McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 16:21:08 GMT -6
|
|
Cher
Global Moderator
BMB, GD, Special Interests
Posts: 57,484 Likes: 442,274
|
Post by Cher on Mar 28, 2023 16:24:15 GMT -6
These d-list lawyers need to hire him.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 16:25:35 GMT -6
These d-list lawyers need to hire him. the write up "something that confounded lawyers on both sides..."
|
|
Cher
Global Moderator
BMB, GD, Special Interests
Posts: 57,484 Likes: 442,274
|
Post by Cher on Mar 28, 2023 16:27:31 GMT -6
These d-list lawyers need to hire him. the write up "something that confounded lawyers on both sides..." And the guy solved it by …. Making a login.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 16:34:32 GMT -6
the write up "something that confounded lawyers on both sides..." And the guy solved it by …. Making a login. Like a teenager probably could have went there. You know earlier when we were talking about spoilation in this thread, I was wondering who originally posted the thread. I could see you losing the video if it was sent to you in an email and you never thought to download it but someone had to be the sender. I am still laughing.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 16:35:07 GMT -6
I was going to finish summarizing testimony but since we now have a video, I am not. LOL
|
|
Eagles
Opal
Posts: 8,387 Likes: 43,039
|
Post by Eagles on Mar 28, 2023 16:47:27 GMT -6
the write up "something that confounded lawyers on both sides..." And the guy solved it by …. Making a login. I'm honestly disappointed you didn't even attempt it.
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 985 Likes: 2,378
|
Post by bloom on Mar 28, 2023 17:06:27 GMT -6
she is, but that is totally reasonable in my opinion! why shouldn't she be reimbursed? I'm not some GP stan, just trying to be open minded. I think TS has a separate claim against DV, too. It’s totally reasonable for a celebrity worth millions to be asking for lawyer fees from someone who is not worth as much? Especially when she can’t prove he isn’t lying? I don’t know it seems like a lot but I know it’s a thing I’ve just never seen celebrities doing it. Yes, it's reasonable and she's well within her rights to file the claim.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 17:31:35 GMT -6
No one said it was not reasonable or within her rights.
Just a note.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 17:32:44 GMT -6
No one said it was not reasonable or within her rights.
Just a note.
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 985 Likes: 2,378
|
Post by bloom on Mar 28, 2023 19:32:19 GMT -6
No one said it was not reasonable or within her rights. Just a note. Right. Not explicitly, but I think it was questioned up thread why she would do that with the consideration that the doctor may be worth worth less than she is. And I think you called it a farce...?
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 20:02:21 GMT -6
No one said it was not reasonable or within her rights. Just a note. Right. Not explicitly, but I think it was questioned up thread why she would do that with the consideration that the doctor may be worth worth less than she is. And I think you called it a farce...? There was never a question. My issue was her attorney harping and harping on the $1 like she is moving on principle and not saying that no she's suing got attorney's costs and the $1 would be for punitive or something. My issue was not being forthcoming. As it's his right to do so as an attorney to hope the jury just sees the $1. I said farce in regards to her lawyer saying $1 like that's all. Lastly the genre of farce is choreographed confusion so I stand on my word usage here. The absurdity of saying only $1 here. And it must be working because someone in the other thread said they believed her based on the $1. Farce does not mean she is not acting within her rights. See I knew you were talking about me and what I said but just not talking to me. 👀
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 985 Likes: 2,378
|
Post by bloom on Mar 28, 2023 20:28:41 GMT -6
Right. Not explicitly, but I think it was questioned up thread why she would do that with the consideration that the doctor may be worth worth less than she is. And I think you called it a farce...? There was never a question. My issue was her attorney harping and harping on the $1 like she is moving on principle and not saying that no she's suing got attorney's costs and the $1 would be for punitive or something. My issue was not being forthcoming. As it's his right to do so as an attorney to hope the jury just sees the $1. I said farce in regards to her lawyer saying $1 like that's all. Lastly the genre of farce is choreographed confusion so I stand on my word usage here. The absurdity of saying only $1 here. And it must be working because someone in the other thread said they believed her based on the $1. Farce does not mean she is not acting within her rights. See I knew you were talking about me and what I said but just not talking to me. 👀 I didn't get the whole harping on a dollar vibe, but I did see her attorney shutting it down whenever the second claim for attorney fees was brought up. I need to think about what you're saying because I don't know if I considered that they are using that to illustrate innocence/truth. I was looking at it as more of principal/symbolism. Like, not about the money and she's not going to allow this guy to make these claims without a fight. Also, lest not quickly forget that TSs lawyers are shutting it down whenever his suit against DV comes up. Pretty sure they both have separate claims. I looked back and ya said the dollar is a farce because she's asking for attorney fees. What am I missing here? I also said I think you said it. I'm not talking around you intentionally. Just trying to have a conversation.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 28, 2023 22:17:30 GMT -6
There was never a question. My issue was her attorney harping and harping on the $1 like she is moving on principle and not saying that no she's suing got attorney's costs and the $1 would be for punitive or something. My issue was not being forthcoming. As it's his right to do so as an attorney to hope the jury just sees the $1. I said farce in regards to her lawyer saying $1 like that's all. Lastly the genre of farce is choreographed confusion so I stand on my word usage here. The absurdity of saying only $1 here. And it must be working because someone in the other thread said they believed her based on the $1. Farce does not mean she is not acting within her rights. See I knew you were talking about me and what I said but just not talking to me. 👀 I didn't get the whole harping on a dollar vibe, but I did see her attorney shutting it down whenever the second claim for attorney fees was brought up. I need to think about what you're saying because I don't know if I considered that they are using that to illustrate innocence/truth. I was looking at it as more of principal/symbolism. Like, not about the money and she's not going to allow this guy to make these claims without a fight. Also, lest not quickly forget that TSs lawyers are shutting it down whenever his suit against DV comes up. Pretty sure they both have separate claims. I looked back and ya said the dollar is a farce because she's asking for attorney fees. What am I missing here? I also said I think you said it. I'm not talking around you intentionally. Just trying to have a conversation. it's a tactic done in PR and legal cases. That the person is not doing it for or about the money, that's it's the principle etc. Like when Amber Heard lied and said she donated her divorce settlement to charity. It gave her instant credibility immediately and to this very day even though she lied about the donation. I said farce because she's suing for $1 plus attorney's fees and her attorney just says the $1 part.
|
|
adelbert
Amethyst
Posts: 6,994 Likes: 40,180
|
Post by adelbert on Mar 29, 2023 1:36:50 GMT -6
Ooh the real video has popped up. I feel like this might be the only thing that can change this from a he said/she said situation. Unless the person wasn't focused on the crash while it happened,looking over a second too late and you still have no idea who caused it.
|
|
|
Post by angelashly on Mar 29, 2023 6:26:51 GMT -6
it's a tactic done in PR and legal cases. That the person is not doing it for or about the money, that's it's the principle etc. Like when Amber Heard lied and said she donated her divorce settlement to charity. It gave her instant credibility immediately and to this very day even though she lied about the donation. I said farce because she's suing for $1 plus attorney's fees and her attorney just says the $1 part. Isn’t it just because she is suing for the amount of $1 and acquiring back the legal fees you had to spend on the thing is a totally separate thing? Like that’s just the way it is and the terms used in court are correct when they say suing for X amount. Ok just looked up; The Florida Supreme Court has stated that an attorneys’ fee claim is held not to be part of the party’s substantive claim because it is intended only to make the successful party whole by reimbursing it for the expense of litigation.1 A post-judgment motion for fees raises a “collateral and independent claim” which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time, notwithstanding the conclusion of the main claim.2 It’s because she wants to look good in the public and show that she is doing this on principle and the dr is taking advantage of suing a celebrity It can all be true. She wants to be made whole and she can and she is trying to give herself good PR and him bad PR.
|
|
elle
Ruby
Posts: 17,693 Likes: 113,361
|
Post by elle on Mar 29, 2023 6:28:04 GMT -6
|
|
bloom
Gold
Posts: 985 Likes: 2,378
|
Post by bloom on Mar 29, 2023 6:34:03 GMT -6
it's a tactic done in PR and legal cases. That the person is not doing it for or about the money, that's it's the principle etc. Like when Amber Heard lied and said she donated her divorce settlement to charity. It gave her instant credibility immediately and to this very day even though she lied about the donation. I said farce because she's suing for $1 plus attorney's fees and her attorney just says the $1 part. Isn’t it just because she is suing for the amount of $1 and acquiring back the legal fees you had to spend on the thing is a totally separate thing? Like that’s just the way it is and the terms used in court are correct when they say suing for X amount. Ok just looked up; The Florida Supreme Court has stated that an attorneys’ fee claim is held not to be part of the party’s substantive claim because it is intended only to make the successful party whole by reimbursing it for the expense of litigation.1 A post-judgment motion for fees raises a “collateral and independent claim” which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time, notwithstanding the conclusion of the main claim.2 that's how I understand it. they're separate things, separate trials, blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by angelashly on Mar 29, 2023 6:42:39 GMT -6
It’s because she wants to look good in the public and show that she is doing this on principle and the dr is taking advantage of suing a celebrity It can all be true. She wants to be made whole and she can and she is trying to give herself good PR and him bad PR. But trials and legal terms and the way they run are not decided by her. She cannot influence what legally has to be stated for the court. Her lawyer can but ok
|
|
Cher
Global Moderator
BMB, GD, Special Interests
Posts: 57,484 Likes: 442,274
|
Post by Cher on Mar 29, 2023 6:43:14 GMT -6
I noted that I thought suing for the dollar made it interesting not because it’s only a dollar but bc $300k is nothing to GP. I can promise you this is not the only lawsuit she got this year. I am positive her people knew a GP ski trial would be ridiculous. The fact that she didn’t pay go away money and chose to go to trial says something to me.
The atty fee argument made Sanderson’s lawyer is a distraction. It’s a common thing.
|
|
|
Post by angelashly on Mar 29, 2023 6:44:08 GMT -6
The press is picking up on the $1 even though lawyer fees are also included and that is because that is the narrative being pushed by her lawyers because it makes her look good. It’s classic celebrity not just her but yes it’s being done
|
|
Cher
Global Moderator
BMB, GD, Special Interests
Posts: 57,484 Likes: 442,274
|
Post by Cher on Mar 29, 2023 6:51:24 GMT -6
Also, GP never said it was a SA. She said she was trying to figure out what the guy was doing, whether it was a prank or something perverted. Sanderson’s atty called it a SA and GP clarified that it was a fleeting thought. GP said the way he crashed into her was really weird, he slowly pressed himself up against her, grunting. I’ve been skiied into and I’ve skiied into people, it happens. I’ve been “crashed into” where someone has no control and comes barreling into you or someone has some control and tries to stop and might give you a heads up. If it happened like she said, yeah, fuck that guy. It’s fucking weird. But I didn’t think she said it to make you think it was a SA. She was laying the groundwork why she yelled at the guy and cursed at him.
|
|
|
Post by angelashly on Mar 29, 2023 7:01:41 GMT -6
What? Her lawyer has to present the dollar amount she is suing for. Which is $1. Which is why it was said. ‘an attorneys’ fee claim($300k) is held not to be part of the party’s substantive claim (not part of the claim therefore no relevance in current court proceedings) because it is intended only to make the successful party whole by reimbursing it for the expense of litigation.(will only be given if Paltrow isn’t at fault) A post-judgment motion for fees raises a “collateral and independent claim” (not part of current trial) which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time, notwithstanding the conclusion of the main claim. Ok
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 29, 2023 7:22:25 GMT -6
Guys, asking for attorneys fees is the most mundane and routine part of civil litigation.
It’s not about who is rich and famous and who isn’t.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 7:27:53 GMT -6
it's a tactic done in PR and legal cases. That the person is not doing it for or about the money, that's it's the principle etc. Like when Amber Heard lied and said she donated her divorce settlement to charity. It gave her instant credibility immediately and to this very day even though she lied about the donation. I said farce because she's suing for $1 plus attorney's fees and her attorney just says the $1 part. Isn’t it just because she is suing for the amount of $1 and acquiring back the legal fees you had to spend on the thing is a totally separate thing? Like that’s just the way it is and the terms used in court are correct when they say suing for X amount. Ok just looked up; The Florida Supreme Court has stated that an attorneys’ fee claim is held not to be part of the party’s substantive claim because it is intended only to make the successful party whole by reimbursing it for the expense of litigation.1 A post-judgment motion for fees raises a “collateral and independent claim” which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time, notwithstanding the conclusion of the main claim.2 There is no issue with her getting her fees back. No one said that. It's the portrayal by her lawyer that she's only suing for $1 when that's not fully it. It gives persons the impression that it's not about the money etc. So this person must be more credible. Even on this forum someone said the very thing in the blinds thread. "Oh it must be the principle cause she's only suing for $1." Her attorneys fees will probably total more than what the man is suing for 🤷🏻♀️. I find that and her SA comment to be 🤔
|
|
|
Post by SweetPotato on Mar 29, 2023 7:29:46 GMT -6
I have no idea which of them is at fault. I hope the video makes it very clear.
But some of you are desperate for her to be at fault based on not liking her personality. I don’t like her either - just want to point out it’s a great example of how KTSE isn’t a real thing
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 7:33:23 GMT -6
I'm not talking about the legal fees anymore. It's like some of you are choosing not to read about what is being said. It's not about the legal fees. Fuck them fees.
It's the portrayal that she's suing for $1. Yes maybe for punitive damages but that's not all.
Now today your deer in headlights that people do shit for tactics or PR. Oh OK. 🙄😂
Let someone being suing your ass and punitively $1 and you would suddenly have a great understanding.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 7:38:27 GMT -6
Also, GP never said it was a SA. She said she was trying to figure out what the guy was doing, whether it was a prank or something perverted. Sanderson’s atty called it a SA and GP clarified that it was a fleeting thought. GP said the way he crashed into her was really weird, he slowly pressed himself up against her, grunting. I’ve been skiied into and I’ve skiied into people, it happens. I’ve been “crashed into” where someone has no control and comes barreling into you or someone has some control and tries to stop and might give you a heads up. If it happened like she said, yeah, fuck that guy. It’s fucking weird. But I didn’t think she said it to make you think it was a SA. She was laying the groundwork why she yelled at the guy and cursed at him. I guess for me this clearly spells a tactic to say you had a fleeting thought something perverted was being done when you now have the benefit of hindsight and it was broad daylight and all these people around. Her kids are alleged witnesses. Yet you give credibility to it? When you know it can be a tactic in court? It just surprises me coming from you I guess.
|
|
flojo
Sapphire
Posts: 3,393 Likes: 15,246
|
Post by flojo on Mar 29, 2023 7:39:01 GMT -6
As much as I think Goop is insufferable, I feel like she’s telling the truth and she’s not at fault.
Re: the thought that she might not be settling the claim out of principle, she likely wouldn’t even have a say in settling if her insurance is defending the claim. I thought I read that they were.
|
|
McBenny
Unicorn
#sickomode
Posts: 52,183 Likes: 296,687
|
Post by McBenny on Mar 29, 2023 7:41:14 GMT -6
Buuut isn’t it just a countersuing because she was sued first? She didn’t say I must sue this man for one dollar out of principle because he hit me on a ski slope. It’s because she is being sued and she’s like wait a fucking minute, no. This right here what you are saying adds nothing to the conversation that's being had here. It comes off trolling because it is literally repeating the same shit you said but in a different way. Let me be clear for you: No one said she cannot sue for her legal costs. No one said that. No one is confused about who sued who first.
|
|