The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

I don't give any credit to Hollywood loyalty or "friends". It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Dan is hearing, as we are, that FB franchise is doomed. He also would love to take attention away from JKR and Ezra (other problems) He is doing whatever in his power to use his platform to promote FB3 - which included trying to get Johnny on a podcast -wouldn't that be a huge watch.

Just as with this recent post, Dan wants people to not blame WB or the actors and accept Mads and watch the movies (because he needs this movie and 2 more). Dan did for Dan. If he wanted to help Johnny or express his opinion - at least take a few moments to educate beyond whatever WB fed you. Come on, it's been going on for years! Now he has taken to IG to "apologize" and saying he might do a live stream to explain his opinion - not that he will take more time to educate himself.

This reminds me of how people always say Ellen loves Johnny and they are friends. Nope. There was never anything to suggest she liked Johnny beyond that massive viewership he brought to her show. She never wished him happy birthday via her social media. She mostly tried to humiliate him for a laugh at his expense.

The tweets I posted exist on Twitter, nothing I can do to remove them. Also, screen shots have been picked up by some Japanese accounts now. So no point in censoring me here

[AdeleAgain]

Lots of sense being spoken here once again Lbock and Newt by you both. Very often the best thing people can do is say nothing. (As Dan probably wishes he had!)

JD said nothing about Ezra Miller or the trans issue blown up by JK Rowling - and that was probably the right thing to do. Only throw fuel onto the fire.

There are times and places to speak and Johnny has always preferred the never complain, never explain mantra - grateful though he undoubtedly is when people support him. Javier and Penelope, Vanessa and Winona - those were beautifully done words said at a time and place that was not designed to get them publicity or benefit them.

I mostly give credit to Dan for taking it down: I've had probably 20 friends over the past four years say something about this situation that was incorrect and calmly pointing out facts is always the way. You did it respectfully and he did the right thing.

So that's that.

Having said all that - Jason Momoa - no one will be offended if you say you won't work with abusers!

[ForeverYoung]

Head of marketing is leaving Warner Bros. It seems they are having money issues, according to this article.

https://variety.com/2020/more/news/warn ... 234831576/

[Lbock]

More Subpoenas issued in Fairfax. Mostly reissues with new dates.

I think they are bulldozing getting these done now. Many via zoom from California because of COVID rules Lots of dupes we've seen before. I have no idea why they are uploaded more than once. They are all from AH team, including the Laura D one.

11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Action Property Management (these seem to be the same-Eastern Building)
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Action Property Management Documents
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Action Property Management Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Action Property Management Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Cornelius Harrell Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles Documents
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Laura Wasser Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Brandon Patterson Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Trinity Esparza Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Alejandro Romero Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Robin Baum Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Laura Divenere Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Jack Whigham Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Christian Carino Depo
11/10/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Tracey Jacobs Depo

10/29/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Tracey Jacobs Depo
10/29/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Christian Carino Depo
10/29/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Jack Whigham Depo
10/29/2020 Foreign Subpoena for Laura Divenere Depo

They seem to be duplicates, but maybe I need to look closer. Same dates, zoom, deposition
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/h ... file-cases

[AdeleAgain]

So if AH's side gets to speak to Laura Wasser - presume JD's side can speak to AH's lawyer what was her name - Samantha Spector - the one who supposedly advised AH she needed to claim DV to stay in her home and that she only 'had room' for three incidents on the forms.

Well that will be interesting!

[justintime]

So if AH's side gets to speak to Laura Wasser - presume JD's side can speak to AH's lawyer what was her name - Samantha Spector - the one who supposedly advised AH she needed to claim DV to stay in her home and that she only 'had room' for three incidents on the forms.

Well that will be interesting!

Yeah, Spector - the attorney AH called instead of the police, the attorney who advised her not to talk to the police, and if she DID talk to the police, NOT to file an official report with them. Filing a false police report is a felony and if it was ever proven she did lie, she could be charged with committing a crime. She never claimed DV with the two officers who first came that evening and left her with a business card. She never filed an official police report, although she and Spector went to great lengths to swear to the media (The Wrap, Deadline, THR, ...) she was going to do so ....soon...

Her DV “statement” was submitted with her RO request that following Friday (they tried for a permanent RO, but the Judge wasn’t convinced despite her floating blemish and somber attire; hence, the TRO). Later, before JD’s lawyer (Wasser) would sign the final divorce papers in August(?), she insisted AH write a statement retracting her allegations, which she did. And so, Johnny was never charged with DV, the allegations were dismissed with prejudice but he has lived with the stigma of her claims ever since.

[Newt]

Dan is having a pretty great conversation on IG right now, he's responding to many comments laying down the situation CALMLY and thoughtfully. He said he'd take a look at it all this weekend and make a live chat to explain his thoughts more clearly. But in case anyone had any doubt, this is what matters, here's some of his comments:

"He’s had my support since day one. & he knows that. Never judged him based on the swirling allegations since the first film & still haven’t. "

"Holy there’s a lot of comments your love and support for Johnny is heart warming and overwhelming- bare with me as I get through these- I promise I will. It’s amazing how much info one can find in this thread. Brilliant. Stay tuned I’m in between shots!"

He also said he'd sat with the statement for a week and reached out to WB for guidance and wasn't satisfied (I wonder why).

[AdeleAgain]

So just speculating, if JD's side did get Ms Spector to do a deposition presume most of this stuff would be privileged - but I wonderful if they could ask her things like "as a point of law, if you were advising a client, would you advise them not to file a DV report with the police/tell them they had to claim DV to stay in their home/tell this sample client that they only had enough room on the TRO form to record three incidents"?

Because AH was talking such utter on the stand when she said all of this stuff.

I keep waking up at night thinking of bits and pieces of perjury and I so want her held accountable for some of them.

Petition update: more than one and a quarter million people now.

And another one hundred thousand people following our wonderful pirate on IG.

[RumLover]

Something that was said back in 2016 but I haven't seen since was that Amber's meeting with Spector in May 2016 was held at home of publicist Jodi Gottleib and that Raquel was at meeting.
It was said that if anyone other than Amber and lawyer was present then client-lawyer privilege does not apply.
I am not a lawyer so I am not authoritative but it does seem that Jodi or Raquel could be asked about meetings they attended with Spector and what was discussed.

[ForeverYoung]

I don't know about Jodi but Raquel lied under oath and to the police when she called them so I have no doubt she would lie again.

[ForeverYoung]

Looks like Jennifer Robinson will be representing the ex in the VA case. At least it's what she says.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/ar ... eard-worse.

[AdeleAgain]

Lbock thank you for tweeting about the CHLA donation or what appears to be a non-donation:



The eagle eyed of JD's fans said at the time when she got the publicity for donating her divorce money (and I sensed it was a big factor in getting MSM and quite a lot of people on her side) - that all she had done with the CHLA was make a pledge, not actually handed over 3.5 million.

This looks like it was true and she reneged on the pledge.

Unlikely she made some anonymous donation, and if she did - simply show the VA court the bank transfer - it really isn't difficult.

[justintime]

I don't give any credit to Hollywood loyalty or "friends". It's a dog-eat-dog world out there....

.... Dan (Fogler) wants people to not blame WB or the actors and accept Mads and watch the movies (because he needs this movie and 2 more). Dan did for Dan. If he wanted to help Johnny or express his opinion - at least take a few moments to educate beyond whatever WB fed you. Come on, it's been going on for years! Now he has taken to IG to "apologize" and saying he might do a live stream to explain his opinion - not that he will take more time to educate himself.

Agree, Lbock. Self-serving, bumbling little man.

I keep waking up at night thinking of bits and pieces of perjury and I so want her held accountable for some of them.

Same here, AdeleAgain. And when I wake up, I can’t get back to sleep. Every literate adult who read the decision was outraged by its blatant injustice. Will Johnny be granted an appeal? If granted the appeal request, can he get that decision overturned?

Exactly eight days from today, Johnny’s appeal request (more properly, “an appeal notice”) must be filed to the “Court of Appeal”, i.e. within 21 days of the date of the decision (11/02/20). See Lbock’s excellent post on the appeal process on p. 351 of this thread.

Such a short time. Everyday there seems to be more astonishing information revealed, unbelievable connections being established, and powerful, monied, elite parties emerging as involved. If even a fraction is true, Johnny never stood a chance of winning his case. Everything now hinges on his appeal lawyers. Does he have new lawyers for this action?

Nagging questions and observations abound (if I’ve crossed any lines here, please delete):

*** This was no slam-dunk celebrity libel case. Schillings apparently never looked beneath the superficial surface and as a result seriously underestimated their game plan.

*** The notorious Schillings “attack dogs” behaved more like curious puppies getting slapped on the nose for sniffing around where they weren’t wanted. What happened? The highly touted firm seemed woefully out of touch with the emerging complexities of the case and embarrassingly out of the loop with respect to the reach of the secretive yet seemingly ubiquitous Doughty St players.
Didn’t they do any digging on Nicol, his family, on the opposition’s team and the multiple defendants, on AH’s history, on anything, before the trial started? Why wasn’t their impressive VB (Vigilante Bespoke) information-security team let loose?

*** Schillings dropped the ball - they didn’t do their homework and their client’s reputation and career are in more dire straits now than before they started. The MSM looks no further than “winner” and “loser”. Even worse, Johnny’s VA defamation case is pending and will certainly be impacted by the UK outcome. If it is under appeal, perhaps the perception of challenge will work to Johnny’s advantage.

Lbock thank you for tweeting about the CHLA donation or what appears to be a non-donation.

Thanks, Lbock and AdeleAgain. A bit of good news, perhaps.

[AdeleAgain]

Justinetime I am going to defend Schillings a bit here - not something I would normally do as they are big boys and girls and can take care of themselves.

JD didn't lose this case through either lack of evidence or bad lawyers. Schillings took over the preparation of the case for David Sherborne.

If they or he had challenged the impartiality of the judge at the start I cannot describe what damage that would have caused to no avail - you cannot accuse a high court judge of something untoward without anything solid to base it on. The connections through the Doughty chambers are not anything remarkable in UK legal circles - they all know each other and there are a few mega barrister chambers of which Doughty is one.

But now there is an actual judgement, there is something to question. It is tragic and seems unfair for it to be this way around but that's is the way it is.

So the questionable things are (1) the judge's son works for a company which also employs one of the defendants and is owned by the Murdochs etc. That should have been declared - and maybe it was. (2) the second issue is all around Jen Robinson and possible conflicts and witness handling. The dinner party maybe an issue for them but more so is whether Jen was working for the witness or the defendant - you cannot work for both. I read that she has now described herself as working for the NGN side - eek Jen no!

So for example her interference over Laura Divinere and trying to get her to do something for the UK case was a conflict. Small wonder the NGN side had such a fit over Adam Waldman tweeting about evidence. It looks like there was inappropriate collusion between defendants and witnesses - a fact which was made even more obvious by AH and her sister not being separated, sitting through all of the evidence from day one - and then expanding on or amending their testimony.

Now given that the judge has basically based his judgement on the truthfulness of AH, this is where the appeal has to attack - I believe. The judge has in several places exceeded authority which is also helpful to JD's side.

It is all awful and shocking - and slightly hard to describe the snobbery and nuances which are present in the UK system. In a way both David Sherborne and Schillings are natural choices for JD as they are both seen as disruptors.

There was a huge case here a number of years ago involving a man called Jeffrey Archer - he had been a politician and was a very successful author and won a libel case against a newspaper which claimed he had slept with a prostitute. Evidence was largely ignored and the judge based much of his judgement on the performance of Archer's wife - a rather remarkable and very clever scientist names Mary Archer. The judge directed the jury that it was very difficult to believe Archer would go to a prostitute when he had the wonderful Mary at home - his words were "has she not fragrance, has she not elegance....". Anyway guess what - Mr Archer went to prison for perjury. He had lied and got another witness to lie.

Many things may have gone on here with the judge - conflict of interest/interference/a prejudice against drugs/disbelief that a women would lie about DV much less commit it herself/dislike of Hollywood liberals with tattoos and jewellery/cowardice at going against a women claiming DV. We may eventually know - we may not - but what JD's lawyers have to do now is make a compelling case for appeal based only on the law and only raise the issue of conflict if it is absolutely solid.

[Lbock]

Poor Johnny. I know I hit headlong into the grief stage of ANGER now. Fogler put me over the edge. I send him duch good thoughts and strength each day.

This all makes me sick and hopeless. That judgement. These connections. He never had a chance. Nichols was chomping at the bit to make him an example of tabloid free speech and tourism defamation cases