The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

But if it is demonstrated that she lied about abuse - can she still use anti-SLAPP defence?

It will be up to the jury first, to decide who prevails in court

As I understand it:

If the article written benefits the public, important social issue, it isn’t defamatory unless it is proven defamatory with malice.

So let’s say it’s proven she lied. Well then that article written by her inferring Johnny (where the public believed she was talking about Johnny) would not be protected speech. If it's proved she lied, then she wrote it with Malice (if she wrote it about Johnny)

If the ACLU had written it because they believed her and it would be shown in the public as beneficial. It would be dismissed under anti-SLAPP. They wrote it on good faith she told the truth, and the article is an important social issue.

But, as a stretch, I think her lawyers are trying to say her accusations of abuse (whether true or not) have nothing to do with the OpEd. It’s about what any woman encounters if she publicly claims a man abused her. So it’s very pertinent and timely to the metoo movement and should be protected speech and not defamatory. So it will be up to the jury, irregardles of abuse, if the OpEd was truly about Johnny or just her experience and other women's experience after they make a claim.

[fireflydances]

As someone who has watched from the sidelines as all you guys research and comment on what's happening in JD's fight for justice, first I wish to commend you for a fabulous job well done. Having read the latest posts tonight however, I am worried that it seems 'more likely' that this case will be thrown out because the case is really about the ACLU's decision and not whether or not AH lied. And all the ACLU has to prove is that they acted in good faith. Am I incorrect? I would love to be wrong.

[Lbock]

ACLU is a fact witness and not a party to Johnny’s lawsuit. Same as Eric George since she is claiming she wrote the OpEd with advice of counsel. But in the end, she signed her name to that OpEd. And, now, importantly they will get all the drafts (which per the emails will show she was trying to mention her ex-husband and the TRO at least—showing her version of the OpEd was about Johnny)

This dismissal is her trying to say, look a judge in an English court found him guilty of abuse so that means I didn’t lie so my OpEd was true. So this is a waste of time and money and should be dismissed.

But that might work if all the parties are the same— she was not a party in that case. The judge refused to compel her to provide evidence Johnny needed etc. The law they are citing is for same parties or parties in privity (treated the same-treated identically). So if NGN lost, she would also pay damages? No. So she wasn’t equal to NGN as a party. Yes she “benefited” that NGN won, but she isn’t getting a financial award either. That’s how it was explained to me

Privity: an interest in a transaction, contract, or esp. action that does not derive from direct participation but from a relationship to one of the parties or from having an interest identical to one in the original subject matter
;also
: the condition or relationship of having such an interest [a party in ] see also predecessor in interest NOTE: A claim may be barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel if the plaintiff's interests are identical, by relationship or subject matter, to those of a party to a previous action in which the plaintiff did not participate but which is deemed to have resulted in an adjudication of the plaintiff's rights.

Collateral estoppel applies when the following five elements are satisfied: “(1) the identical issues were presented in a prior proceeding; (2) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding; (3) the issues in the prior litigation were a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (4) the parties in the two proceedings were identical; and (5) the issues were actually litigated in the prior proceeding.

Res judicata applies when the following four identities are satisfied: “(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.”

[fireflydances]

Thank you Lbock. Very clear explanation. I sure hope all of this gives him a fair chance because it is so clear to all of us what this woman did to him.

[AdeleAgain]

Thank you Lbock I now get why the ACLU drafts are important, and that the email she wrote trying to insert more about JD is important. Really well explained also on the relevance of UK case.

Been reading bits on twitter taking transcripts of various hearings - wow Elaine! I can see why she's AH's adviser, she really tries to mislead - I am so glad JD has got Ben Chew he seems incredibly measured but strikes when he needs to and calls her out.

[Lbock]

Oh thank you. I forgot to post

Hearing transcript Re Johnny’s motion to compel. Meet the new judge. And Elaine comes off as desperate.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2021.pdf

[AdeleAgain]

Thank you again Lbock. Read it all - so interesting.

Of course lawyers will be lawyers and they alway push the envelope for their client but Elaine appeared to go further than that. Fragrant misrepresentation on the police officers - actually outrageous. And other areas too including attempts to confuse over the charity donations. Ben Chew only seemed to me to pull one slightly sly one - saying AH had a criminal record over the DV incident with TVR - we all know she got away with it so no record. But Elaine seemed to repeatedly do it.

An interesting exchange on Ben Chew asking for any comms about abuse and there being something between "her" and "her father" about abuse - assumed it was talking about AH and her father but not certain, it was mixed up with discussion over Bianca.

From all of that looked like JD's team did well.

[Lbock]

He mentioned the dc first didn’t he. Then Elaine said she has no criminal record. But she died in Australia

[ForeverYoung]

The judge was having none of Amber Heard's lawyer's attempts to win her motion to quash the subpoena on the ACLU for receipts.

[Kathelyndecoke]

Would be so good if he brings back Robin Baum, she would be so useful now with her network.

[ForeverYoung]

More good stuff.

[AdeleAgain]

Interesting assessment that the comms around her article may actually have more impact than the body cam or tapes.

This is a good thread on the perjury issue by Andrea.

[ForeverYoung]

The ACLU exposed!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... op-ed.html

[Lbock]

I honestly don't see what ACLU did wrong. She claimed abuse by a huge Hollywood Icon. ACLU asked her to become involved and help them get their position known to congress and write an OpEd to help them push the Violence Against Women Act, which was about to expire. As far as I can tell, they believed her. Granted they didn't really care about AH, it was Johnny's name that was gonna garner the attention they needed. They ask for the OpEd by mid November.

What they didn't know is that earlier, AH had tried to sue Johnny (arbitration) over the GQUK article and the judge denied her. So she was ripe for revenge, and ACLU gave her the platform she needed. After much delay, it was released with her Aquaman premier, and got a bigger exposure because of it.

It is clear in the writing, Heard wants mention of her personal experience - including getting a TRO against Johnny. It is her attorney that tried to do his job to protect her.

For the record, it appears, neither her attorney nor ACLU did any research to see if she was telling the truth.

But it seems to me, ACLU has the best argument for Anti-SLAPP. They only accepted her statements and the issuance of a TRO as her telling the truth. Their article was outlined for the good of the public. They even listed causes they wanted her to mention (and of course they wrote it).

I wish Johnny's team could somehow flip ACLU to show how they were duped and used as the patsy. After the audios are out and now that she didn't donate and has implicated ACLU in a possible IRS issue with the Vanguard donations (that can't be in her name per their letters)--They should pull a mea culpa and turn on her. IMHO

[ForeverYoung]

Sorry to disagree but the ACLU knew this would be damaging to JD no matter how many lawyers they used or told her to use to cover their own . They are refusing to produce documents which tells me they knew all along what they were doing.