The Lawsuits Thread

[justintime]

In that audio from Australia Jerry said Amber knew what she was doing but I'm not so sure about that. If she really knew what she was doing she would not have said "I didn't mean to hurt him"

I think AH made a point of saying she “...didn’t mean to hurt him” on tape precisely because she had already told Jerry (and Dr. Kipper?) she’d done it. Even though her admission wasn’t on tape, she knew Jerry would be a solid, long term witness for Johnny. Getting the qualifying words that she didn’t mean to hurt JD was, I believe, a clever way to ensure there was some expression of timely remorse directly from her to counter any potential felony charges. Also, by the way she was stomping around in hard-soled shoes with nary a whimper, any abuse allegations would never have held any on-scene credence.

[ForeverYoung]

I believe Amber knew what she was doing as far as manipulation, I just don't think her secret recording was very well planned. It was the perfect opportunity to put her allegations on record. Even if she showed no visible injuries she mentioned nothing of Johnny ripping off her dress, choking her, throwing her into a pool table, or having to defend herself.

If I recall correctly, her answer/response to the complaint in VA court was due today.

[Lbock]

Not sure when her answer is due. All confusing to me. Today or tomorrow or any delays caused by covid. All cases adjourned through April 26. So due April 27?

[ShauniS]

Superb research and comments from everyone!

I believe Amber knew what she was doing as far as manipulation, I just don't think her secret recording was very well planned. It was the perfect opportunity to put her allegations on record. Even if she showed no visible injuries she mentioned nothing of Johnny ripping off her dress, choking her, throwing her into a pool table, or having to defend herself.

If I recall correctly, her answer/response to the complaint in VA court was due today.

This is what narcissists do: They don't really think they NEED proof because they don't think anyone will believe their victims. (Insert the "I'm the little helpless female.......and he's the big bad Bad Boy with a drinking and drug problem" here. ) They are so use to manipulating and getting their way so they believe they'll never be "caught.

I think she was recording everything fully believing she could custom pick things to use against Johnny and the rest would be inadmissable. ?? PLUS, she wanted to know what everyone else was saying about her so she could counter all of it if anything DID come out. (That's obvious in the way Jerry made mention of her 'listening in' on conversations.)

Do you all agree?

[RumLover]

Throwing a bottle and cutting of someone's finger tip is not something that anyone could do if they were trying. It was a freak event that occurred after throwing multiple bottles and having one make impact.
Amber can claim she didn't mean to hurt him but it was reckless behaviour likely to cause damage or injury.
I don't think Amber was really concerned about Johnny's injury. She should have been concerned that the police would be called. This might have been why she agreed to leave Australia. Johnny's team were not going to call the police but she could not be sure about the hospital staff or the property owner.

[ForeverYoung]

I agree with all of the above. You don't throw a bottle at someone twice and then say that you didn't mean to hurt them. That isn't an accident. She must have really bad aim (and thank goodness for that) because the first one just missed his head and the second one hit the counter. I'm guessing she doesn't do well at carnivals and wins no prizes. Probably throws the last one at the guy running the stand.

Or charges the guy in the dunking cage, drags him out and throws him into the water.

[Lbock]

Maybe they aren’t going to file an answer?

From VA Lawyer Magazine:

“What motions are you talking about, anyway?”

There are all kinds of motions, and you can seek
to state a claim, while other legal defenses — such as those related to jurisdiction, venue, and service — are raised through a motion to dismiss. We will not focus on the bill of particulars and the special plea here.
Any of these can be filed in lieu of an answer. Because they can, however, doesn’t mean they should.
“But if we just answer, that’s like admitting something, and plus we need to show them we mean business!”
There are several types of lawyers who refuse to answer a claim on moral grounds and feel that to do so is a sign of weakness. One is the crusty ex- military type who runs triathlons and displays pictures of himself at the top of mountains. Another is partner in a giant firm with legions of associates at his or her command. A third is the the lawyer who was trained by, or wants to impress, one of the first two. Some of these are the same lawyers who set hearings by notice and call you “disingenuous” in their pleadings.

The thought process appears to be that if a lawyer fires back with a sheaf of motions, the plaintiff or counterplaintiff will be shocked, stunned, and demoralized, and will see the error of his ways. This is likely not so, and the attempt to elicit “shock and awe” may actually backfire, for several reasons.
First, your opponent may actually find it helpful to see all the legal arguments nicely researched and packaged at such an early point in the case. It gives him plenty of time to strategize, plan discovery, do research, and otherwise pre- pare. Contained in your pile of motions there will often be facts and legal positions that hadn’t
just about any form of relief through a motion. Here, however, we are concerned with those motions that can be filed in lieu of an answer. In federal court, these are the motions listed under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are basically seven grounds for such a motion: lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and failure to join a party under Rule 19. There
are also two Rule 12 motions, which are of lim- ited utility: the motion for more definite state- ment under Rule 12(e) and the motion to strike under Rule 12(f). These last two have their place, but will not be discussed further here.
Under Virginia law, one may file a demurrer,
a special plea, a motion to dismiss, or a bill of
particulars in lieu of an answer. The demurrer is
the equivalent of a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim,while other legal defenses — such as those related to jurisdiction, venue, and service — are raised through a motion to dismiss. We will not focus on the bill of particulars and the special plea here.
Any of these can be filed in lieu of an answer. Because they can, however, doesn’t mean they should.

[ForeverYoung]

An answer consists of an Admit, Deny, or Is Without Knowledge as to the counts against them. A person can do any of these and reserve the right to amend the answer should new information come to light. The judge ordered her to provide an answer. I think he's done with her motion BS.

[ForeverYoung]

It is possible she filed an answer and the court is just behind in posting it. The last document, which is a subpoena, was filed on March 23 but didn't get posted until April 2. It doesn't seem to me that VA is doing electronic filing like a lot of other states are doing now. That subpoena has a stamp on it whereas electronic filing would have the case number, the date it was filed and other info printed along the top of the document. It looks like it was mailed to the court, stamped and then entered into the system by the clerk and since the court is either closed or operating on a skeleton crew it could be a while before we see if she actually filed an answer to the complaint.

[Lbock]

My thinking if they had submitted it then I’m surprised they haven’t leaked it to Deadline, THR, even The Blast or DM

[ForeverYoung]

Maybe it isn't the kind of answer they want getting leaked. Who knows but either way they had a deadline and had to file something unless they had a conference call with the judge or something and he gave them an extension. I can't see why he would given the fact they had all this time to prepare but there is a rumor out there that she took a fit recently and went into a rehab.

[Lbock]

I posted a comment on Adams IG he was nice enough to answer. “Their answer is not due until June, alas”

Per new emergency judicial response dated on her birthday. I swear she made a deal with the devil https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/coronavirus

[ForeverYoung]

It looks like the VA court does have electronic filing and they could have filed the answer that way. They must have gotten an extension because she's a high profile lawyer and I'm sure here firm is set up to do it.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 041720.pdf

[Lbock]

When the Courts issued the Emergency Judicial Response all cases were "continued" through April 26, thus deadlines were recalculated (or tolled) from that date. The deny Demurrer order was issued April 1 during the Judical Emergency (so it would have been 21 days from April 26). Then the Emergency Judicial Responses was extended until May 17. As their clock had still not started ticking (as it was tolled), the 21 days will be calculated starting May 17, thus putting it in June.

The Updated Order:
As the Declaration of Judicial Emergency has been extended from March 16 to May 17,
2020, without interruption, it is ORDERED that:
1. The terms and requirements of this Court’s First and Second Orders, as amended and
clarified, shall continue in full force and effect through May 17, 2020, as if fully set
forth herein.

2. As recognized in the First and Second Orders, in district and circuit courts the statutes
of limitation and case related deadlines are tolled during the Period of Judicial
Emergency pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330.

This is the example they give

* The Period of Judicial Emergency shall not be counted for purposes of calculating the
deadline. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1448 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “toll” as “[t]o suspend or
stop temporarily”). If, for example, the circuit court entered final judgment on March 10, 2020,
six days before the Judicial Emergency was declared, then the total number of days of the Period
of Judicial Emergency shall not count toward the 90-day deadline for filing the petition for
appeal under Rule 5:17(a)(1), and this deadline would be extended for a period of 84 days after
the Judicial Emergency ends.

His order was issued April 1 during the Judicial Emergency. So her 21 days are intact so far.

She is seriously like the cat with 9 lives. It's crazy the breaks she seems to get (not forgetting how she totally got off from London Fields from a bankruptcy after losing motion after motion after appeal).

[ShauniS]

I've just recently started to come up to speed on the lawsuit he's filed against the Mandel's. In the past, I had mainly just followed the drama surrounding AH. (Poor guy....between this lawsuit and the lawsuits against the Sun and Washington Post, his plate is full! The amount of betrayal around him is heartbreaking considering what a kind soul he is.)

Anyway, in going through everything on this site and then re-reading the article in Rolling Stones that came out a couple of years ago, I had a question: The RS article went into a LOT of detail about the lawsuit with the Mandel's......and they allege that Johnny knew about some of the loans or should have known about some of them because he had been required to sign for them. Also, they alleged that they had given him in detail a list of expenditures his family members had racked up in his name. So THEY are trying to say that he wasn't as blind to what was going on as he says and make it sound as if he's only suing them now because he's lost so much money.

Johnny countered and said a lot of times he would just sign whatever they put in front of him without really reviewing it in detail. Easy to understand: I worked for many years in the corporate loan division of a large bank. Almost on a daily basis, I would take legal paperwork into my executives and just say "Sign here....here....and here....." and they would do it because it was my job to make sure things were correct. They trusted me and I never betrayed that trust. Johnny obviously put that same trust into the hands of these people and they abused it to their advantage.

Of course ALL of this is speculation since Johnny came out after the article was printed and said the author was completely biased against him (And it does appear to be the case when you read it. It's not flattering to say the least so you have to take it all with a grain of salt).

So my question for some of you experts is this: If it can be proven that he DID indeed sign some of the loan paperwork, etc, couldn't he be held liable.....since technically you shouldn't sign anything without reading it first? I hope that's not the case since it's apparent they stole MILLIONS from him.