Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

[angrysoba]

There's several witnesses Pavlovich told about Gaiman in this Document in Support of Gaiman's Motion to Dismiss:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958.23.0_1.pdf

MA, her friend
K, MA's partner
PBG, the lecturer mentioned earlier
ES, MA's friend.

Yeah, very odd that Gaiman "anticipates" a number of witnesses being called, whereas smartcooky has categorically denied any such witnesses exist and has declared that Pavlovich's complaint is so lacking given that no witnesses were named in it.

Yet Gaiman even points out that Pavlovich was hired as a babysitter and seems to agree that they took a bath together, presumably on the first day they met.

I have to wonder what role will be played by records of payment.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yeah, very odd that Gaiman "anticipates" a number of witnesses being called, whereas smartcooky has categorically denied any such witnesses exist and has declared that Pavlovich's complaint is so lacking given that no witnesses were named in it.

Yet Gaiman even points out that Pavlovich was hired as a babysitter and seems to agree that they took a bath together, presumably on the first day they met.

I have to wonder what role will be played by records of payment.

Yes, it seems like an own goal for Gaiman to name witnesses against himself.

And I too have to wonder what his records of payment will reveal. Evidence of absence perhaps?

Let's now watch as smartcooky spins or denies the named witnesses even though they're named in Gaiman's document.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, it seems like an own goal for Gaiman to name witnesses against himself.

And I too have to wonder what his records of payment will reveal. Evidence of absence perhaps?

Let's now watch as smartcooky spins or denies the named witnesses even though they're named in Gaiman's document.

Since I've never seen this "Gaiman's document", there's nothing to spin or deny.

The fact that Gaiman himself has named witnesses (and Pavlovich didn't) is... errm... interesting to say the least!!

ETA.

5. In or around February 2022, while living in New Zealand, my wife, hired​

Scarlett Pavlovich a.k.a. Scarlett Wynter a.k.a. Molly Pavlovich (“Pavlovich”) to assist​

as a part-time babysitter for our son.​

Hmmm... Pavlovich uses multiple aliases.... very interesting!

10. I have read the Complaint in this case. I anticipate that the following individuals could be called witnesses if this case were to proceed to trial, all of whom, upon information and belief, reside in New Zealand or elsewhere outside of the United States:​

​

a. M.A., friend of Pavlovich, who allegedly perpetuated Pavlovich’s false claims;​

b. R.C., my assistant during the relevant time period, who has information about Pavlovich’s false allegations;​

c. H.H., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

d. E.A., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

e. S.E.B., realtor, who can testify regarding the property referenced in Pavlovich’s Complaint;​

f. X.O., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

g. E.B., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

h. V.S., son’s nanny during the relevant time period, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

i. L.B., housekeeper, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

j. D.C., friend of Pavlovich, whose mother was Pavlovich’s landlord; she can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims.​

k. K, M.A.’s partner, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me;​

l. P.B.G., M.A.’s friend and purported expert, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me​

m. E.S., M.A.’s friend who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A about me.​

I see a list of witnesses who seem likely to be able to tear Pavlovich's claims to shreds. No wonder she didn't name them!!

 

[Puppycow]

Since I've never seen this "Gaiman's document", there's nothing to spin or deny.

It is the document linked to by Orphia Nay in #500.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958.23.0_1.pdf

 

[Puppycow]

Yet Gaiman even points out that Pavlovich was hired as a babysitter and seems to agree that they took a bath together, presumably on the first day they met.

Not only that they took a bath together:

6. On February 4, 2022, I shared a meal with Pavlovich in the garden outside of our home on Waiheke Island.

7. The garden had a bathtub with a hot water hose attached. After we ate,
I invited Pavlovich to take a bath with me. I did not pressure her to do so, and she
could have declined my invitation. She agreed and we took off our clothes and got into
the bath. While in the bath, Pavlovich and I talked about consent. She told me that
she preferred older partners and was open to having a sexual relationship with me.
We cuddled and made out in the bath. We then returned to the house and engaged
in other sexual activity—although we did not have sex then, or at any time thereafter.
At no point did Pavlovich say or do anything that led me to believe that she was not
a willing participant in the activities.

He says that they "made out" (vague) in the bath, and later engaged in "other sexual activity" (also vague) but did not "have sex".
He may be using a very narrow definition for "have sex" here as it excludes "making out" and "other sexual activity".

So he concedes that he engaged in "sexual activity" with a young woman hired to babysit his son, although he maintains that it was all consensual and he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined". Perhaps we should consider the fact that he was her employer when judging this. If a young woman was hired at a company and on her first day, her boss invited her to take a bath and engaged in "sexual activity" (but not "sex") with her at his own admission, but that everything was all consensual and that he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined", would we accept that this is all just fine and he didn't abuse his seniority over her?

Maybe it's not rape, but it does at least seem to fall under workplace sexual harassment.

 

[smartcooky]

It is the document linked to by Orphia Nay in #500.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958/gov.uscourts.wiwd.53958.23.0_1.pdf

OK, I never saw that - my bad. But I wish I had seen that earlier, because it is very, very interesting - especially this bit...

12. When Pavlovich agreed to babysit for us, I had her sign an Independent Contractor Agreement (“Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Agreement signed by Pavlovich is attached as Exhibit C. At the time that Pavlovich signed the agreement, we were both residing in New Zealand.​

She signed an ICA? Oh dear!

If she signed that as a contractor, then under NZ Tax Law she must register with the IRD as a Self-Employed Resident Contractor, as well as signing up for her own ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) account. That means she is solely responsible for her own tax affairs. If she has taken any money that Gaiman has given her, and not declared it to IRD, that is tax evasion - she is going to be in deep poodoo because the IRD take tax evasion very seriously.

Given that Gaiman has submitted a copy of a signed ICA, it is very unlikely that her claims that he didn't pay her are true - if they are, then he has shot himself in the foot by providing evidence against his own interests. He has people such as assistants (initials named in the document) who will be responsible for keeping records, and those records will come out, - and when they do, there goes any claim she was an unpaid, indentured slave.

 

[smartcooky]

Not only that they took a bath together:

He says that they "made out" (vague) in the bath, and later engaged in "other sexual activity" (also vague) but did not "have sex".
He may be using a very narrow definition for "have sex" here as it excludes "making out" and "other sexual activity".

So he concedes that he engaged in "sexual activity" with a young woman hired to babysit his son, although he maintains that it was all consensual and he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined". Perhaps we should consider the fact that he was her employer when judging this. If a young woman was hired at a company and on her first day, her boss invited her to take a bath and engaged in "sexual activity" (but not "sex") with her at his own admission, but that everything was all consensual and that he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined", would we accept that this is all just fine and he didn't abuse his seniority over her?
Maybe it's not rape, but it does at least seem to fall under workplace sexual harassment.

Nope. For that to be the case, she would have needed to sign and EA (Employment Agreement). But she signed ICA, that would make her a contractor, NOT an employee. There is no employer/employee relationship when it involves a contractor

Employee or contractor? | Employment New Zealand

Contractors are not employees and as such are not covered by the same laws, rights and obligations as employees. Learn the difference between these two types of workers.

www.employment.govt.nz

 

[angrysoba]

Not only that they took a bath together:

He says that they "made out" (vague) in the bath, and later engaged in "other sexual activity" (also vague) but did not "have sex".
He may be using a very narrow definition for "have sex" here as it excludes "making out" and "other sexual activity".

So he concedes that he engaged in "sexual activity" with a young woman hired to babysit his son, although he maintains that it was all consensual and he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined". Perhaps we should consider the fact that he was her employer when judging this. If a young woman was hired at a company and on her first day, her boss invited her to take a bath and engaged in "sexual activity" (but not "sex") with her at his own admission, but that everything was all consensual and that he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined", would we accept that this is all just fine and he didn't abuse his seniority over her?

Maybe it's not rape, but it does at least seem to fall under workplace sexual harassment.

Also, those of us who listened to the podcast will have heard the actual voice of Neil Gaiman apologizing to a young woman for putting her in therapy following an encounter with him. We also saw how he apparently misremembers what happened, and heard from him that he should never have allowed himself to be seduced by a woman thirty years his junior (when the evidence of course suggests it was the other way round), only for him to get into a relationship with another young woman, forty years his junior ten years later.

At the very least, something is misfiring with Gaiman. If truly believes what he has been saying, then it seems madness to me that on the first day he meets a new nanny for his child and he invites her to take a bath with him and engages in sexual activity with a woman he has just contracted for babysitting!

Again, the emphasized part is exactly how he characterizes it in his own document.

smartcooky won't know this, but Neil Gaiman has already paid out another woman for therapy long before this.

 

[angrysoba]

Since I've never seen this "Gaiman's document", there's nothing to spin or deny.

The fact that Gaiman himself has named witnesses (and Pavlovich didn't) is... errm... interesting to say the least!!

Why? Gaiman says he "anticipates" such witnesses. In other words, he assumes Pavlovich will make use of witnesses, unlike smartcooky's earlier, repeated claims that there are no witnesses and Pavlovich never told anyone, which again, according to his own made-up ideas about sexual assault means that she was a lying gold-digger.

ETA.

5. In or around February 2022, while living in New Zealand, my wife, hired​

Scarlett Pavlovich a.k.a. Scarlett Wynter a.k.a. Molly Pavlovich (“Pavlovich”) to assist​

as a part-time babysitter for our son.​

Hmmm... Pavlovich uses multiple aliases.... very interesting!

Why do I get the impression smartcooky sees himself puffing on a pipe like he's Sherlock Holmes?

10. I have read the Complaint in this case. I anticipate that the following individuals could be called witnesses if this case were to proceed to trial, all of whom, upon information and belief, reside in New Zealand or elsewhere outside of the United States:​

​

a. M.A., friend of Pavlovich, who allegedly perpetuated Pavlovich’s false claims;​

b. R.C., my assistant during the relevant time period, who has information about Pavlovich’s false allegations;​

c. H.H., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

d. E.A., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

e. S.E.B., realtor, who can testify regarding the property referenced in Pavlovich’s Complaint;​

f. X.O., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

g. E.B., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

h. V.S., son’s nanny during the relevant time period, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

i. L.B., housekeeper, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;​

j. D.C., friend of Pavlovich, whose mother was Pavlovich’s landlord; she can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims.​

k. K, M.A.’s partner, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me;​

l. P.B.G., M.A.’s friend and purported expert, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me​

m. E.S., M.A.’s friend who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A about me.​

I see a list of witnesses who seem likely to be able to tear Pavlovich's claims to shreds. No wonder she didn't name them!!

I see smartcooky taking Gaiman at his word once again and assuming that just because he will have his own witnesses that means Pavlovich must be lying.

 

[angrysoba]

OK, I never saw that - my bad. But I wish I had seen that earlier, because it is very, very interesting - especially this bit...

....​

She signed an ICA? Oh dear!
If she signed that as a contractor, then under NZ Tax Law she must register with the IRD as a Self-Employed Resident Contractor, as well as signing up for her own ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) account. That means she is solely responsible for her own tax affairs.
If she has taken any money that Gaiman has given her, and not declared it to IRD, that is tax evasion - she is going to be in deep poodoo because the IRD take tax evasion very seriously.
Given that Gaiman has submitted a copy of a signed ICA, it is very unlikely that her claims that he didn't pay her are true - if they are, then he has shot himself in the foot to proving evidence against his own interests. He has people such as assistants (named in the document) who will be responsible for keeping records, an those records will come out, and there goes any claim she was an unpaid, indentured slave.

No doubt all of this will come out one way or another, but it is strange to me to see someone getting excited about the idea that she didn't follow the tax laws.

Nope. For that to be the case, she would have needed to sign and EA (Employment Agreement). But she signed ICA, that would make her a contractor, NOT an employee. There is no employer/employee relationship when it involves a contractor

Employee or contractor? | Employment New Zealand

Contractors are not employees and as such are not covered by the same laws, rights and obligations as employees. Learn the difference between these two types of workers.

www.employment.govt.nz

In a way, this makes Gaiman seem worse in my opinion.

Maybe smartcooky knows all about this, and Gaiman knows all about this. Maybe employers in their sixties know about tax codes and contracts and small prints.

To me it looks almost like a greater abuse of power to be able to give them a document that they may or may not understand, get them to sign it, make them responsible for their tax affairs and then literally and figuratively screw them.

For some reason smartcooky is fine with this and not only that but wants to see Pavlovich raked over the coals.

 

[Puppycow]

Nope. For that to be the case, she would have needed to sign and EA (Employment Agreement). But she signed ICA, that would make her a contractor, NOT an employee. There is no employer/employee relationship when it involves a contractor

You're splitting hairs over the distinction in my opinion, but I will concede the point that she was a contractor rather than an employee. As such, she would have fewer rights in the situation. I still maintain that the relationship should be a professional one, and that "workplace sexual harassment" may apply even to contractors who are not formal employees.

 

[zooterkin]

Oh dear Orphia Nay. Its seem like it is YOU who hasn't read the complaint.

A. Palmer Targets Scarlett​

18. Scarlett met Palmer in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2020​

19. Scarlett met Palmer in and around the time of the COVID pandemic outbreak.​

20. At the time, Scarlett was 22 years old​

21. The two became acquaintances.​

22. Scarlett would occasionally visit Palmer at Palmer’s house on Waiheke Island​

The Covid19 pandemic outbreak was 2019, but in NZ it really started to hit hard in February of 2020

So Pavlovich was 22 at the time she met Palmer in 2020

B. A Promise of Employment​

36. On February 1, 2022, Palmer asked Scarlett if Scarlett could babysit for the weekend.​

This makes Pavlovich 24 years old before she ever met Gaiman.
The sex between Pavlovich and Gaiman, which IMO appears to be fully consensual (at least according to the messages) goes on until at least
December 30, 2022 (the date of the last message I have seen). It could have gone beyond that time.

Pavlovich would either have turned 25 by then, or be very close to it, so I stand by my statement.

Care to walk back your bull-◊◊◊◊ claim now?

If it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ claim that Pavlovich was 22, then it's even more of one to claim that she was 25. See my earlier post which establishes that she was 23 when she met Gaiman. Would you care to walk your claim back now?

 

[smartcooky]

If it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ claim that Pavlovich was 22, then it's even more of one to claim that she was 25. See my earlier post which establishes that she was 23 when she met Gaiman. Would you care to walk your claim back now?

Nope your maths is flawed. Read the bloody Lawsuit document not the misreporting in British newspaper articles.

FACT: Pavlovich's date of birth is April 5, 1997 (from the WhatsApp message PDF)
FACT: Pavlovich met Palmer for the first time in February 2020, when she was 22 years old. (Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: Pavlovich turned 23 on April 5, 2020, and 24 on April 5, 2021.
FACT: Pavlovich met Gaiman for the first time in February 2022, so she was 24 years and 9 months old (Paragraph 42 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: The affair between Pavlovich and Gaimen went on until at least December 2022 - 10 months later, so 25 years 7 months (final message in the WhatsApp message list dated 29/12/2022)

My statement was

FFS, she was 25 when all this was alleged to have happened!!

The maths doesn't lie, you are wrong. I'm not walking back anything.




If I'm wrong about this, the Pavl

 

[smartcooky]

You're splitting hairs over the distinction in my opinion, but I will concede the point that she was a contractor rather than an employee. As such, she would have fewer rights in the situation. I still maintain that the relationship should be a professional one, and that "workplace sexual harassment" may apply even to contractors who are not formal employees.

Not according to NZ law. There is no employer/employee relationship between contractors - its not a "boss/worker" situation.

When I had a business, I had several employees who worked for me, but I also had two contractors; one used to come in one night one a week to clean the floors and windows in the shop, the other was a servicing engineer who came in every six months to maintain the printers. I was not the contractors' boss.

 

[zooterkin]

Nope your maths is flawed. Read the bloody Lawsuit document not the misreporting in British newspaper articles.

FACT: Pavlovich's date of birth is April 5, 1997 (from the WhatsApp message PDF)
FACT: Pavlovich met Palmer for the first time in February 2020, when she was 22 years old. (Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: Pavlovich turned 23 on April 5, 2020, and 24 on April 5, 2021.
FACT: Pavlovich met Gaiman for the first time in February 2022, so she was 24 years and 9 months old (Paragraph 42 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: The affair between Pavlovich and Gaimen went on until at least December 2022 - 10 months later, so 25 years 7 months (final message in the WhatsApp message list dated 29/12/2022)

My statement was


The maths doesn't lie, you are wrong. I'm not walking back anything.




If I'm wrong about this, the Pavl

Fair enough, though there was nothing wrong with my maths, only the starting data (I should have known better than to trust the Fail). I did look for her date of birth, but didn't find it.

That said, I think you were unnecessarily aggressive towards Orphia on that point, given the confusing information available, and the fact that you were also wrong.

 

[angrysoba]

Not according to NZ law. There is no employer/employee relationship between contractors - its not a "boss/worker" situation.

When I had a business, I had several employees who worked for me, but I also had two contractors; one used to come in one night one a week to clean the floors and windows in the shop, the other was a servicing engineer who came in every six months to maintain the printers. I was not the contractors' boss.

Right, and did you take baths with them from the first day and have them stay in your house?

The type of work your contractors did for you seems quite different to the arrangement that Pavlovich and Gaiman had.

There’s something pretty obnoxious about the idea that she should have read the small print and oh dear, I hope she doesn’t have tax evasion added to the rest of her woes.

 

[Puppycow]

Not according to NZ law. There is no employer/employee relationship between contractors - its not a "boss/worker" situation.

When I had a business, I had several employees who worked for me, but I also had two contractors; one used to come in one night one a week to clean the floors and windows in the shop, the other was a servicing engineer who came in every six months to maintain the printers. I was not the contractors' boss.

Did you invite either of the contractors to take a bath with you?

 

[theprestige]

Not according to NZ law. There is no employer/employee relationship between contractors - its not a "boss/worker" situation.

The Employment Relations Act 2000 defines sexual harassment as direct or indirect requests for sexual activity.​

​

The person doing the harassing could be the employer (such as a manager), or an employer’s representative, co-worker, a volunteer,​

or even a non-employee like a client​

, contractor, or supplier.​

​

Harassment at work | Employment New Zealand

Sexual, racial and other forms of harassment are serious issues that employers must properly investigate and act on.

www.employment.govt.nz

​

But keep telling us how in New Zealand, contractors can't be victims of workplace harassment because they don't technically work at the place they're being contracted to do work at.

(Not surprisingly, actual harassment laws are generally written so as to prevent these kinds of scumbag "ackshully I'm legally allowed to victimize her" rules-lawyering tactics.)

 

[smartcooky]

The Employment Relations Act 2000 defines sexual harassment as direct or indirect requests for sexual activity.​

​

The person doing the harassing could be the employer (such as a manager), or an employer’s representative, co-worker, a volunteer,​

or even a non-employee like a client​

, contractor, or supplier.​

​

Harassment at work | Employment New Zealand

Sexual, racial and other forms of harassment are serious issues that employers must properly investigate and act on.

www.employment.govt.nz

​

But keep telling us how in New Zealand, contractors can't be victims of workplace harassment because they don't technically work at the place they're being contracted to do work at.

(Not surprisingly, actual harassment laws are generally written so as to prevent these kinds of scumbag "ackshully I'm legally allowed to victimize her" rules-lawyering tactics.)

This is just a misrepresentation of what I said.

Did you invite either of the contractors to take a bath with you?

This kind of snark is beneath you. I expect it from some of the other, somewhat less than honest posters here, but you've always been better than that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never addressed the right or wrong of the situation. I merely pointed out the error of assuming that, because she was paid to do work for Gaiman, that it automatically made her an employee of his, with all the employer/employee relationship and power imbalance that comes with that. There seems to be a lot of 2+2=5 going on in this thread - posters who read into posts things that simply are not there.

 

[smartcooky]

That said, I think you were unnecessarily aggressive towards Orphia on that point, given the confusing information available, and the fact that you were also wrong.

1. Orphia claimed I hadn't read the complaint.
2. There was nothing confusing about it if you read the complaint.
3. I wasn't wrong.