The Lawsuits Thread

[ForeverYoung]

As if most of us didn't know this already...fake accounts supporting the ex.


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/j ... fake-users

[myfave]

As if most of us didn't know this already...fake accounts supporting the ex.


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/j ... fake-users

I saw that!

[Judymac]

So Yaya answered my question about Nick Wallis. On a lighter note - is everyone appreciating the irony that one of AH's lawyers is named Rottenborn. Every time I think about it I actually laugh. I hope the name comes up as a character in a future movie.

Yes, it is fitting.

[Judymac]

Well, well, well, look at what we have here. The concealer the ex's lawyer said she wore during the relationship from 2014-2016 to cover bruises didn't come out until 2017.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ti ... legal-team

It is hilarious that AH's lawyers did not bother to check to make sure that the product was available back then. I love it when her lawyers screw up and expose her lies. AH's lawyers have a difficult job because they are defending a liar. They have to be able to keep all of her lies straight and it is impossible for anyone to keep so many lies straight. They are sure to make mistakes.

[Judymac]

As if most of us didn't know this already...fake accounts supporting the ex.


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/j ... fake-users

[ForeverYoung]

And now someone on her behalf has violated a court order leaving flyers on cars and also another one of her cronies got removed from the courtroom. Her team is looking really bad right now and I just read a special camera has been set up behind her in the courtroom. I guess this means she can't casually pass around post its anymore.

[AdeleAgain]

Everyone enjoying the insane levels of support for Johnny - with a slightly smug "yes I was there six years ago feeling"? I am just praying that studio bosses get their heads out of their backsides and realise that there is money to be made here. I know JD has said never again on Pirates but if Disney were to actually apologise and JD acknowledges how much Jack Sparrow means to people - well then maybe. Otherwise I'd just like to see him in more stuff - streaming is perfect for him because is he so popular people are just going to watch any Netflix or other series he is in.

The number of influencers that are now posting in support is fascinating to me but most of all I'd love to know what is going on at Aquaman, as a second actor from the franchise who I had never heard of before, has also unfollowed AH and followed JD. In celebrity land these follows and unfollows mean something.

Warner have got to be smarting with FB3 a franchise low (imagine if they'd kept JD in it - right now so many of the people supporting him on TikTok etc would be buying tickets) and the Ezra Miller and AH problem.

As to the makeup pallet - it is fantastic and once again proves she (including through her lawyers) lie about even small things. Legally it won't move the dial - Elaine will say it was an indicative prop - but if you are going to use theatrics they need to work. It would have been better if she'd managed to produce a battered old makeup pallet that looked six years old. But what it has done - like the faeces on the bed - is capture people's attention in a simple sound bite to demonstrate what kind of person she is.

[ForeverYoung]

Some people doing the live streams have the opinion she and her team is trying to get the case dismissed based on the antics they are pulling in and outside the court. She tried a number of times before trial and was denied. If the case gets dismissed, I believe he cannot refile BUT even if it were to get dismissed at some point, the world has now heard a lot of his side of the story and she has been exposed. The media cannot ignore this now and they won't because it gets them clicks, imo.

[fireflydances]

I do wonder why they are allowed to do these things? Exterior cameras in the parking lot can easily identify who littered the area with these flyers, and the individuals involved should be charged and banned from court for the rest of the trial.

[Judymac]

Some people doing the live streams have the opinion she and her team is trying to get the case dismissed based on the antics they are pulling in and outside the court. She tried a number of times before trial and was denied. If the case gets dismissed, I believe he cannot refile BUT even if it were to get dismissed at some point, the world has now heard a lot of his side of the story and she has been exposed. The media cannot ignore this now and they won't because it gets them clicks, imo.

Judges do not like to dismiss cases. If it was that easy to get a case dismissed, *no case would ever go forward*. If the judge were to dismiss the case because of the defendants actions, the judge would be penalizing the plaintiff for the defendants misconduct. That is not how the system works. Judges are very aware and respect that the jurors have given up their time to hear this case. The judge does not want the jurors time to be wasted along with the witnesses and everyone else connected with the case. Judges try very hard not to dismiss a case. I would think if their misconduct continues the judge would start to sanction her side.

This is not addressing this case but is a point of law. A judge can dismiss a case without prejudice meaning that it can be refiled and they start over as if it never happened or with prejudice which means that it is permanently dismissed. The determination depends on the reason for the dismissal. The judge would not penalize the plaintiff for the conduct of the defendant.


It really frustrates me that there is such a huge amount of misinformation out there. Anyone can live stream and some of the people who are live streaming do not know anything about the law.

[Judymac]

I do wonder why they are allowed to do these things? Exterior cameras in the parking lot can easily identify who littered the area with these flyers, and the individuals involved should be charged and banned from court for the rest of the trial.

It is absolutely improper for anyone to try to influence jurors or witnesses. The person (or persons) doing this could face legal problems of their own. I tend to think the people who are doing this are not very smart. However, it is doubtful that the jurors are aware of this. Jurors are told not to talk to anyone about the case, including, spouse, friends, the press, random people on the street or each other. They are told that if anyone approaches them or tries to influence them that they are to immediately tell the judge. What this judge will probably do is talk to the jurors and ask them if anyone has seen anything, outside of the courtroom, regarding this case. She will also ask them if anyone has tried to influence them. The judge will warn them again, not to talk to anyone, read anything or listen to anything about this case. They will also be told that if anyone attempts to influence them that they are to come forward immediately. I do not think that this will be done in open court, so we might not hear about it, but the judge will not take this lightly.

[Judymac]

I am sure that AH and her team will claim that they did not know anything about the flyers. I am also sure that the judge will not be too happy and will tell them that this must stop.

****This is pure speculation on my part****** I would not be surprised if AH's people found some people hanging out on the street and offered them money to distribute flyers. These would be people who would do anything for some money and would not necessarily know that they were breaking the law. It was probably done in a way to hide the fact that AH and her team were behind it. **end of speculation*** However, I bet they flyers will stop, when the judge addresses it with AH's side. Also, this might not be addressed in open court, so we might not hear about it. But, I am sure that the judge will address it with the lawyers.

[gipsyblues]

Thank you very much dear Judymac

[Judymac]

Thank you very much dear Judymac

You're welcome, I am happy that I can help.

[justintime]

I keep going back and forth between frustration and utter dismay at what is happening to JD during this trial. So many extremely relevant - even damning - facts and info seem to have been left on the courtroom floor with no hope of retrieval.

Below, Andrea Burkhart goes back to Thursday and a particularly inappropriate question (requiring an interpretation of the law; should have elicited an immediate objection from Johnny’s team) put to Johnny by Rottenborn and why it is so important that it now, at the very least, be emphasized and explained at summation, apparently the only option left.

Really worth the read!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Getting lots of questions about Rottenborn&#39;s question to Johnny on Thursday to the effect of, &quot;Don&#39;t you know you&#39;re only suing Amber for 2018 statements?&quot; Some have seized on this to claim everything before then is irrelevant. That&#39;s not correct, and I&#39;m going to explain why.</p>&mdash; Andrea Burkhart (@aburkhartlaw) <a href="">