Notice in paragraph 7 the omission of the all-important word “no”! Should read:
“ . . . . multiple witnesses claim that on May 21, 2016, there were (no) visible injuries on Ms. Heard’s face . . . “
Looks like they corrected their error. The word no is there now. Maybe they took the article down momentarily to correct it, and that is when I first tried to open it. Who knows?)
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot
Absolutely fascinating - not just the weight of evidence that she lied and tried to get others to lie - but the games her legal team have played to make it appear that she cannot give evidence without breaking the confidentiality agreement. It is perfectly laid out and nice to see he repeatedly says that for the avoidance of doubt, he has no issue if she wants to give evidence. Well worth a read.
I can't help thinking, that Johnny comes across as the grownup smart person here. And that Ms Heard on the other hand sounds like a whining, spoilt and not that pleasant brat!
Yes, I know, that is harsh. And also admit I am very biased - love Johnny. But that is still my opinion
meeps wrote:I can't help thinking, that Johnny comes across as the grownup smart person here. And that Ms Heard on the other hand sounds like a whining, spoilt and not that pleasant brat!
Yes, I know, that is harsh. And also admit I am very biased - love Johnny. But that is still my opinion
Not harsh at all, in my opinion, meeps. Quite accurate, actually.
It's not easy to hold one's tongue when it comes to voicing opinions about AH, especially when we see how unjustly Johnny has been treated. This document clearly supports what I've observed regarding the pattern of what I view to be a narcissist.
Finally there is proof that AH is discredited by her very own words. There's no back peddling now.
I'm flabbergasted that she actually tried to coerce staff members of the Eastern Building to support her false abuse claims just before she sold her story to People magazine.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~ Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.
Yes the defendant is the media group which owns the Sun, and the journalist himself. Since JD brought the defamation case they have rested their defence on a claim that they were basing the article on what was already in the public domain ie what they believed to be the truth. When of course it is quite clear - and has been pointed out in the witness statement, any small amount of research and knowledge would have reasonably led to doubts over AH's claims. So it looks like they've got new evidence which strengthens the claim that AH lied - but the argument here is that there was already plenty of available material demonstrating that at the very least there was doubt. The article was full of inaccuracies like saying the divorce settlement money was a settlement over her complaint of domestic violence.
The Sun is now having to try and make a virtue out of her unwillingness to testify.
She will presumably come out with more nonsense - that it will be triggering for her to have to testify, and that Johnny won't let her - when he has said several times he is not stopping her.
I laughed at the point where she said to the neighbour "this is all his lawyers, I don't want anything from him" when she'd already demanded money and condos and cars.
I feel the noose tightening. - and couldn't be more delighted.
The Sun could call IO and Raquel, but I have a feeling there was something put in place to prevent them from discussing it too? That they (or anyone) could face being sued for a vast sum of money....? Edit: I think it was a confidentiality agreement or something like that. IO tried to vindicate her published 'off record comments' by playing the 'victim' card and blaming the journalists lack of itegrity. (Susan Witkin is abother one who suddenly went quite after whatever-it-was was issued). Not sure whether it would still stand if they were called to court though - one of you would know that for sure.
AH has no intention of going to the Court change the agreement, it's just another one of her rouses - and another excuse to maintain her 'victim' stance. Johnny has called her lawyers bluff. I'd love to be a fly on that wall!!!
In a weirdly ironic way, perhaps The Sun has done Johnny a favour. As he said. He has every right to defend himself.
Ade wrote:Also I am fascinated by what Raquel and I O will do. They are not bound by any confidentiality. The Sun can always call them as witnesses .........
Interestingly enough, from specific posts on their Instagram and Twitter accounts, it seems both IO and Raquel have distanced themselves from AH and visa versa. Something happened because their friendships look to be estranged now.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~ Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.
Even if you sign a confidentiality agreement, you are allowed to provide evidence in a court case. It is an absolute standard. Which is why in Johnny's witness statement he says she can - going to a California court to secure this might even be unnecessary especially as no one is contesting her rights.
I don't know if I O has distanced herself - there was a very recent retweet of something Amber said. But Raquel has certainly been dumped and on her instagram someone asked her about why they were no longer friends and she replied something like "you're asking the wrong gal".
Ade wrote:Even if you sign a confidentiality agreement, you are allowed to provide evidence in a court case. It is an absolute standard. Which is why in Johnny's witness statement he says she can - going to a California court to secure this might even be unnecessary especially as no one is contesting her rights.
I don't know if I O has distanced herself - there was a very recent retweet of something Amber said. But Raquel has certainly been dumped and on her instagram someone asked her about why they were no longer friends and she replied something like "you're asking the wrong gal".
I read that comment on Raquel's Instagram too. More recently, I saw this comment by IO directed
toward AH:
The reason I think IO has also distanced herself from AH is that another time on AH's Instagram, AH mentioned something about being a vegan. IO's comment went something to the affect of," When the were you ever a vegan?"
Something isn't all rosy between them any longer. That said, the reliability of two of AH's key "witnesses" is now in question.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~ Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.
were you ever a vegan?"
