The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

I think she isn’t getting work. Has mounting legal bills. And with her moving out of LA and sending her horse so far away (I think Arrow is being boarded by a friend for free)—-maybe she isn’t in AQ2 afterall. No prospect of income She needs to downsize. Allot

[Inquiring Minds]

Granna wrote:

I went as far to picture a bar room brawl - something on the order that John Wayne would be proud of. I just couldn't pick who would be the one to kick her lying snarky butt.

and

Lbock wrote:

I think she isn’t getting work. Has mounting legal bills.

Maybe she has Arrow down there because she plans on doing a little cattle rustling to solve her legal-financial woes?

[I must confess to being a bit edgy over the upcoming appeal. I will probably have to watch the stream with no volume and rely on Nic to live tweet.]

[Someareborn]

Hey everyone,

I agree with Lbock on this and think AH needs to save some money. It will be another 365 days until the trial in VA will start, a lot of time for new legal bills to be paid on her side.
Do you guys think the case will slow down, or will JD`s side start to dig up more stuff? Preparing for the live-stream in the UK now...fingers crossed!

[Lbock]

Hey everyone,

I agree with Lbock on this and think AH needs to save some money. It will be another 365 days until the trial in VA will start, a lot of time for new legal bills to be paid on her side.
Do you guys think the case will slow down, or will JD`s side start to dig up more stuff? Preparing for the live-stream in the UK now...fingers crossed!

Public filings will slow down greatly I believe. That is what happened with the Rocky case. Nothing filed since December 2019 other than adding lawyers and changing trial dates. Honestly, no other motions of interest at all.

[AdeleAgain]

Just reading Nick Wallis' tweets and feeling slightly (very sick).

We take for granted all of the background information we know about her, and we see new evidence in that light. We know what she was up to in deceiving the public and the court about her donation. We knew how hard she fought to keep this evidence from JD's US legal team and then from public view.

But can JD's UK legal team meet the incredibly high bar of making this relevant to the appeal?

It is black and white to us - clear and obvious.

But in a legal sense (ie not emotional or moral) is it relevant to the appeal? The law is not necessarily about common sense.

And AH is an expert a sowing confusion - just getting the two judges to see the sequence of events is taking a while.

[Judymac]

ForeverYoung wrote:

People on twitter did some investigating and found out that the home in Yucca Valley where she went to was bought by Mr. and Mrs. Heard in January 2019 but later changed the title to the Heard Family Trust. There is also speculation that she gave iO a lot of money because iO bought a home in Yucca Valley with cash and did a lot of renovations to it. Something is very fishy here.

Agreed, very fishy. If AH was short on cash to pay-off co-conspirators (or just wanted to obfuscate the payment using property instead of cash), it could easily be done under the guise of a property deal, especially if a Family Trust was being set up at the time.

It certainly looks like she is trying to protect any assets. That won't protect The Washington Post from paying though.

She is not going to pay people off. That's called witness tampering and it is a crime, she would definitely land in jail for it. US courts do not take inconsistencies in testimony lightly. Johnny's attorney will ask their side a question. When the witness answers, he will direct them to previous testimony. The attorney will ask the witness " were you lying then or are you lying now." They will make it extremely uncomfortable for the witnesses. The UK court let the witnesses get away with inconsistencies, the US court will not. Her witnesses will not be able to get away with lying.

[AdeleAgain]

CoA - I just watched the last few minutes.

The judges have promised to hand down a written decision soon but not immediately.

Jeez - most of it I followed on Nick's twitter. Most egregious but probably a legal get out she referred to "a donation" - which in legal terms is not the same as a payment. Ergo she didn't lie.

NGN team also seems to have made a great around JD's side could have obtain this evidence in time for the trial.

JD's barrister closed with the very good (but common sense - see my earlier comments) - that if she was so comfortable she had not lied why were such lengths gone to to keep this evidence from coming to light.

I'll have more comments when I've taken a breath.

[AdeleAgain]

Ok here is a helpful thread from a lawyer. Several people on twitter echoed my sentiments in that it was all quite underwhelming but these are legal technical matters and I believe it is the written submissions which are really important. I only saw a bit, and worried from NIck's read out the the judge's interrupting and seeming to not understand the sequence of events - but apparently the judges are meant to sit there playing devil's advocate. I didn't see/don't know how much they did that to NGN's team.

Now worryingly/interestingly one person said on twitter that Sasha Wass lied and when asked if the 950k or whatever it was that went from Elon Musk on her behalf came from AH herself, Wass said "yes". Did anyone spot if that's correct?

One thing from all of this - at least the mainstream media here are reporting she didn't donate.

Last thought - even if she gets away with this in court - the general public do not like smart who say things like donation is not the same as payment.

[justintime]

... Jeez - most of it I followed on Nick's twitter. Most egregious but probably a legal get out she referred to "a donation" - which in legal terms is not the same as a payment. Ergo she didn't lie.

JD's barrister closed with the very good (but common sense - see my earlier comments) - that if she was so comfortable she had not lied why were such lengths gone to to keep this evidence from coming to light...

Nicol knew full well the weighty legal difference between the terms “donation” and “payment” and, yet, he deliberately attributed unmitigated credibility to AH’s claims - credibility with which he repeatedly enshrouded her from then onward - for her seemingly enormous generosity. He virtually canonized her at that point.

Everything she said going forward was, then, golden and not challenged or examined further. The legal interpretations of the two terms in reality, astoundingly, become almost irrelevant. Nicol chose to sanctify AH on the basis of her perceived largesse - and took every opportunity thereafter to ascribe to AH a warm and sympathetic nature, even when it meant he had to do a bit of editing to her testimony to get it just right. AH did not donate, make payments from, or give away her seven million dollar divorce settlement. And there is the truth, if indeed truth is what is finally being sought.

[AdeleAgain]

For once, AH had some bad luck in that the CoA coincided with JL on streaming services so her google news is all about the CoA. All the UK newspapers have it in their headlines that JD's lawyer say she lied and that influenced the ruling. I was expecting the headlines "AH confirms she has "donated" the $7 million". Some muppets will say it you just watch.

Super interesting that she has posted nothing about JL on her social media - anyone else find that odd?

[AdeleAgain]

Postscript

I do hope that the judges look up the legal definition of donation:

"The act by which the owner of a thing, voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same, from himself to another person, without any consideration; a gift. (q.v.) 2. A donation is never perfected until it is has been accepted, for the acceptance (q.v.) is requisite to make the donation complete."

Note particularly the last half sentence - she said had donated.

Once again the NGN team just LIE.

I really, really pray that these are pedantic judges who really do look at the meaning of the word.

[Lbock]

I've been tweeting all day and babysitting. As I understand, there is a pile of papers submitted to these judges prior to the hearing. Several witness statements. The judges read all of these prior to the oral hearing. Today was mostly to touch on key points (like the donations/new evidence) to allow the judges to ask questions. Today wasn't about fire and brimstone (although I would have loved that).

Nick said he will upload the new documents that were filed today when he gets them. In the meantime, here is the Skeleton filed in December for a review. https://80b08171-ce73-4488-b369-fe3934b ... 74d8c8.pdf
Fingers crossed he gets permission.

[Someareborn]

I am also baffled about NGN`s remark about the "donation" which apparently is not equal to a "payment". In what universe?
Maybe I don`t understand it because English is not my native language and there is another linguistic or legal definition of the word. In my language "donation" could have meant "donation of money, donation of kind, or donation of time".
But she stated, she donated 7million dollars, not 7million peas or 7million minutes.

I hope Ben Chew is typing another subpoena or whatever he has to do to get her tax records on this. And, sends someone to investigate the "donation policy" at the ACLU.
I wouldn`t mind if we would hear about more truth bombs for VA, or the investigation in Australia - otherwise its going to be a long year...

[AdeleAgain]

Nick has uploaded the docs - well worth a read. The NGN response focuses entirely on case law (perfectly understandable) but doesn't even bother to make an argument to defend the lie. I couldn't be bothered to read it all but I don't think there was a repeat of the new definition of a donation.

I haven't read the day's transcript yet, might save that for tomorrow.

[ForeverYoung]

The first judge was writing and highlighting things but the other one looked bored. Don't know what he was doing on that laptop but he barely spoke, if he even spoke at all. NGN's argument was weak, imo.