Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "LiveNOW from FOX" channel.

  1.  @janasoraya  "Guilty?" This is not a criminal case. Did you read the alleged defamatory article? Do you know how to find articles, like, in newspapers and stuff like that, no talking, no pictures?
    21
  2.  @janasoraya  A defamation case is not about who is good or bad. Even bad people have free speech rights. Of course, at the rate we're going . . . :/
    20
  3.  @retrogamermama7941  He's the plaintiff. And this isn't a criminal case.
    14
  4.  @p6x2  No, she takes other cases and does other work for free. That's what pro bono means.
    9
  5. You must know that in the cases of various forms of abuse, PTSD, and so forth, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, either they cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient is being truthful. She explained that under direct examination.
    8
  6. It is evidence of what it SAID, not evidence that what is said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." How else do you prove what The Sun said? You have to produce an authentic copy.
    8
  7. No. It shows that this video thumbnail is abusing your intelligence with its ridiculous caption. A motion to dismiss is a normal procedural move at this time. It signals the end of the case in chief.
    6
  8. He's not arguing. That comes during the closing statement.
    6
  9. You can't diagnosis that now. 😂😂😂 🤡 The adrenaline has to work its way through a person's system. Didn't you have health and safety education in 11th grade?
    6
  10.  @hammerr3  Terrible People should have their house seized, and their bank accounts, and handed over to the TRUE victims!!! I'm on board. 🤣🤣🤣
    6
  11. At his age, he might calm down. Ten years ago, not so likely.
    5
  12.  @Sammich_baybee  It cannot be presented in court at all unless reputation has a direct bearing on calculating damages from this alleged libel.
    5
  13.  @Sammich_baybee  Define "hearsay." No, the First Amendment is not a "loophole." YIKES. No wonder.
    5
  14.  @Nofinator  Exactly. But they also participate in forming reputations, right or wrong. It is unfortunate that tabloids can do that, and celebrities usually need PR professionals to help them control for that. BTW, do you believe everything they say about Harry and Megan? Just curious.
    5
  15.  @kevinmyers440  Great point. They just use different tactics of persuasion.
    5
  16. Well, when you sue someone for $50,000,000, you have to prove they really harmed you to the tune of $50,000,000, before the court will order the sheriff to seize your bank accounts, assets, pull you out of your house and auction it off, grab your car, etc. You think it should go some other way? The Justin Trudeau approach, maybe? 🤣
    4
  17. ​@WW2SolitaireBoardGameChannel I think he looks great considering what he just went through.
    4
  18. GOOD QUESTION
    4
  19.  @brodyespiritu4363  The jury is questioning Question 3. 1:23
    4
  20.  @silkart1  Here's an interesting question: why do you think Depp didn't see Hughes? Why wasn't a reason given? Hint: it is analogous to the Fifth Amendment.
    3
  21. Yes. On these boards, where a cult is taking shape.
    3
  22.  @erepsekahs  Well, it is certainly a real trial, but the underlying purpose is not to win $50 million in damages, no. The purpose is more likely to put on a show and to settle scores, and possibly write a book. Very astute comment, by the way. We are seeing a cult or a mob coalesce before our eyes. Too bad Depp didn't just write a memoir. Much more positive than this.
    3
  23.  @SuperLKL The court reporter made a typo. Is everyone as high as Depp now?
    3
  24.  @deanmurphy7307  Everybody whacked out on this case is projecting their own tragedies on these two strangers. I've never seen more mass psychosis than over the last few years.
    3
  25.  @heelercs  A mob has formed. Mobs don't care about truth. The truth is, this is a defamation case. That means that if the article, which alludes to Depp as committing "domestic abuse," is true, then he cannot win. Domestic abuse includes emotional abuse, as long as it is more than trivial or occasional, and not just a brief response to provocation. IOW, as long as it's substantial enough to be traumatic to anyone, it is not a lie. It does not matter if she was abusive as well. It does not matter that she has a bad character. This isn't a criminal case or a divorce.
    3
  26.  @heelercs  No worries. The mobs are forming and switching targets too fast for my peace of mind. OTOH, this will blow over. Remember how we were supposed to suspend the 4th an 5th Amendments for Gabby Petito?
    3
  27.  @heelercs  Of course there is ample evidence they were both abusing each other, and it was an extremely dysfunctional relationship. This was already developed in one court, in the UK. Of course there are men who are not abusive to every partner, just certain ones. Everyone knows them. A friend I had in high school was like that, and he went into counseling on his own. It turned out that he had been an abused child, and something about that woman brought out a surge of anger. He worked very hard on it, got married much later, and worked hard on his marriage. I acknowledge that, even though years later he was mean to me. (I wouldn't date him in high school. High school was a sad time for him, I found out later.)
    3
  28.  @Cpt.CoffinNails  The only people taking sides are the ones who are reliving their own relationships through projecting them on this spectacle of strangers' lives. This is a defamation case. He already lost a better one. Every defamation case chips away at free speech, and asks the court to set aside free speech. The norm is always the First Amendment, the burden is on a plaintiff to prove it does not apply here. He could have written an autobiography instead, an instant best seller. Instead he did this.
    3
  29. @user-mq4xf1ix9w  You mean you don't know that you cannot diagnose it so soon, nor by seeing him at a political event that in certain respects mirrors the environment where the shooting took place a mere two days ago, nor from a distance, nor by pure appearance, without some conversation with the person? Scary.
    3
  30.  @asherjason46  She didn't sue. He did. She wrote a mild article, vastly milder than what The Sun wrote, no comparison in fact, and he already LOST his case against The Sun. You think she likes this attention? Is everyone suddenly crazed?
    3
  31.  @SChamberlain1978  A New York psychologist is not a member of the California Bar! 😂😂😂
    3
  32.  @justsayin3600  I don't. Her first reflex is to hate on someone else, because a mob has formed. Her first instinct is not to pause and observe, but to judge, as though she could hardly wait for the chance. And to judge solely based on her own lay experience, as if everyone's experience has to be the same.
    3
  33.  @baristaz8834  He was addicted. He might not remember. Or believe what he did drunk and high doesn't count anyway, because he never did it sober. Too bad he was rarely sober.
    3
  34. Every time
    3
  35.  @noahw5887  He's not countersuing. He sued her.
    3
  36.  @cjb2749  She's vastly more qualified, and thorough. How did you get caught up in this mass psychosis? (Is it drugs? Is that it?)
    3
  37. In actual abuse cases, it is very, very common for the abuser not to be available, or to refuse to come in, which is that person's right. Only a court order can force a person to submit to a psychological evaluation, and those are hard to get, as they should be. So, in this field, researchers and clinicians HAD TO find ways to figure out whether the person who does come in is being truthful or evasive, etc. This psychologist is Board certified in two specialties and she assessed Heard. She never said she assessed Depp. She looked for corroboration or contradiction in the records she did have, for both parties. And Depp had no obligation to see her. Totally his call, proves nothing either way. Just like you have the right to remain silent.
    2
  38.  @carlfriedman7127   This is an example of a mob mentality forming. They literally can't hear you now. If they come back to this thread in a few months, then maybe. Still, it's possible they will be more mad at you, not less. They need to play this out, they resent you because you don't have that need.
    2
  39.  @raneewether2071  Incorrect. Not how defamation law works. If both are abusers, the article is partial but it is not false. Hence it is First Amendment protected. Sorry. Depp can write his memoir, it would be a best seller.
    2
  40.  @silkart1  You can give an opinion about a relationship. You can never diagnose anyone you never met. It is a bright line. If you say this psychologist crossed it, I don't disbelieve you at all. You sound knowledgeable; show me where. One timestamp is plenty, since a psychologist is not supposed to do it even one time, ever. If a real abuse victim comes in, and the perpetrator won't, can you diagnose PTSD in the victim stemming from the relationship that you never saw in action, and never heard about from anyone but the victim? Why or why not? I say of course you can --- as long as you never forget you could be wrong. By your logic, could Heard have stymied the psychologist who testified for Depp? Heard could have prevented the BPD diagnosis by not agreeing to see her, but she couldn't prevent her from giving her opinion based on the rest of the data she had. (Don't you wonder why no other therapist diagnosed BPD in Heard, but this brief assessment revealed it? This is why we all have a right to refuse to see a psychologist, thank GOD. I said from the start, if Depp was asked to and declined, I support him. His business, his choice. Refusing proves nothing either way.)
    2
  41.  @silkart1  How do expert witnesses in medical malpractice/wrongful death draw conclusions about a dead person? They never met him. They did not witness the autopsy.
    2
  42.  @silkart1  You know the answer yourself. JD's team was counting on producing this outrage, because the other side cannot mention that Heard agreed to be evaluated as counting in her favor. Like the right to remain silent, there is a right to refuse to talk to your opponent's expert, and no one has the right to judge you for it. I support that right. Of course Depp was asked, too. Of course he said no. It was his right to say no. And he was right to say no. 💯 I judge him favorably for that, actually. Good for him.
    2
  43.  @nomchompsky3012  There is nothing remarkable about this. In true cases of domestic partner violence, the abuser frequently cannot be located, or cannot be made to come to a psychologist. Nor can anyone make him, short of a court order. It's his right to refuse, and that proves nothing either way. So therapists in the field have to develop methods to assess the person who does come in, and to have some idea of whether they are being truthful, guarded, evasive, etc., about what is going on. This never occurred to you? If Depp declined to talk to this woman, I don't blame him. I have no idea why Heard agreed to talk to that smug celebrity hound with the muffin basket.
    2
  44.  @tonya--7704  At issue is a text, and whether that text is defamation, not who The Bad Guy Really Is.
    2
  45.  @wilmameijer437  I don't pretend this system is ideal, but that is the process, and everyone knows that, going in. It's an adversarial system because it is constructed that way. Of course the plaintiff must go first, to make his case. He has the burden of proof.
    2
  46. In real cases of abuse and PTSD, when there is a legitimate perpetrator, they often cannot be located or refuse to come in, and (absent court order) it is always their right to refuse to come in. It is not a stigma to refuse and proves nothing either way. Hence these disciplines have to develop ways to determine whether the patient who does come in is being truthful, evasive, guarded, or exaggerating, etc. She explained all that under direct examination. I don't blame Depp if he declined to be evaluated by her, and I don't understand why Heard agreed to talk to the muffin lady.
    2
  47.  @barryfrench2534  What I understood is that she made a distinction between cases where she actually testified, which did not include any female perpetrated IPV, and cases that settled, which did. Lawyers decide who to call, and they may be the ones who introduce the bias. I'm serious. They literally specialize, and not just into plaintiffs, defense, and appeals. There are divorce lawyers who only take women clients. Some only take millionaire women clients. I wish I were kidding, but no.
    2
  48.  @Sunshine-n1n  The plaintiff's complaint is online. You could download that, for example.
    2
  49.  @ContentMadame His perspective is one you should seriously consider. You want informed people to "humble themselves" before the group. The exact opposite is needed. Just how many more mass hysterias do you want to see? Better to calm down, sit back, and ponder other possible explanations of what is going on. The dominant one on these boards is sheer nonsense.
    2
  50.  @erepsekahs  Your take is the best one I've read, and certainly the most original, an example of independent thought. Who brings a claim like this twice? Who takes that idea at face value?
    2