Current Events > How did Amber win the one count she did?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DrizztLink posted...

Alright, I'm screwing up my terminology then.

So if Johnny made the claim, Amber countered, burden of proof could arguably go both ways in my head but obviously that doesn't matter to reality.

Burden is on Amber, it's in the clip I posted. First words after the quote is "has ms heard proved all the elements of defamation"

It's been clear cut throughout the whole trial, this is not something that I am unsure of. Plus it's common sense, If you declare something is defamatory, it's on you to prove it, not the other party to disprove your allegations.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ugh again, that's not how it works. There was no burden of proof on Johnny, it was all on Amber to prove his quote to be false. Idk how she did that, I posted the text of the quote, no one has proved to know the answer yet tho.

nicklebro posted...

Burden is on Amber, it's in the clip I posted. First words after the quote is "has ms heard proved all the elements of defamation"

It's been clear cut throughout the whole trial, this is not something that I am unsure of. Plus it's common sense, If you declare something is defamatory, it's on you to prove it, not the other party to disprove your allegations.

Why should you have to do anything in court if I say you faked a call to the police.

Tho I will add that it's based on a "preponderance of evidence" rather than something really demanding like "beyond a reasonable doubt" , so that means if it's even 50.1% likely, that's all they have to prove. So if it's unknown but you showed a bit more evidence... I guess you could win on that.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Why should you have to do anything in court if I say you faked a call to the police.

I don't, unless I'm claiming that statement was defamatory. If I'm claiming that statement was defamatory, it's on me to prove it. AGAIN it's quite literally on the clip I keep telling you to listen to. It's not up for debate, it literally never was. You think you can file a defamation claim and collect money from someone while having no obligations to prove your allegation?I can just file a million defamation claims and forever the other side to do all the work, or else they have to pay me?

Please stop, just think about it for a second.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

OMG an adult who can acknowledge a simple mistake. Wtf are you doing here ?! Lol but yeah ugh I really wish someone would just explain this one part to me, seems like the jury should have to explain how they came to their conclusions, for clarity. Cuz really unless they actually say it, how do we know why they voted the way they did?

nicklebro posted...

I don't, unless I'm claiming that statement was defamatory. If I'm claiming that statement was defamatory, it's on me to prove it. AGAIN it's quite literally on the clip I keep telling you to listen to. It's not up for debate, it literally never was. You think you can file a defamation claim and collect money from someone while having no obligations to prove your allegation?I can just file a million defamation claims and forever the other side to do all the work, or else they have to pay me?

Please stop, just think about it for a second.

The other side would have to respond or else you win in default judgment yes.

Even if your claims are completely meritless I would still have to file a motion to dismiss.

Edit: and filing obvious bullshit like you just described opens yourself up to counter suits for my attorney fees.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The other side would have to respond or else you win in default judgment yes.

Even if your claims are completely meritless I would still have to file a motion to dismiss.

No you wouldn't. You could just let it go to the jury, and since they're meritless, they wouldn't win. You could file a motion to dismiss (and obviously would) to get it over with immediately, but that doesn't change the fact that obligation is on the PLAINTIFF to prove their claim.. No one is just assumed to be guilty of defamation until they prove otherwise, you are always innocent until you are proved to be guilty. Again, if you don't believe he, listen to the CLIP that I keep mentioning. Or again, just think about it for a minute.

Think about it, if I sued you for defamation, and both of us rested our cases immediately without saying anything, you think that my claim of defamation devoid of any evidence or testimony is enough to win a verdict on its own? Of course not! I am making the claim of defamation, I am the one bringing the legal motion, I am the reason there is a case at all, of course it's on me to prove my allegations of defamation to be true, otherwise you're saying that simply accusing someone of defamation makes them guilty in the court's eyes until they can prove their innocence. I mean "prove their innocence" should really be enough to let you know you're dead wrong, you need to prove guilt, not innocence. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proved. Hence "Innocent until proven guilty"

Is it really that hard to admit you're wrong? Look at Randy, he made the same mistake and realized it immediately al because it was no big deal, but Jesus you're giving me Amber Heard flash backs

nicklebro posted...

No you wouldn't. You could just let it go to the jury

Going to the jury is literally the opposite of not responding.

Not bother reading the rest of your garbage.

@nicklebro Apparently a juror answered some questions on TicToc yesterday. We have no way of verifying the statements. However if true, it went down more or less as I described earlier.