The Lawsuits Thread

[Someareborn]

Another point to remember about US trials: the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Johnny). His side must prove their claims. She does not need to prove innocence or guilt.

The plaintiff must rely on evidence and witness testimony to substantiate their claims.

The typical defense strategy is to discredit the plaintiff's claims/evidence. Or, at least, cause the jury to question the evidence/motives of the plaintiff. The defendant rarely testifies.

Thank you SnoopyDances and ForeverYoung for your answers and the links. I re-read the original filings.
So JD has to prove that she lied, that her allegations were false - referring mainly to the incidents mentioned in the claim?
Which were:
a) "phone incident" 21May 2016 (paragraph 16)
b) "stair incident" 21April 2016 (paragraph 30)

And they also have to prove that their claims, that she was the perpetrator, is true, correct?
a) Finger incident in Australia (paragraph 28)
b) Bahamas (paragraph 29?)
c) Stair incident (see above)

Plus, that his public reputation suffered? Ergo, all communications with Disney + Warner will play a role in VA.
Could the defense strategy just rely on citing the UK verdict? Wouldn`t that be enough for them? Why should AH testify "again"?
I am sorry if I am too dumb to understand...

[AdeleAgain]

LostBeyondPluto did a video on this issue of whether AH can rely on the UK verdict. Answer is no - I cannot remember what the legal term is but basically US courts do not just accept the findings of UK courts.

So as I understand she can't just say "a judge found me to be a saint therefore I am". But anything either of them or their witnesses said in court, which is shown in April 2022 to be untrue - can be brought up as perjury and undermine their credibility.

So just as JD's side brought up her perjury in Australia (which the judge ignored) - they can bring it up again in April 2022 and they can bring up any new evidence, like Jennifer Howell, the new photos Adam has, the charity thing.

Not to second guess legal strategy but I imagine JD's side is going to need to camp on the fact that she is a compulsive liar. So they could even make a virtue of the fact that they lost in the UK - they lost because the UK system allowed her to commit perjury and she was not called up on it.

On US and new evidence - I don't know how long she can obfuscate over handing over her documents, texts etc, but we have only seen a small number of messages between her and her friends and family. There were the texts to her parents around the May 21 incident. But I don't think we've seen anything else? The recent couple Adam posted between WH and JD are likely from his phone.

Did you notice they were having a warm banter (despite AH hitting him) in December 2015. Yep that is after JD allegedly nearly threw WH down the stairs.

[Joni]

Have you seen what she is doing on her instagram? Clearly attempting to demonstrate that she has support (of the bots she has bought). First a picture of her as Mera, now "one dress, four years apart" - I am sure I don't need to explain which dress.

Of course she'll point to the likes to show how much support she has - and by disabling the comments there is no balance.

No matter that you can discount a huge swathe of these 'likes'.

We need to resign ourselves to the fact that she will probably keep her Mera role and L'Oreal. And she'll continue to pose as an activist and victim, never mind that she is a proven perjurer and abuser. I just feel totally sick and hope that anyone who has been abused by her is sickened also and comes forward.

Is there seriously to be no consequence for what she has done?

[RumLover]

Although Heard might think she won in UK, she was exposed for not making the donations.
I think her activist paid for speeches business is finished. Only extreme groups or Jen Robinson will want to be publicly associated with her and those won't want to pay thousands dollars.

[ForeverYoung]

Have you seen what she is doing on her instagram? Clearly attempting to demonstrate that she has support (of the bots she has bought). First a picture of her as Mera, now "one dress, four years apart" - I am sure I don't need to explain which dress.

My personal opinion is that she is lying about the dress. It doesn't look the same to me. There are differences at the top and bottom of the dresses and the belts are also different.

[Lbock]

She’s lying about the dress.
And she’s violating the terms of the divorce confidentiality agreement with her statement post

[nebraska]

How can you all stand to follow her posts? Aren't you just feeding her numbers and boosting her popularity claims?

[Lbock]

How can you all stand to follow her posts? Aren't you just feeding her numbers and boosting her popularity claims?

I use an app so it doesn’t give a view count

[ForeverYoung]

How can you all stand to follow her posts? Aren't you just feeding her numbers and boosting her popularity claims?

There is an old saying...Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. People don't need to follow her to see what kind of BS she is trying to pull on social media.

[AdeleAgain]

Everytime she posts her number of followers drops. It is hilarious. Then every so often when she wants to get the numbers back up to 3.9 she buys more bots. I cannot be bothered to go through and look at them - apparently alot are Korean students lets just say. Before she disabled comments you could see comment after comment saying exactly the same nonsensical English phrase. I do wish she'd let the comment back on. Cannot imagine what she is scared of.

Johnny's numbers continue their organic climb.

[AdeleAgain]

And ....... the activist is back onto revenge porn. The activist who illegally tapes phone conversations with friends/witnesses, who takes photos and videos without people's consent.

She's had to mute twitter comments now as well. Only those she follows can reply, so her revenge porn twitter post has generated a massive 12 replies. Well that will shake the patriarchy to its foundation.

[Granna]

AdeleAgain: Revenge porn is a serious issue. However, this should NOT be a topic for the female Voldemort to talk about. Her cringe/sexy videos she did while luring JD is, as my son puts it, on the outskirts of porn itself. One of them, according to my son, sent shivers up his spine & not in a good way. He said the video reeked of evil, she believes she is a sex goddess.

[meeps]

I don't have much hope for Virginia. His name is never mentioned in the op-ed, and opinions have broad protection under the 1st amendment.

No, Johnny's name isn't mentioned. But the judge ruled at one point that it was reasonably to assume that the piece is about Johnny so that is at least something, I think.

[thiefcat]

Will the VA trial be about all 12 incidents? Or about the original 3?

Adam seems to be a perfect fit to expose her publicly. But I question the legal strategy, I doubt that any pictures will have an impact, altough its a jury. In my opinion they need to focus on sworn testimony from Dr.Kipper and all the nurses, the doc in Australia....
I don't understand why they did not subpoena the medical professionals on this.

Also, to cross-examine her brutally.
Like, how do you know your nose was broken?
Which doctor could confirm it? Did you use makeup to hide the injuries you claim? Who did apply the makeup? What kind of makeup?
Get all the details about her crap to prove that she is lying constantly.
Otherwise, there is no way JD can win it, I guess.

I also wondered why they didn't subpoena Dr Kipper and the nurse a while back and found this online.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 1-2020.pdf

[AdeleAgain]

Just to confirm on Virginia and defamation - that argument about whether or not it is about Johnny and he can therefore claim it defamed him - that argument has been fought and won several times. When Kaplan came in - this was her great argument and she was clearly interested in establishing a principal that 'victims' could write in this way about their experiences.

Four statements in the article were the key - of the four the judge ruled that three were potentially defamatory ie that three statements laid claim to her being abused by JD.

From the press reaction - Kaplan had expected to win ie not to have to argue whether or not it was true - her argument was that AH was writing about her own experience and someone who spoke up. Whether or not she was actually abused was not the point of the article. Kaplan claimed the article did not defame Johnny because it talked about her experience after coming forward, not about whether or not it happened.

JD's team successfully argued that (1) you couldn't have one without the other - by speaking about her experience of speaking up the way she did, she invited the reader to assume she was a victim therefore she claims JD abused her (2) the way she wrote about the timing of when she spoke up and the context of the piece meant no reasonable person could say it was anyone other than JD. She hadn't been in a relationship with anyone else very famous.

So all that is done and dusted. The court has accepted the article is about him and therefore we are now arguing over whether or not it is true ie did he abuse her?

My personal view is that the ACLU were all over this article. They gave her legal advice that she was within the parameters of her agreement not to talk about him, and that she stopped short of defaming him. And that's why they have tried to get in with an amicus brief or whatever it was called. I think she has turned around to the ACLU and said - this one is on you - you advised me it was ok to put my name to it.