A lawsuit against Braden Peters (known online as Clavicular) has taken an unusual turn after someone using a fake identity attempted to join his scheduled deposition via Zoom.
According to sources, Peters was scheduled to provide testimony under oath in a civil lawsuit, but he never appeared. His attorneys have filed a response opposing the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, arguing that their client faces an impossible legal dilemma.
If he testifies in the civil case, his answers could potentially incriminate him in pending charges from Massachusetts. If he remains silent, the jury in the civil case might draw negative conclusions about his refusal to answer questions.
Peters’ attorneys argue that because the civil lawsuit involves the same events as the criminal prosecution, forcing him to testify could violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Unlike criminal cases where silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt, civil cases operate differently. Judges and jurors may be permitted to draw adverse inferences when someone invokes Fifth Amendment protections in civil proceedings. This means refusing to answer questions could potentially harm Peters’ defense in the lawsuit.
Peters’ lawyers requested that the plaintiff agree to pause the civil case until the other matter resolves, but opposing counsel declined. The defense then filed a motion for a protective order asking the court to postpone the deposition. They argue Peters had substantial justification for not appearing while that request remained pending.
The strangest aspect of this case involves the mysterious Zoom appearance. According to the plaintiff’s sanctions motion, someone joined the scheduled deposition using the name “Jeff Tiller ESQ.”
This person identified himself in the chat as Peters’ paralegal and indicated Peters was scheduled to attend. The plaintiff accused Peters’ counsel of sending a paralegal instead of their client.
Peters’ attorneys adamantly deny sending anyone to the deposition. They state that no one named Jeff Tiller works for their firm or has any role in Peters’ defense. The filing indicates they immediately informed opposing counsel that they did not know who this person was and believed their firm had been impersonated or targeted through phishing.
According to the defense, opposing counsel acknowledged he “thought that may have been the case.”
The defense wants the judge to question the factual basis for the sanctions request based on this incident. However, the filing does not establish who the Zoom participant actually was or whether anyone intentionally attempted to infiltrate the deposition.
The case also involves questions about Aqualyx, an injectable product mentioned in the civil complaint. Peters admitted to injecting the plaintiff with this product but maintains she expressly and voluntarily consented and knew about the injection. The plaintiff seeks information about where and when the product was purchased, its cost, who paid for it, and whether Peters had a prescription. His attorneys argue these questions must be considered in the context of the pending prosecution.
The plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed in October removed a battery count but retained allegations concerning intoxication and activity while intoxicated.
Peters’ attorneys are asking the court to deny the plaintiff’s request for sanctions and to refuse compelling his deposition. They seek reasonable expenses associated with opposing the motion and request the court pause the civil case until the other matter resolves.
