The Lawsuits Thread

[hollyberry]

Apparently a judge has granted Heard's wish to keep the jurors identities anonymous. Why should she want that? I don't like it.

The self serving news media would have everyone believing that the jurors are not permitted to talk to anyone, that is *NOT* the case. The jurors can come forward and talk to the news media if they choose to talk to the media. This ruling prevents the news media and others from harassing the jurors. The media is relentless and will pester the jurors until they talk, also other curious people might harass them to find out why they voted a certain way. The ruling is to protect the jurors because nobody would want to be a juror if they had to be harassed by the news media and other curious people. This would be made worse because of social media.

Back in 1997, I was a juror on a murder case. There was overwhelming evidence of guilt and every jury was 100% sure of the mans guilt. After the trial our identities were sealed. We were told that we could talk to the media if *we* chose to talk to them. We were told that if anyone followed us, called us or tried to talk to us, that we were to contact the Sherriff's department. The ruling was for our protection. We did not have to explain our decision to the press, the family or anybody else. This was long before the days of social media.

The side that loses is not happy. In the jurisdiction where I live jurors identities are automatically sealed. I absolutely think that it she way that it should be. Jurors should not have to make their decision based on repercussions from the press and others and they should not have to justify their decision to anyone. It makes me that this not being reported accurately. it is for the protection of the jurors.

Thanks for the info...I don't trust the husband beater one bit, I thought she was exercising some influence on the case.

[justintime]

After days of re-listening to trial clips, and foolishly going off the deep end a few times, I stumbled on these pic sets. I LOVE JD supporters!

The second set actually makes me laugh out loud every time I read it! So, I am sharing:

[Judymac]

Thanks! These are hilarious, my favorite one is the one where her arm grew back.

[Joni]

ForeverYoung, thank you for posting the video at the top of this page about the TMZ guy! His testimony was riveting and when he said that about A's lawyer, I almost fell off my chair! Loved the reactions of the lawyers in the gallery and those of Johnny and his lawyers. A wonderful moment in the trial!

Someone help me, I can't stop replaying this!!

[bringmethathorizon]

While we are all waiting as patiently for the verdict, I still have a question need someone to explain to me you have all been so helpful and supportive . Ok I know there are 2 cases going on. Is there 2 for Johnny and 2 for AH ? Can one of them each win one and not the other and be declared innocent. Or does Johnny have to win both to be victorious?? I just can’t understand and would like to know for sure before the verdict? Thank you as we wait now, I can hardly stand it

[Inquiring Minds]

bringmethathorizon wrote

While we are all waiting as patiently for the verdict, I still have a question need someone to explain to me you have all been so helpful and supportive . Ok I know there are 2 cases going on. Is there 2 for Johnny and 2 for AH ? Can one of them each win one and not the other and be declared innocent. Or does Johnny have to win both to be victorious?? I just can’t understand and would like to know for sure before the verdict? Thank you as we wait now, I can hardly stand it

Both lawsuits will be decided by the one trial. The first (for $50m) is JD's defamation suit, the second is AH's counter defamation suit (for $100m (because she thinks she is worth twice JD's worth)). Both will be decided here. Johnny could win and be awarded damages for AH defaming JD. AH could also win and be awarded damages. The jury has to decide a number of things - and none is technically or logically mutually exclusive with any others (eg defaming one may not lead to damages, both could have defamed each other (or neither)). And over all of this is the possibility that this will be considered a First Amendment issue and the case will be thrown out under the Anti-SLAPP legislation. It is a complex decision matrix imo.

Commentators feel that it will come out as one or the other winning (either they believe AH or they believe JD). But it could be decided that JD did defame AH but all the damage to her reputation was purely of her own doing. Or they could decide that JD was defamed and award him the whole amount. If they think JD was defamed, but the claims were mostly true, they could award a token $1 in damages - an insult imo because it says he was defamed but either the damage was minimal, or worse still, that he is an abuser, though not in a technical, legal sense. The possibilities and permutations are extensive. Hopefully the jury will see it as a fairly straightforward one is guilty, one is innocent decision.

A note about the number of trials. At this point there is also the "Rocky" Brooks case pending. With a JD win, this would hopefully be dropped. As it is mostly being prosecuted using AH affiliated lawyers (and I hear Camille has signed on for this trial also), AH may push this forward as a re-run of VA, although a JD win is even more likely here.

I miss Adam. Hopefully he will start issuing public statements sometime late Tuesday......

[ForeverYoung]

[SnoopyDances]

[justintime]

bringmethathorizon wrote

While we are all waiting as patiently for the verdict, I still have a question need someone to explain to me you have all been so helpful and supportive . Ok I know there are 2 cases going on. Is there 2 for Johnny and 2 for AH ? Can one of them each win one and not the other and be declared innocent. Or does Johnny have to win both to be victorious?? I just can’t understand and would like to know for sure before the verdict? Thank you as we wait now, I can hardly stand it

Both lawsuits will be decided by the one trial. The first (for $50m) is JD's defamation suit, the second is AH's counter defamation suit (for $100m (because she thinks she is worth twice JD's worth)). Both will be decided here. Johnny could win and be awarded damages for AH defaming JD. AH could also win and be awarded damages. The jury has to decide a number of things - and none is technically or logically mutually exclusive with any others (eg defaming one may not lead to damages, both could have defamed each other (or neither)). And over all of this is the possibility that this will be considered a First Amendment issue and the case will be thrown out under the Anti-SLAPP legislation. It is a complex decision matrix imo.

Commentators feel that it will come out as one or the other winning (either they believe AH or they believe JD). But it could be decided that JD did defame AH but all the damage to her reputation was purely of her own doing. Or they could decide that JD was defamed and award him the whole amount. If they think JD was defamed, but the claims were mostly true, they could award a token $1 in damages - an insult imo because it says he was defamed but either the damage was minimal, or worse still, that he is an abuser, though not in a technical, legal sense. The possibilities and permutations are extensive. Hopefully the jury will see it as a fairly straightforward one is guilty, one is innocent decision.

A note about the number of trials. At this point there is also the "Rocky" Brooks case pending. With a JD win, this would hopefully be dropped. As it is mostly being prosecuted using AH affiliated lawyers (and I hear Camille has signed on for this trial also), AH may push this forward as a re-run of VA, although a JD win is even more likely here.

I miss Adam. Hopefully he will start issuing public statements sometime late Tuesday......

Thank you for tackling this post, Inquiring Minds.

> Now, I think I have a better understanding of the positive ramifications of Judge Azcarate leaving the Anti-SLAPP ruling to be made by the Jury rather than the Court (her): regardless, now or if the case ends up being dismissed, Johnny will have gotten to present the unedited Truth to the Court (the World) in full, as he’d wanted for the last six years. Whatever happens wrt Anti-SLAPP - even if the case is dismissed - Johnny will have some crucial peace of mind going forward: those who support him will be doing so having heard the evidence and his story from his own mouth, not a distorted MSM megaphone version,

> BUT now, Johnny must win. And he must win without reservation or qualification. As I ranted in an earlier post, should the Jury find in favor of AH, even in part, I fear Johnny will never be truly free of her perjurious claims and her equally perjurious embellishments. His lost life will forever be tattered, and going forward the years-long career and reputation assault he has endured to date will be revived in every way imaginable by that relentless Abuser, by the vile (not yet crippled) MSM, and by the lowlife, cowardly, deep-pocketed Vermin who have supported her openly, and covertly, from beneath their dung heaps. Just like with the UK decision, they will never acknowledge a win in the VA Court of Public Opinion. Indeed, the two will be forever linked as validations of each other.

> As you mentioned, JD could possibly be awarded a token “one dollar” in damages due to a qualified - partial - “win” i.e. “he was defamed but AH’s claims against him were mostly true” UGH! I agree: such a finding IS an insult, despite many on-line lawyers and commentators seeming to feel this is a reasonable - even noble - resolution path to choose. NO, IT IS NOT! It may appear to be catering to Johnny’s own humble dismissal of any interest in actually being awarded monetary damages. In actuality, it is a lazy way out and - worse - lends unwarranted credibility to what is ultimately biased reasoning.

> IMHO, Johnny also deserves every cent of the requested monetary award, and much more. Whether or not he ever receives it from the whining, financially challenged Abuser, he deserves to see that number emblazoned on every tabloid and news rag, online and in ink, around the world. Numbers, especially big numbers with dollar signs, speak loud and clear in every language and may be the only message the Abuser and her cohorts dare not trifle with editing. Further, whatever he chooses to do with it, he is entitled to do so without being second guessed.

[Granna]

Justintime: We all know, AH will NEVER leave him alone. She will never stop talking. She will continue this fight to clear her name, because she wants to clear her name. However, back in reality, she needs JD to remain relevant in the headlines. Regardless of this verdict - JD has given people their voice back. Fund raisers have been started, shelters and other services are being put in place opening the door for male survivors. A "movement" has started. Now if legislation could be past. Anyone who falsely accuses such serious accusations should be sentenced, serve time & pay full restitution to their victim.

[bringmethathorizon]

Thank you for the information, I totally understand now. Plus even with the public and executives and entire world , Johnny may be in canceled. He Needs this win and the money to once and for all be done with this bullshit. He does need it legally and in ink this is how I feel and I feel very strongly about it. He must have a legal win and awarded damages !!! That is what I’m praying for Either way love for Johnny will not change

[Lbock]

Lawsuit related from my experience attending: I am so sorry I have been AWOL. It was an incredible experience to be in the court room. I got the benefit of seeing the jury and seeing the reactions of the spectators. Made lots of new friends. In the first few weeks, showing up at midnight-2am would get you in. As the weeks went by and more media and youtube coverage, the line got out of hand. People were lining up right after court at 5:30.

A woman decided to take a list and give out numbers. That worked well for those who found out about it. They got a number and went back to the hotel and showed up (preferably) by 1AM. However, people who didn't know and showed up at 1AM or earlier (per the court order) demanded to get in line per the rules - your numbers don't count (which was really true). When the court/sheriffs found out about the numbering system, they HIT THE ROOF! "How dare you take over and side step the very clear order we have!"

So the last week was survival of the fittest. Groups were gathering on the property at various places bracing for the Run at 1AM. People started moving closer and closer to the building itself and there was lots of pushing and shoving. Then someone would make a break - like at 12:15. Then there were arguments about running before 1 AM. So eventually the group went back across the driveway and grouped up again - no line up. 12:30 someone, again would make a break. People got trampled. Luckily no one got seriously hurt.

The last night, the sheriffs showed up and organized 5 lines. At 1 AM they took 5 from each line and lined us up in an official line. More organized and much safer. Groups got split up, however. And some who were there early, didn't get it. I was able to get in each night, thank goodness (But one I got ill-dehydrated).

My daily routine was battle with the crowd and get in line. Be safe and try to sleep. Line up at 7 am to get a band. Proceed (run) to the 5th floor (through security) to get a spot in line outside the courtroom. Then we hang out there (sitting on the floor) and they let us in at 9:30 (8:30 when they changed it to 9am start). Phones off when you are in there. Morning and afternoon break. Lunch break about an hour. That is the time I had to check twitter, etc. Then Leave the court room. Go back to where I was staying. Make a meal, Shower. Lay out my clothes. Dry my hair and try to get some sleep. I did a few segments for Popcorn Planet or Legalbytes but after a few days/weeks, I was getting so tired i couldn't form thoughts or sentences. At some point, I had to make the decision to limit any SM for my own sanity to sleep. (Thank you for understanding)

I participated in two Documentaries. I was very cautious, but thought their concept of social media and this trial was interesting to me. I was hounded to do interviews for CourtTV and Law & Media and other MSM. I avoided them. I had been warned my name was mentioned in Adam's deposition, so I was being careful.

Re Adam: Everything I have tweeted has been my own research, public domain. and articles. I have always provided links and sources. I have spoken or DM'd Adam with questions or clarifications only. I also sent him a lot of various things to help "debunk" her claims. But our conversations were very limited. "Thank you, Good Catch, Interesting, other sources?, etc". I was not given vidoes or documents like Brian or TUG.

I got to sleep in my bed finally last night. (I was home one week and babysat for 4 days-no rest, lol). I am so glad I made the decision to go to Fairfax. Also, my Son lives 10 miles away, so on the weekends I visited my other grandson.

I can't call it. I agree with most of the youtube lawyers. I think he should win on the title - that he proved he didn't sexually abuse her. If, as Camille said, they stick to the OpEd "two years ago" which would limit to the TRO which was physical violence, he should win. If they go with Rottenborn and include emotional, mental etc that would be more difficult. "If you agree there was only one instance, then he loses"-that could be the kitchen video. I don't see her winning her counterclaim.

[Theresa]

Thanks for sharing your on-the-scene report, Lbock.

I knew you were there and knowing how people were having to line up to get in--I didn't expect to hear from you until the trial was over. I did hear your name mentioned in Adam's deposition--keeping a low profile was probably a very good thing for that time!

[Lbock]

Thanks for sharing your on-the-scene report, Lbock.

I knew you were there and knowing how people were having to line up to get in--I didn't expect to hear from you until the trial was over. I did hear your name mentioned in Adam's deposition--keeping a low profile was probably a very good thing for that time!

THANK YOU

[AdeleAgain]

Whatever the outcome Lbock you have done a great service to this community, to Johnny and to victims and survivors of abuse.

Thank you so much - you've provided real leadership to his fans on-line and people who could be bothered to search for facts.

Please rest well.