hunter wheres the blow wrote:
Hearing today. Nick's defense trying to get the venue changed. I believe this is usually done because the defense believes a jury selected from locals will be biased against the defendant.
Most people are biased against disgusting monsters.
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
Hearing today. Nick's defense trying to get the venue changed. I believe this is usually done because the defense believes a jury selected from locals will be biased against the defendant.
It might be helpful to point out that there are two cases involving Nick, one criminal, the other civil. Today's hearing involves only the criminal case, in which Nick has been charged with felony sexual battery. This hearing has nothing to do with the civil case, in which former HU runners are suing HU, the Johnsons & various other parties.
The judge in the civil case (the case discussed most recently on this thread) is still considering Huntington's motion to dismiss that case for not meeting the requirements of Title IX, which is the basis of the suit.
If the judge agrees with Huntington and dismisses the federal case, the plaintiffs can refile the case in Indiana courts, where they will be suing under Indiana law, not Title IX.
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
Hearing today. Nick's defense trying to get the venue changed. I believe this is usually done because the defense believes a jury selected from locals will be biased against the defendant.
Update - according to MyCase, the judge denied Johnson’s motion to change venue
Update from the hearing yesterday. Next key date seems to be August 28th:
I read the motion. One of the attorneys for one of the law firms that represents the plaintiffs no longer works at that law firm, so that particular attorney has withdrawn from the case and is no longer representing plaintiffs. The plaintiffs continue to be represented by the other attorneys at that law firm.
pavement88 wrote:
Update from the hearing yesterday. Next key date seems to be August 28th:
Looks like this was extended to October.
As a legal expert I can tell you that the Civil case is nearly dead in the water. The latest police document that was leaked on her was a massive blow to the plaintiffs. Most people got caught up in one small part of the document and failed to realize that there were so many discrepancies between the interviews from the plaintiffs and the defense lawyers will destroy the plaintiffs in depositions (if by some miracle it even gets to that stage). Nearly everyone didn't notice the last few pages of the document where there were drugs turned in BY THE PLANTIFFS that they thought were for sure steroids or something bad, and NONE of the substances were! Aside from the documented issues within the statements that have been shared on here so far there is a much greater issue looming.
The criminal case against Nick was brought by grand jury and doesn't include 99% of the stuff Stoffel had accused Nick of. It's well known that a grand jury is greatly skewed against the defendant as they have no opportunity to defend themselves. So this means that the prosecutor presented a totally one-sided argument and they only came away with one count of one charge! Keep in mind Stoffel accused him of nearly countless crimes.
So now the plaintiffs are stuck because no matter how the criminal case plays out they will lose. If Nick wins the criminal case, then the Civil case will almost certainly destroyed as evidence and testimony is presented against Stoffel's credibility. If Nick loses the criminal case then any insurance coverage at play in this case (the typical way plaintiffs get their money) then the insurance coverage is voided and the plaintiffs get nothing (along with their lawyers)!
At this point the only hope the plaintiffs have is to get a small settlement now. There is a wild scenario that could occur where Nick changes his plea to guilty in order to screw the plaintiffs out of everything. At this point he's already got a criminal record and this could be a small form of payback if he wished to seek revenge. Might sound crazy but at this point people can't think any less of Nick, but the plaintiffs have everything to lose and nothing to gain. The only way their public image can change is for the worse.
Ask any legal expert and they'll tell you that the original document from Jon Little might be one of the worst written legal documents in history that was plagued with major errors. Add in that David Woods had his career ruined by clearly running a one-sided PR campaign for the plaintiffs and you realize that this was a smash and grab campaign that failed miserably. Now their left trying to pick up the pieces and save face. It makes sense why news outlets are slow to report on this topic and why Rojo is so personally obsessed with this topic. Major news outlets probably did their due diligence that David Woods clearly failed to do and decided to avoid the legal liability. Letsrun admins took the story as 100% true but then took it even further by allowing countless slanderous attacks (then falsely claimed they would monitor them better, which then transforms them to publishers). If everything the plantiffs claimed turns out to be exaggerated, or even simply false, Letsrun may cease it exist. Rojo & company NEED this story to be true.
Man, you sure don't write like a "legal expert."
pavement88 wrote:
Man, you sure don't write like a "legal expert."
Ending with a discussion of slander is a classic internet lawyer move. Internet law is seldom pretty, but this is ugly, even by those low standards.
It is puzzling that they don't mention the Title IX issue. Right now, the civil case is on hold while the judge considers a motion to dismiss. The motion claims the plaintiffs have not showed that Huntington meets the conditions needed to be sued under Title IX.
If the judge grants that motiion, the case will be dismissed. Since Title IX is the only federal law involved, plaintiffs will have to re-file in state courts.
For those of you following along with this whole mess, Lauren Johnson has been sued by Emma Wilson’s former coach, Craig Jordan, for defamation (among other things). The filing is available on Indiana’s MyCase website.
It's amazing how much of a mess this whole situation is.
Read through the filing. Not a lot of information right now, but what a mess. It's clear that the Craig was made aware of these statements in July of 2023, but I wonder when the statements in question were actually made.
This quoted post has been removed.
I'm only seeing one case on the MyCase system where's he's listed as a plaintiff.
6 posts were removed from this page.
