#voidpost

Meoooow, meoww meeeow meow meow

@cleostoohot @richiebitch

Regardless of everything, it’s a fact everything works out in my favor.

Regardless of everything,it’s a fact I always get what I want

Regardless of everything, it’s a fact I always manifest within 3 days or less

Regardless of everything, it’s fact only good things happen to me

Regardless of everything, it’s fact nothing can ruin my manifestation

Here are some self hypnosis videos

https://youtu.be/0Ry54D1SNdM

Every jurisdiction is a little different. but to win on a defamation case involving public figures case, typically you have to prove:

A statement was made to an audience

The statement was knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth

With malicious intent

The statement resulted in (monetary) damages

It does NOT even matter if the person making the statement sucks. AT ALL.

So for JD can easily prove items 1, 3 and 4. But it seems based off the violent text messages, video recording and audio recordings, that he did commit some form of abuse.

Again, it does not matter if AH is a piece of crap. It does not matter if she was also super toxic or abusive. It does not matter that she pooped on his bed or leaked items to the press. It doesn’t matter if she is psycho. She only needs to prove her claims about his actions were true. After all, truth is considered an absolute defense for defamation. And a court in the UK already found there to be enough evidence of his actions for his suit to fail against a tabloid over there (that case is not directly applicable but does show that Evidence of his bad actions is persuasive)

On the other hand, for the her countersuit against JD, she will need to prove the same thing regarding the statement JD/his representative said claiming certain accusations of hers were a hoax.

Again 1 is super easy to see. She has proof of 4. So the question has to do with the truth of his defense and his intent.

But the thing is… his side is mainly focused on her bad behavior. Not whether JD’s statement were true. As I said before, the issue is not the domestic abuse (that is a different type of trail with different causes of action), it the truth of her statements and/or the truth of his denial. The fact that AH is a piece of shit only matters in so far as it affects the statements that were made.

Words, not actions, are on trial.

So honestly it looks like both sides were bad actors. It appears that she should win her suit, and he should win his countersuit in regard to several statement but not all.

My guess is that TV primed us to only allow domestic abuse cases to result in a black and white solution. One side is bad. One is good. But the truth is that people are rarely angels and demons. Two toxic people can end up abusing each other. Both parties can be at fault. Just because AH is not a perfect little victim, does not mean she lied about JD’s actions. She misrepresented her role in the narrative, but if he still committed the acts. The truth is that he committed the acts.

Why are people putting her on trial instead of the statements?