Trial by “mockumentary”, that’s all she wanted, and sadly the California law supported it. Your last take was gold to me Andrea, we’re still waiting for her lawsuit and her so called “urge for justice”. Thanks a lot for your always informative analysis.
I'm glad to see Andrea back on!! I truly hope that Brian doesn't back down. I hope that the jury can see through this crazy woman like they did for Johnny. But if they can settle with her admitting to lying. These women are crazy and this comes from a female real DV/SV survivor!! Thank you both!!🙏🙏🙏💖💖💖💯💯💯🪶🪶🪶I also hope that she loses against the father of her child, who she has kidenapped (allegedly for legal sake)!
The custody case seems to have been settled years ago, so forget that. ERW will have to be tortured to near death before she's remotely likely to admit any lying. Amber Heard has been exposed to the world on live TV as a seemingly patholigical liar, but has she admitted a single lie? Not to my knowlwedge
I really hope Manson doesn’t settle. I don’t think that’s the way to go for his career, for justice and for allowing another toxic woman to go free and do it again. No!! Please don’t do that Brian! 😢😮
Possibly years of costly appeals with little chance of anything close to a full vindication? What people need to realize is how rare Depp's victory was. Public figures face such a high hurdle to overcome in such cases - proving that their accusers knowingly falsely accused them or that they could hardly care less whether their allegations were true or false - that winning is too tough for most to achieve. If they're very wealthy - like Depp - and are able to sue in somewhere more likely to side with the accused - Depp found Virginia, Hulk Hogan his home town - there's more hope. But Manson suing someone richer than him in California? Forget it!
In general, a SLAPP lawsuit is an action filed by a plaintiff that intends to silence, censor, or intimidate a defendant by burying them with legal costs in the hopes that they will either refrain from their activities or be pressured into giving up their criticism of the plaintiff due to mounting legal costs. In most cases, the plaintiff of a SLAPP lawsuit is aware that they will not win the case and are simply filing the action to harass or deter the defendant from continuing with their activities. SLAPP laws are why we have anti-SLAPP laws. Well technically we have SLAPP laws because of people like Amber Heard and Evan Rachel Wood.
Technically, there are no SLAPP suits. It's an informal term for what you accurately describe. Depp and Manson filed their suits as a last resort, after their accusers had plenty of itme and scope to spread their lies far and wide. That's far removed from SLAPP suits
I'm on Manson's side but to be fair I have to add that the Phoenix Act was passed into law on January 1, 2020 and extended the statue of limitations to five years (!), not to the intended ten years. So Evan couldn't file her lawsuit because her alleged abuse occured more than 5 years earlier.
Yeah, that was one of several glaring errors made by Burkhart. Sadly, she seems rather flakey and susceptible to suggestion, often rushing to agree with Kurtz, even when the latter is clueless. For a better informed, cautious, considered and nuanced take, see Souithern Law's excellent vids on this case
She’s not talking about the Phoenix Act. She’s talking about California, as of Jan 2023, allowing people to sue in civil court for sexual assaults taking place from Jan 2009 onward.
She'll just say it's too traumatic for her to bring it to trial i would imagine. Even though she acts the opposite on tv, msm and sm where she doesn't seem to have a problem blabbing (non specific details it should be noted). And everyone will just go along with it.
Exactly! For such a short amount of healing she's allegedly undergone, she amazingly has no emotions where genuine emotions would normally seep out -- difficult to "act" those parts, especially on one take.
Like hell she will. Relish the opportunity, morelike. She's craved public stages her entire life. Manson is much more likely to balk at the prospect. Remember, he's the real victim, who's likely suffered real trauma. Her's is entirely faked
I'm sure it use to be the case that you were innocent until proven guilty? Now however, one has to prove their innocence - totally messed up! The legal system needs an overhaul, but how? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject, Andrea & if my suppositions hold any weight or if I'm out of step. Best wishes 😊
Separate society from the legal system. Manson was accused in society which, insofar as it cancelled his career in response to allegations against him, assumed him guilty with no proof. From a legal perspective, Manson alleges Wood and Gore lied, he's suing them, so they are innocent until he proves them guilty.
14:08 not going to say I’m on a “side” because I haven’t seen all the evidence. But I do want to point out that the Phoenix Act only pushed back the statute 5 years. ERW wanted it to go back 10 years because the alleged acts were more than 5 years past (even when the act was passed). So she COULDN’T file her lawsuit. That’s (at least one reason) why she hadn’t. Mad respect for you Andrea but I think this is an important distinction. Let’s not hold it against her when this, at least, isn’t something she could have done.
Burkhart is referring to another law - s2777 - which temporarily extends the Statute of Limitations way back to 2009. But there are multiple conditions that must be met to file, and Burkhart fails to even acknowledge them. That said, as ERW"s allegations are complete fiction. She's no intention of filing any lawsuit, least of all now, when she's gutted his lawsuit and could even soon be free from it if the judge continues to side with her
If he can prove and win the remaining parts of the lawsuit, can he use that evidence to circle back around and sue again for the defamation part? And use the discovery gleaned from this case to overcome the ANTI-SLAAP motion?
Not unless he wins an appeal and evidence the judge has thrown out, is allowed back in again. Anti-SLAPPs are necessarily permanent. They're designed to protect people's right to public participation, when it comes to freely speaking on matters of public interest
If this goes to appeal does it eventually bump back to the same judge or does the whole case move to an appellate court? If they can drop her it’s worth it.
It might go back to the same judge; that depends on many factors, some of which are impossible to know (she might retire, get injured, move to another area, etc). Appeal courts consider whether the law was properly applied; they don't retry cases
ERW may be a better actress on film, but judging from interviews she's given on televised national media outlets, she is unable to pull off the "genuine victim" role. Genuine victims spot it: her language is off, her emotions are off and miraculously healed in such a short amount of time especially to be able to dominate the interview on a national daily show. Maybe she got a bum "genuine victim" script.
If she appears in court as a witness/defendant under oath, she'll likely do her damndest to insure she's expertly briefed and ready to act accordingly.
@@raynehell1217 I don't see how any amount of coaching can get her to emote at the correct moments and say genuine emotive statements. Genuine victims can see right through fairness.
@@raynehell1217 She had the talking points, but not the corresponding emotions at the right time during media interviews. I'm sticking up on popcorn to watch and see if any of her emotive statements match any alleged claims of abuse. Pass the butter.
@@EmbraceTerror Unlike Amber Heard, she's a talented actor able to emote expertly. Underestimate her at your peril. And whille juries can be swayed by such stuff, where she really needs attacking concerns the content of her crazy, contradictory, confused and extreme claims. Exposing their weaknesses should do for her
@@zerowheeler Manson, when asked what type of women he liked: 'Nice ones. I’ve avoided that - unintentionally - in the past. I’ve been described as flypaper for crazy women. It is hard to take on that role when I’m so unreasonably unusual to handle. I guess I’m a wildcat. I find myself wanting to locate a girl who is truly nice, and understands both Brian and Marilyn Manson. It’s person and persona, it’s all of it, it’s a handful. So, someone who is nice enough and kind enough to deal with that. I’m not sure if they make that sort of person. I’ll let you know if I find out. [Sept. 2016] 'I’ve let my guard down, I’ve been wounded. It doesn’t mean you’re the same as I am just because we like the same movies or laugh at the same jokes. If you’re in a Bonnie and Clyde or Natural Born Killers-type relationship, that doesn’t mean you should expect the other person to feel the same way as you, simply because in your f'kd-up mind you think you’re living in a movie, which I do.' [2015]
A wise person ignores slander and does not sue anyone + owes ones choices. Carves a new road one oneself and moves on to other things. Most human beings start solving problems sues serves the other person some slander back and stays a slave to that persons actions and their own choices.
Libel, much more than slander, did for Manson. His career was cancelled within days of her and her coordinately co-conspirators libels. He seemed unable to carve new roads; they were blocked. And then, via an HBO documentary, Wood added to and expanded the scope and audience for her libel. So belatedly he sued.
I think the perspective of him suing to point out the accusers wrongdoings is valid it has proven effective in social media more than in court.Thx for caring.
...i still can't cope with the fact that a judge can put blatant LIES without any proof under the umbrella of the first amendment...you should FIRST prove that what you said is the truth and THEN use that to invoke 1st amendment... Not before. Otherwise anybody can defame anybody unpunished! But beside this [I asked this to @southern Law too] ...what about recusal for bias and or change of venue (for judge's prejudice and/or ESPECIALLY pretrial publicity)? You know, a slander Mockumentary with the BLATANT SICKENING INTENT TO MANIPULATE THE VIEWERS' OPINION (so malicious per se-check Martin DeCoder's video about this. Maybe you can do a coop!) produced by a big company like HBO and aired/spreaded worldwide WHILE the complaint was already filed (and A LOT of doubts were already raised) ...a smear campaign on TV shows/tabloids/social media organised and concocted by the self proclaimed "victims" without showing ANY actual evidence,and backed up by the whole MeToo community...the fact that the smearing was allowed even during a couple of CONGRESS HEARINGS, and that the "main victim" got explicit consent and support by a few SENATORS, again,without ANY previous fact checking or actual proof about the truthfulness of one single claim...I can keep going. And all this without contradictory. Without ANY single "journalist" or politician or presenter or whatever dared to ask for the accused (defamed) party's side of the story. After this lawsuit,if I was Manson's legal team,I'd sue every journal, tabloid,TV show,HBO, Amy Berg,and every single media that has spreaded all this shit pretended it was the truth while knowing there was no proof. Senators included, since they should be a model for the citizenship and the first sponsors of the law and so the presumption of innocence. And they still do it! Even after Smithline's last declarations: nobody talked about this. Nobody invite or want to interview her now.(but when she was an accuser she was welcomed). Last week The Guardian,a prestigious worldwide renowned newspaper, "the world's leading liberal voice", Pulitzer awarded for public service journalism...! You may think they did an inquiry about the case...wrong. The Guardian feel the need to interview the *Brisbane provocateur ""artist"" Illma Gore* about her opinion about the artificial intelligence! And what about the HUMAN intelligence, especially in the MSM?! How the f*** they may think there's ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING on the Earth that can be interested into reading the Illma Gore's opinion about...well...pretty any topic actually,let alone IA...but don't feel the need to investigate or even just talk about this legal mess or question her about her role in it. At this point I can say without regrets that The Guardian should change its name in The Doormat or The *sslicker... So...sorry for being so wordy but I am f*ckin mad mad MAD at this, if it wasn't clear...: ) And I think that there's a HUGE bias about this case in Los Angeles&Hollywood community and public opinion, because of the pretrial smear campaign. And especially in the political (DA office included) environment. ERW (and for some of the same reasons Illma Gore) should be in jail since months, for the whole FBI thing (impersonating an FBI agent,faking the letter and the signature), for faking evidence in a trial,for pergiury, for obstruction of justice (for the tons of false statements to police and federals),for swatting (just to name a few). And last but not the least for parental kidnapping. The fact that she has no charges and she's still not only free like a bird but considered a heroin for the women and the victims,well,tells all to me about the privileged treatment by DA's offices. So I think there's a legal base for this,but I'd love to hear your expert opinion.
Is me too a community? I had a “me too moment” but didn’t defame anyone, or name anyone, it was just to show how many people had been put into a horrible position, not to name people without evidence. Evidence is impossible in many cases anyway, but that wasn’t the point. I guess you either respect judge’s decisions and the law in your country or maybe campaign to change it?
A small minority of most types of crimes are ever prosecuted, or even criminals charged. Even around 50% of murders are unsolved, according to FBI figures. The US, for better or worse - better IMHO - puts great store in free speech, as First Amendment law shows. While it allows all manner of lies to largely go unpunished, it puts the onus and responsibility on us citizens to wise up, get sussed and learn to discern truth from falsehood. Or at least refuse to take any allegation at face value, making skepticism our default mode. Given how much easier it is to lie or be wrong than tell the truth or be right, if the law forbid lies and falsehoods, we'd almost all be criminals. So, rather than having and/or effectively pushing the likes of Manson into blowing $millions on likely futile lawsuits, everyone one of us needs to step up and stand up, treat all allegations with suspicion and treat people innocent until proven guilty
@@Lilacrosepetalleaf It never ceases to amaze me the idiots out there that support people, regardless of gender, who lie, fabricate stories, in ERW's case, forge an FBI document (something that would land any of the rest of us in jail and have charges filed against us, especially since she impersonated a REAL FBI agent!), hacked into computers, organized groups of women to collectively go after one man with false accusations
And you had to announce this, because??? A cry for someone to notice? Ego? Would you announce that you are "taking a break from social media" whilst simultaneously announcing it on social media? Simply & quietly walk away. No one knows you much less cares. I make these points myself, not for attention but to highlight your silly attitude. Enjoy your UA-cam experience elsewhere.
@@rebekahbarry3013 I don't understand your point. I still do not understand how Amber is getting away with all of these things, including faking a forged federal document, forging a real FBI agent, and it's being brushed off and dismissed. If any of us did this or hacked into someone else's computer, we'd be in prison so fast our heads would be spend. How is she and Ilma getting way with all of these breakings of the law, over and over, while Manson is repeatedly thrown under the bus? I've never missed an episode of CK by the way. It's appalling all the special treatment ERW is being given, all while changing her story and lying, and now using this forged federal document to keep their son away from Jamie Bell and manipulate their child. She kidnapped him across state lines and lied. Again, if any of US did that, we'd be in prison. WHY is she getting people tripping over themselves to protect her bullshit lies?
Happy to see you back! We have missed your insightful inputs! ❤️
That is how our injustice system is setup. Victims are punished beyond the most deceptive interpretation of the law.
TT k kill Magen und tja
These two women always impress me with their sincere maturity which let's them have an honest discussion .No games No one up nanshio
Trial by “mockumentary”, that’s all she wanted, and sadly the California law supported it.
Your last take was gold to me Andrea, we’re still waiting for her lawsuit and her so called “urge for justice”.
Thanks a lot for your always informative analysis.
As was said elsewhere, the Phoenix Act only extended the statute of limitations by 5yrs. ERW claimed her abuse ended over a decade ago
Always a great conversation tyvm for honest reporting of the subject
I'm glad to see Andrea back on!! I truly hope that Brian doesn't back down. I hope that the jury can see through this crazy woman like they did for Johnny. But if they can settle with her admitting to lying. These women are crazy and this comes from a female real DV/SV survivor!! Thank you both!!🙏🙏🙏💖💖💖💯💯💯🪶🪶🪶I also hope that she loses against the father of her child, who she has kidenapped (allegedly for legal sake)!
The custody case seems to have been settled years ago, so forget that.
ERW will have to be tortured to near death before she's remotely likely to admit any lying. Amber Heard has been exposed to the world on live TV as a seemingly patholigical liar, but has she admitted a single lie? Not to my knowlwedge
Thank you for the update. Great job as always.
Here’s Part 2 of our convo on my channel: ua-cam.com/video/OqAfyhKWCTo/v-deo.html
Always a top team together
I really hope Manson doesn’t settle. I don’t think that’s the way to go for his career, for justice and for allowing another toxic woman to go free and do it again. No!! Please don’t do that Brian! 😢😮
I agree
Possibly years of costly appeals with little chance of anything close to a full vindication? What people need to realize is how rare Depp's victory was. Public figures face such a high hurdle to overcome in such cases - proving that their accusers knowingly falsely accused them or that they could hardly care less whether their allegations were true or false - that winning is too tough for most to achieve. If they're very wealthy - like Depp - and are able to sue in somewhere more likely to side with the accused - Depp found Virginia, Hulk Hogan his home town - there's more hope. But Manson suing someone richer than him in California? Forget it!
In general, a SLAPP lawsuit is an action filed by a plaintiff that intends to silence, censor, or intimidate a defendant by burying them with legal costs in the hopes that they will either refrain from their activities or be pressured into giving up their criticism of the plaintiff due to mounting legal costs.
In most cases, the plaintiff of a SLAPP lawsuit is aware that they will not win the case and are simply filing the action to harass or deter the defendant from continuing with their activities.
SLAPP laws are why we have anti-SLAPP laws.
Well technically we have SLAPP laws because of people like Amber Heard and Evan Rachel Wood.
Technically, there are no SLAPP suits. It's an informal term for what you accurately describe.
Depp and Manson filed their suits as a last resort, after their accusers had plenty of itme and scope to spread their lies far and wide. That's far removed from SLAPP suits
Another great vídeo girls, you are so awesome.
Love you two together ♥️♥️
It occurs to me, since ERW forged the FBI letter and was using it as her banner, it may be irresistible for her, not to bring it up herself.
Unlike hapless Heard, ERW's savvy enough to let her expert legal team decide what to bring up and what to bury. They've buried it
I'm on Manson's side but to be fair I have to add that the Phoenix Act was passed into law on January 1, 2020 and extended the statue of limitations to five years (!), not to the intended ten years. So Evan couldn't file her lawsuit because her alleged abuse occured more than 5 years earlier.
Yeah, that was one of several glaring errors made by Burkhart. Sadly, she seems rather flakey and susceptible to suggestion, often rushing to agree with Kurtz, even when the latter is clueless.
For a better informed, cautious, considered and nuanced take, see Souithern Law's excellent vids on this case
She’s not talking about the Phoenix Act. She’s talking about California, as of Jan 2023, allowing people to sue in civil court for sexual assaults taking place from Jan 2009 onward.
@@spiderqueen601 If there were attempts at coercing them into silence - eg blackmail, threats or NDAs
I am having JD, AH withdrawal. I want to watch season 2.
She'll just say it's too traumatic for her to bring it to trial i would imagine. Even though she acts the opposite on tv, msm and sm where she doesn't seem to have a problem blabbing (non specific details it should be noted). And everyone will just go along with it.
💯 ☝🏼
Exactly! For such a short amount of healing she's allegedly undergone, she amazingly has no emotions where genuine emotions would normally seep out -- difficult to "act" those parts, especially on one take.
Like hell she will. Relish the opportunity, morelike. She's craved public stages her entire life. Manson is much more likely to balk at the prospect. Remember, he's the real victim, who's likely suffered real trauma. Her's is entirely faked
I'm sure it use to be the case that you were innocent until proven guilty? Now however, one has to prove their innocence - totally messed up!
The legal system needs an overhaul, but how?
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject, Andrea & if my suppositions hold any weight or if I'm out of step.
Best wishes 😊
Separate society from the legal system.
Manson was accused in society which, insofar as it cancelled his career in response to allegations against him, assumed him guilty with no proof.
From a legal perspective, Manson alleges Wood and Gore lied, he's suing them, so they are innocent until he proves them guilty.
Thank you Andrea 🐟🐠🐡🌸
Thank you Andrea and CK!!! ❤
14:08 not going to say I’m on a “side” because I haven’t seen all the evidence. But I do want to point out that the Phoenix Act only pushed back the statute 5 years. ERW wanted it to go back 10 years because the alleged acts were more than 5 years past (even when the act was passed).
So she COULDN’T file her lawsuit. That’s (at least one reason) why she hadn’t. Mad respect for you Andrea but I think this is an important distinction. Let’s not hold it against her when this, at least, isn’t something she could have done.
Burkhart is referring to another law - s2777 - which temporarily extends the Statute of Limitations way back to 2009. But there are multiple conditions that must be met to file, and Burkhart fails to even acknowledge them.
That said, as ERW"s allegations are complete fiction.
She's no intention of filing any lawsuit, least of all now, when she's gutted his lawsuit and could even soon be free from it if the judge continues to side with her
If he can prove and win the remaining parts of the lawsuit, can he use that evidence to circle back around and sue again for the defamation part? And use the discovery gleaned from this case to overcome the ANTI-SLAAP motion?
Not unless he wins an appeal and evidence the judge has thrown out, is allowed back in again.
Anti-SLAPPs are necessarily permanent. They're designed to protect people's right to public participation, when it comes to freely speaking on matters of public interest
Is there a way to push for televised court in this case?
No, but then the odds of what's left of it ever reaching trial-by-jury stage seems remote.
@@raynehell1217 are you a lawyer?
Round of applause. You got it.
If this goes to appeal does it eventually bump back to the same judge or does the whole case move to an appellate court? If they can drop her it’s worth it.
It might go back to the same judge; that depends on many factors, some of which are impossible to know (she might retire, get injured, move to another area, etc).
Appeal courts consider whether the law was properly applied; they don't retry cases
❤❤❤
Thanks!
Thanks Donna! 🐟🐟🐟
What happened to the series on the Gruffudd vs. Evans case?
Planning to release one tomorrow. That will probably be it for now until something new develops in the case.
@@aburkhartlaw OT but I love those 3 little fish behind you. Can you share where you got them? I need them in my life!
@@aburkhartlaw Cheers. It is an interesting case and I really feel for the kids. Above all I hope they come out fine at the end of it.
That's odd. The link took me from the UA-cam app to the mobile site.
I hope this case goes to trial. But I ain't Manson. I think the public will get it. Long road.
ERW may be a better actress on film, but judging from interviews she's given on televised national media outlets, she is unable to pull off the "genuine victim" role. Genuine victims spot it: her language is off, her emotions are off and miraculously healed in such a short amount of time especially to be able to dominate the interview on a national daily show. Maybe she got a bum "genuine victim" script.
If she appears in court as a witness/defendant under oath, she'll likely do her damndest to insure she's expertly briefed and ready to act accordingly.
@@raynehell1217 I don't see how any amount of coaching can get her to emote at the correct moments and say genuine emotive statements. Genuine victims can see right through fairness.
@@raynehell1217 She had the talking points, but not the corresponding emotions at the right time during media interviews. I'm sticking up on popcorn to watch and see if any of her emotive statements match any alleged claims of abuse. Pass the butter.
@@EmbraceTerror Unlike Amber Heard, she's a talented actor able to emote expertly. Underestimate her at your peril. And whille juries can be swayed by such stuff, where she really needs attacking concerns the content of her crazy, contradictory, confused and extreme claims. Exposing their weaknesses should do for her
@@raynehell1217 You're missing my points. I'm okay with that.
I am aware this might be a stupid worry.
Could this decision have a negative impact on JD?
Not that I can see.
Why'd'ya think he sued in Virginia and not California?
Virginia's anti-SLAPP law is much weaker than the one Manson's had to suffer
How were Manson and Depp dating such unsavoury women? It boggles the mind.
Their choice though.
Bewitched by youthful beauty and manipulated by well practiced but disguised psychopathy
@@raynehell1217 I think they are each tricking the other.
@@zerowheeler Manson, when asked what type of women he liked:
'Nice ones.
I’ve avoided that - unintentionally - in the past.
I’ve been described as flypaper for crazy women.
It is hard to take on that role when I’m so unreasonably unusual to handle.
I guess I’m a wildcat.
I find myself wanting to locate a girl who is truly nice, and understands both Brian and Marilyn Manson.
It’s person and persona, it’s all of it, it’s a handful.
So, someone who is nice enough and kind enough to deal with that.
I’m not sure if they make that sort of person.
I’ll let you know if I find out.
[Sept. 2016]
'I’ve let my guard down, I’ve been wounded.
It doesn’t mean you’re the same as I am just because we like the same movies or laugh at the same jokes.
If you’re in a Bonnie and Clyde or Natural Born Killers-type relationship, that doesn’t mean you should expect the other person to feel the same way as you, simply because in your f'kd-up mind you think you’re living in a movie, which I do.'
[2015]
A wise person ignores slander and does not sue anyone + owes ones choices.
Carves a new road one oneself and moves on to other things.
Most human beings start solving problems sues serves the other person some slander back and stays a slave to that persons actions and their own choices.
Libel, much more than slander, did for Manson.
His career was cancelled within days of her and her coordinately co-conspirators libels.
He seemed unable to carve new roads; they were blocked.
And then, via an HBO documentary, Wood added to and expanded the scope and audience for her libel.
So belatedly he sued.
@@raynehell1217 Thx for your perspective.
I think the perspective of him suing to point out the accusers wrongdoings is valid it has proven effective in social media more than in court.Thx for caring.
...i still can't cope with the fact that a judge can put blatant LIES without any proof under the umbrella of the first amendment...you should FIRST prove that what you said is the truth and THEN use that to invoke 1st amendment... Not before. Otherwise anybody can defame anybody unpunished!
But beside this [I asked this to @southern Law too] ...what about recusal for bias and or change of venue (for judge's prejudice and/or ESPECIALLY pretrial publicity)?
You know, a slander Mockumentary with the BLATANT SICKENING INTENT TO MANIPULATE THE VIEWERS' OPINION (so malicious per se-check Martin DeCoder's video about this. Maybe you can do a coop!) produced by a big company like HBO and aired/spreaded worldwide WHILE the complaint was already filed (and A LOT of doubts were already raised) ...a smear campaign on TV shows/tabloids/social media organised and concocted by the self proclaimed "victims" without showing ANY actual evidence,and backed up by the whole MeToo community...the fact that the smearing was allowed even during a couple of CONGRESS HEARINGS, and that the "main victim" got explicit consent and support by a few SENATORS, again,without ANY previous fact checking or actual proof about the truthfulness of one single claim...I can keep going. And all this without contradictory. Without ANY single "journalist" or politician or presenter or whatever dared to ask for the accused (defamed) party's side of the story.
After this lawsuit,if I was Manson's legal team,I'd sue every journal, tabloid,TV show,HBO, Amy Berg,and every single media that has spreaded all this shit pretended it was the truth while knowing there was no proof. Senators included, since they should be a model for the citizenship and the first sponsors of the law and so the presumption of innocence.
And they still do it! Even after Smithline's last declarations: nobody talked about this. Nobody invite or want to interview her now.(but when she was an accuser she was welcomed).
Last week The Guardian,a prestigious worldwide renowned newspaper, "the world's leading liberal voice", Pulitzer awarded for public service journalism...! You may think they did an inquiry about the case...wrong. The Guardian feel the need to interview the *Brisbane provocateur ""artist"" Illma Gore* about her opinion about the artificial intelligence! And what about the HUMAN intelligence, especially in the MSM?! How the f*** they may think there's ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING on the Earth that can be interested into reading the Illma Gore's opinion about...well...pretty any topic actually,let alone IA...but don't feel the need to investigate or even just talk about this legal mess or question her about her role in it.
At this point I can say without regrets that The Guardian should change its name in The Doormat or The *sslicker...
So...sorry for being so wordy but I am f*ckin mad mad MAD at this, if it wasn't clear...: )
And I think that there's a HUGE bias about this case in Los Angeles&Hollywood community and public opinion, because of the pretrial smear campaign. And especially in the political (DA office included) environment.
ERW (and for some of the same reasons Illma Gore) should be in jail since months, for the whole FBI thing (impersonating an FBI agent,faking the letter and the signature), for faking evidence in a trial,for pergiury, for obstruction of justice (for the tons of false statements to police and federals),for swatting (just to name a few). And last but not the least for parental kidnapping.
The fact that she has no charges and she's still not only free like a bird but considered a heroin for the women and the victims,well,tells all to me about the privileged treatment by DA's offices.
So I think there's a legal base for this,but I'd love to hear your expert opinion.
Is me too a community? I had a “me too moment” but didn’t defame anyone, or name anyone, it was just to show how many people had been put into a horrible position, not to name people without evidence.
Evidence is impossible in many cases anyway, but that wasn’t the point.
I guess you either respect judge’s decisions and the law in your country or maybe campaign to change it?
A small minority of most types of crimes are ever prosecuted, or even criminals charged. Even around 50% of murders are unsolved, according to FBI figures.
The US, for better or worse - better IMHO - puts great store in free speech, as First Amendment law shows. While it allows all manner of lies to largely go unpunished, it puts the onus and responsibility on us citizens to wise up, get sussed and learn to discern truth from falsehood. Or at least refuse to take any allegation at face value, making skepticism our default mode.
Given how much easier it is to lie or be wrong than tell the truth or be right, if the law forbid lies and falsehoods, we'd almost all be criminals.
So, rather than having and/or effectively pushing the likes of Manson into blowing $millions on likely futile lawsuits, everyone one of us needs to step up and stand up, treat all allegations with suspicion and treat people innocent until proven guilty
Employ Camille Vazquez!
😇💖🙏🙌
He needs a really strong appeal
☹
First comment! ❤❤❤
😅
Disappointed. Unfollowed.
Ha ha no one cares 😂😂
@@Lilacrosepetalleaf It never ceases to amaze me the idiots out there that support people, regardless of gender, who lie, fabricate stories, in ERW's case, forge an FBI document (something that would land any of the rest of us in jail and have charges filed against us, especially since she impersonated a REAL FBI agent!), hacked into computers, organized groups of women to collectively go after one man with false accusations
And you had to announce this, because??? A cry for someone to notice? Ego?
Would you announce that you are "taking a break from social media" whilst simultaneously announcing it on social media?
Simply & quietly walk away. No one knows you much less cares.
I make these points myself, not for attention but to highlight your silly attitude.
Enjoy your UA-cam experience elsewhere.
Really? What did you expect from this channel?
She's been covering MM for a while.
@@rebekahbarry3013 I don't understand your point. I still do not understand how Amber is getting away with all of these things, including faking a forged federal document, forging a real FBI agent, and it's being brushed off and dismissed. If any of us did this or hacked into someone else's computer, we'd be in prison so fast our heads would be spend. How is she and Ilma getting way with all of these breakings of the law, over and over, while Manson is repeatedly thrown under the bus? I've never missed an episode of CK by the way. It's appalling all the special treatment ERW is being given, all while changing her story and lying, and now using this forged federal document to keep their son away from Jamie Bell and manipulate their child. She kidnapped him across state lines and lied. Again, if any of US did that, we'd be in prison. WHY is she getting people tripping over themselves to protect her bullshit lies?
Apologists.