way that several of Mandy's witnesses has a beef with you? Anyway, this web page isn't your case (what is it for?), and you're not sharing details of that (which is actually of interest; not many seem to care about what is happening here including me at this point)so I'll bow out of discussion now because its really going nowhere IMO. Its clearly not a hotbed of discourse from many people.
Thanks for the replies.
MB
You're confused.
Delete"This woman" uses her own real name and Mandy's in the court document.
She doesn't "out" Mandy's real name, it's already known to whoever is involved in the case because it's in the original charging doc.
Do you understand?
You should read up on what a fact witness is. These aren't those.
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect and the judge agreed.
DeleteThe last bullet point, for example, speaks directly to a claim Mandy made in her statement.
The fact that no-one that Mandy was intimate at the time, neither family nor friend, will testify to her expressing any discomfort with her situation and that literally all of them are claiming she said the opposite is also a fact and these witnesses are reporting that fact.
If you believe there is some fact in Mandy's claim that is not directly refuted by evidence or testimony, say what that is.
Your claim would have more weight if Mandy could produce -at least one person- who could hoestly attest to being intimate with at the time to whom she expressed discomfort, but she cannot.
Delete