In matters of libel I wouldn't take the opinion of a UK court to any degree, even before their verdict in this matter.
While British judges have been reined in since the early 2000s when they were issuing proclamations that nobody on the planet was to besmirch the reputation of litigants they're still only better than they were. That's not a high bar to clear.
UK judge : "wow let's take this woman's word as proof it all happened as she said. She donated all her divorce settlement to charity, that's proof she's of good moral character! I believe her!"
Except she did not donate the divorce settlement money to charity. She lied about that too.
She won't be able to retry in the UK that may be more favourable to her as that will be trying to claim UK courts supercede US courts, NO ONE wants to open that political briefcase nuke.
So she'd have to try in the US court which, she has no chance, the US courts, unironically, got more credibility having all the case livestreamed and all the evidence heard than the UK case. To go "well this case behind close doors in a foreign country is more legitimate than the one livestreamed" is too much of an own goal that even the feminist judges wouldn't want to touch it.
They'd rather ditch the bitch and find a new way to push their agenda.
Heard has shit lawyers and her appeal doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. She also doesn't have the money to be wasting on frivolous appeals given how much she needs to be paying Depp.
The best thing Heard did for society is prove for all time "bitches lie".
One major advantage that juries have is that they're second to none at judging witness credibility, which means that they're able to sniff out a lying whore like Amber from a mile away. This actually gets the heart of why the Founding Fathers guaranteed the right to trial by jury. They were very concerned about a cabal of elitist judges perverting justice for their own ends, and we saw that in the UK.
Court shopping for the rich and powerful has always been a way for them to avoid justice. Finding an are that caters to women in court isn't all that hard either.
You can't have both a traditionalist mindset society (protect women) that also pushes for equality; it just leads to injustice for all.
No US court will give a shit. But, if one does, then if I were Johnny, I'd sue her ass in Islamic court and insist that ruling also be respected and upheld in the US and UK.
In matters of libel I wouldn't take the opinion of a UK court to any degree, even before their verdict in this matter.
While British judges have been reined in since the early 2000s when they were issuing proclamations that nobody on the planet was to besmirch the reputation of litigants they're still only better than they were. That's not a high bar to clear.
UK judge : "wow let's take this woman's word as proof it all happened as she said. She donated all her divorce settlement to charity, that's proof she's of good moral character! I believe her!"
Except she did not donate the divorce settlement money to charity. She lied about that too.
Excellent. I hope there's a new trial and we can go through that all over again.
And they should jail her ass for contempt if she doesn't pay.
She won't be able to retry in the UK that may be more favourable to her as that will be trying to claim UK courts supercede US courts, NO ONE wants to open that political briefcase nuke.
So she'd have to try in the US court which, she has no chance, the US courts, unironically, got more credibility having all the case livestreamed and all the evidence heard than the UK case. To go "well this case behind close doors in a foreign country is more legitimate than the one livestreamed" is too much of an own goal that even the feminist judges wouldn't want to touch it.
They'd rather ditch the bitch and find a new way to push their agenda.
Heard has shit lawyers and her appeal doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. She also doesn't have the money to be wasting on frivolous appeals given how much she needs to be paying Depp.
The best thing Heard did for society is prove for all time "bitches lie".
One major advantage that juries have is that they're second to none at judging witness credibility, which means that they're able to sniff out a lying whore like Amber from a mile away. This actually gets the heart of why the Founding Fathers guaranteed the right to trial by jury. They were very concerned about a cabal of elitist judges perverting justice for their own ends, and we saw that in the UK.
Court shopping for the rich and powerful has always been a way for them to avoid justice. Finding an are that caters to women in court isn't all that hard either.
You can't have both a traditionalist mindset society (protect women) that also pushes for equality; it just leads to injustice for all.
No US court will give a shit. But, if one does, then if I were Johnny, I'd sue her ass in Islamic court and insist that ruling also be respected and upheld in the US and UK.