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

  1.  @chrismogard4144  WAIT. Are you saying Putin DIDN'T do anything to Dior? You are risking cancellation.
    2
  2.  @nina2222  Anyone who does drugs is someone to run away from, especially if he's 23 years older, has two failed relationships, and two kids.
    2
  3.  @himanimalhotra26  You do for real? Say no to drugs.
    2
  4. This is a normal procedural move at this time and may even be required, depending on Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
    2
  5.  @SChamberlain1978  So you paid such close attention you missed that she's from New York? 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  6. In 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. I guess you missed that part?
    2
  7.  @TimUnknown-h5q  I agree with you about the comment swarm. It is not appropriate. But if there is a trial, this woman will very likely be subpoenaed and cross examined. A 15-minute shock is plausible. An 8-hour shock is not. Something here needs explaining, also for the sake of others who may have too lax of a lifestyle and not realize the dangers. The more innocent the mind, the less prepared to act in case of emergency. Too many young adults are childish now, and seem to want to stay that way. That does have to be addressed, no?
    2
  8.  @markusmuller6173  Erm, I don't see that others are much interested in narrative, tone, dialogue writing, and stuff. Just my impression.
    2
  9.  @sujanaryal833  Of COURSE there's proof. But are you so deep into your cult you won't acknowledge it? You'll smear whoever brings forward the proof? Why did he lose a lawsuit where he had a better case, and is redoing it anyway? Pure vindictiveness.
    2
  10.  @agustinsp1  Okay, this is mass formation psychosis.
    2
  11.  @kieranlee9610  In a court case, plaintiffs go first. They have to prove their case. That means all we have heard so far is his side.
    2
  12.  @sujanaryal833  Well, the plaintiff just rested and the defense is presenting its case. The Sun case, which was a better defamation case, also had these core facts. Of course, an American jury might decide to hate on Heard. You can see that in action here.
    2
  13.  @LBenn302  what not 😂
    2
  14. Every year, every day I find out that other people are vastly sicker than I ever imagined. I'm referring to your comment.
    2
  15.  @joanndavid3406  The people here have formed a mob. Her real-world qualifications make them hate her more. It always works that way, like when the smartest kid in class will be bullied and hazed, no matter how nice they are at heart.
    2
  16.  @supercarsandlifestyle  She works for free a lot. That's what pro bono means.
    2
  17. The case isn't about her, it's about the article. Even liars have First Amendment rights. Even murderers do.
    2
  18.  @peachbun  It's one hysteria after another, one designated Enemy after another. This is what scares me. You never know which way a mob may turn. People have the illusion of strength from being part of a mob, and the illusion of being exempt from the wrath of the mob. But no one is exempt, ever. No one can ever be sure.
    2
  19.  @casualfoodenjoyer7951  If he admits to emotional abuse, then the article is not defamatory as a matter of law. Did you read the article? Depp already lost a defamation lawsuit in UK against a tabloid which was a much stronger case. His reputation from that, and his reputation in general before Heard published anything, was so bad that he can't prove SHE caused his damages by writing THAT article. See, before a court can order the sheriff to seize someone's bank accounts, car, house, etc., you have to prove that you're entitled to it, for real. Feelings are not enough. Unless you want to vote on Facebook instead. 🤣
    2
  20.  @ragingmouse5547  Heard's article nowhere calls him physically violent. An article in The Sun did, and labeled him a "wife-beater." He sued in the UK and lost. Losing that case damaged his earning ability. (I don't know why that case turned out so badly for him, but anyway. British tabloids are horrid.)
    2
  21.  @GrumpyStoic  You're right. Let me clarify: this is a perfectly normal cross-examination of an opposing witness in a case where the plaintiff is suing the defendant for $50 million. Before a court orders someone to pay money, and seizes their bank account and other assets, grabs their house, and so forth, the plaintiff has to PROVE they really lost $50 million on account of the defendant, and for no other reason. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that, maybe filing suit (due to bitterness? just to get even?) wasn't nice.
    2
  22.  @GrumpyStoic  Wow, you're a kind person. Thanks very much. I'm kind of embarrassed now.
    2
  23.  @Jana-wx3lp  OMG, you are normal. What are you doing here? 🤣
    2
  24. Or . . . Maybe you don't know the law? Could that be it?
    2
  25. @Bri Grant I guess you don't get it. They have to prove Depp was slated to star in another Pirates movie, which he lost out on only because of Heard's opinion piece, and they are failing to prove that.
    2
  26. @Private Banks Do you actually believe that? Or just joking around?
    2
  27.  @ProsperousHobo  They don't have the burden of proof.
    2
  28.  @silkart1  If that were true, then any litigant who declined to talk to your expert witness could derail your case. Obviously not true. (1) Depp has no duty to talk to her, totally his call. His side only had to produce records. (2) That doesn't undermine her assessment, based on the facts she has gleened. If it did, then Heard could have declined to talk to Miss Muffins and undermined his expert. Nope. The fact that no one is seeing this, is evidence that mob thinking is taking over.
    1
  29.  @HaryBallsagna  So, you can diagnose/assess all this, but a person with two Board certifications and experience since the 1970s cannot? Listen to yourself, if you still can. Mobs do not care about right and wrong, they turn on a dime.
    1
  30.  @silkart1  Depp's psychologist is less qualified than Heard's by far, and reached a "pop" diagnosis (a favorite subject of bloggers and youtubers) that literally NO other therapist ever reached. Not one time. And she had a smug, duping delight grin on her face while she did. 🤣 Question: how can you tell a mob is forming? When absolutely no FACTS that might possibly disrupt the narrative ever so slightly are permitted, and cause a huge rush of denunciations. That's how. This degree of irrationality (and over what?) taking form so quickly is astonishing. This episode won't help anyone, male victims or female ones. That part will be forgotten. But the propensity to respond when a group stokes mass hysteria will be greater than it was. That's what always happens. I wonder what the next new thing will be? If the economy really tanks, it will be something worse.
    1
  31.  @TheDr.Umbreon  When anyone who says anything rational and measured and fair is going to be attacked and insulted, especially using a trendy label that no one heard of a year ago and you suddenly see everywhere, then you should ask yourself some questions. A mob can turn on a dime. You can't predict the next Enemy.
    1
  32.  @boliusabol822  Everything you said was true. The most important thing is not to allow any "expert" to substitute their opinion on the veracity of a witness. Only the jury gets to decide who is telling the truth about what.
    1
  33.  @minz456  That could be true, but who was worse isn't an issue in defamation. If both were abusers, both have the free speech right to tell their story in print. That used to be the law, but the First Amendment has taken a hit lately. What happens this time is up for grabs.
    1
  34.  @silkart1  Don't you see that what you're saying doesn't make sense? If it were true, Heard could have declined to talk to Depp's expert. What then? Then she can't make any assessment of their relationship whatsoever, based on examining him and the records they both had to produce? Or would you have found some way around that?
    1
  35.  @boliusabol822  Absolutely
    1
  36.  @rocky13m  That would be what you would think. And when this hysteria dies down, there will be a new hysteria for you to be titillated by. You won't remember all the ridiculous things you believed this time. You'll be primed to believe even more ridiculous things next time.
    1
  37.  @rocky13m  blocked
    1
  38.  @rocky13m  So which were you? Team Russiagate or Team QAnon? Team Vaxx or Team Antivaxx? Team Gabby Petito or Team Brian Laundrie? Team Wills/Kate or Team Harry/Megan? I left out at least ten, I know. Sorry if I missed one that was extremely important to you. It was unintentional.
    1
  39.  @highestqualitypigiron  You think it was news to anyone? Both sides are aware of everything. This is the show for the jury.
    1
  40. Or worse
    1
  41. This defamation case is not about whether Depp was also abused. It is about whether a specific article that that Heard signed and the Washington Post published is defamatory. If Depp also abused her, more than trivially, and more than in self-defense, then the article is NOT defamatory. That's the law. If he wants his story to be heard, he should write an autobiography and it would be the best seller of the decade. 🙄
    1
  42. 9:51 "Within our own borders" -- stop right there I think this gentleman just hit the target.
    1
  43. Of course it is. Depp says Heard's article is defamatory and is responsible for costing him $50,000,000. Depp has to prove that, before the sheriff starts seizing Heard's assets, her bank accounts, her house, etc. The defense gets to show that Depp can't prove $50,000,000 in damages due to Heard's article. Seems like a good idea to me.
    1
  44.  @evewaddington6225  oh my goodness 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  45.  @fernandofranco6391  Women hate other women and love to tell men all about it. It's a compliment, actually. They might welcome a flirtation.
    1
  46.  @BastardOfTheNorth  False.
    1
  47. What would happen if they flew over Hunter Biden's house? 😮
    1
  48. It is evidence of what the tabloids SAID, not evidence that what they said is the truth. It is evidence of "reputation." It can't be introduced, unless reputation bears directly on an issue the plaintiff himself raised, like how to calculate the damages, who caused how much of the damages, etc. How do you think you decide "reputation?" Yeah, the goofy reviews some jerk wrote about you online could count one day. It's possible.
    1
  49. None of this has any bearing on the issue at hand, which is whether a rather mild article is defamatory and caused him $50,000,000 in damages. He already lost a defamation lawsuit in the UK against a tabloid which said much worse things about him. He is the one using the court to settle a score rather than vindicate his rights. He is the one who sued, he is the one who orchestrated this circus. Everything you said about her probably applies to him, too, but you can't see it. Moral panic. Did you read the article? By the way.
    1
  50.  @cerriberry6835  This is another case of mass hysteria. I don't know that an adversarial witness made a correct diagnosis in the first place, and frankly I doubt it. Her assertion that Amber Heard does not have post-traumatic stress, when she had an assault in her past, before meeting Depp, struck me as dubious. Hiring an expert to make it appear as though a key witness is untrustworthy is considered a dirty trick in litigation. Hillary Clinton once tried to do that when she was appointed by a court to represent a rapist of a young teen, maybe younger.
    1