It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon 2908 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Toblerone5

  why would you bother to change the address of a company if you were closing it down?

  Could it be he didn't want his wife to see how much money was in that comp. bank account when he closed it? I imagine that the bank ? will send him some document in the mail that he has to sign to closed the business so he put his adress in Zagreb ? I wonder on the court document that Kim got ,wich adress did he put ? the Sisak one or Zagreb ?

  Oh and yes I was curious to see where he lives so I went on Google map. Excuse me he lives in a nice neighbourhood for a guy that is whining he lost a lot of income because of the judgmental toxic shit stirrer ex-jw community... He keeps referring to where he lives as the attic. Shut up ! Where is wife and kids lives is in the attic that they turn into an appartment . Not him , it must be like a loft. Again twisting thinks to make it looks like he's does have a lot of money , he had to rent an Attic...
  It was funny cause the Google maps satellite was taking in march 2023...You can see his BMW park in the street.
• 

  Toblerone5

  Fun facts.😁 Did you know that when Lloyd made is video ( scandals the aftermath) where he was whinning about Altworldly video he made about him ,at that time that video had 53k views...Now it has 55.353 views !

  So Thanks Mister Evans ! You manage to boost that video to a big 2K views Just with your big fat mouth ! 🤣

  And people who went to see it , was probably a lot of your subscribers... GOOD JOB!👍😁
• 

  Diogenesister

  Pr0ner for defamation or libel to be proved you have to prove the person you're suing knowingly told a lie with intent to harm. As in, saw overwhelming evidence that what they were saying was untrue and still said it. His whole defense is "my word against theirs". The problem is that he will have to prove to a judge his word is good enough

  I checked and the insult clause in Croatia (as well as a few other places) is considered by the ECtHR as an antiquated law originally aimed at protection of the office of a public, or government figure.

  So...the office of the Head Dickhead EXJW??😂

  You are correct it has a very high bar in respect of proof. It is not the Civil 'on balance of probabilities' but the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

  So as you say, Lloyd will have to prove that each one of you made statements of fact (not opinions) intended to cause harm - knowing it was untrue.
  
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  NB out of interest courts give humourous statements far more latitude and a leaflet I read written by an educational institution said quite a few plaintiffs come away with worse reputations than when they began😂

  Also, burden of proof is in two parts as follows:-

  If the plaintiff can prove the defendant

  1. Made a given statement (considered defamatory) the burden of proof is on the défendent to prove :-

  2. that the statement did not damage plaintiffs reputation

  Burden of proof for 2. In the USA is reversed - Kim & Mikey throw one sentence at old Novosel - New York Times Co.V. Sullivan 1964 😂
• 

  JeffT

  I don't think we've talked about The Streisand Effect in relation to Lloyd. (I did search and got one hit on an unrelated discussion.) I think Lloyd's troubles are a perfect example of this.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
• 

  Ron.W.

  Thank you Jeff. I hadn't really heard about that. Most interesting, and very apt!

  The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew greater attention to the photograph in 2003.[1]
• 

  pr0ner

  @Diogenesister

  I think the whole thing is tricky since we're not Croatian. When I was doing my research before the biggest win for defamation was from a politician. I also found an article (link below) about the system is abused but 90-95% of cases are thrown out and the defendants typically win. It also states that defamation is very hard to prove due to how the law is written. This article also gives more clarity on what his lawyer is doing.

  Based on the article below it would seem these frivolous lawsuits are common and take forever to get through the court system. Sometimes 5-7 years. A tactic meant to bleed out the defendant in a court case. Would explain why the lawyer took his money and did what he did. I also think they thought it would take a lot longer for the court to get back to them.
  
  https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Croatia/Media-freedom-in-Croatia-the-problem-is-not-the-laws-but-their-application-217769
  
• 

  Debra02

  No this isn't a new account but I couldn't get back in with my original account because it said it doesn't exist

  Anyway there is proof Lloyd went to Thailand for naughty fun in the leaked letter he wrote his wife, where he states she knew he wasn't going to live like a monk over there
• 

  pr0ner

  For me, aside from the second-hand evidence which he hadn't refuted. The evidence was in his first public statement after Kim announced she was going to do a livestream with me. Where he said anyone he had seen "sex worker or otherwise". He needs to show hard evidence the sex worker he "dated" was in fact really dating. The defense has to prove it had reason to believe that these allegations were true. Part of that defense is that Lloyd has a history of lying. Then, get him on the stand and show him lying again. Without any verifiable evidence, evidence that has never been given to the defense, my understanding of the Croatian laws around this is that he would lose his case. Defamation and libel require malice. Something he won't be able to prove.

  All of his "evidence" is going to be his word against ours or evidence no one saw. So they had a reasonable reason to believe what they saw was true. That's why it's so difficult no matter what country you're in to win a case. Especially in a country like the USA where there is a jury. He would have 0% of winning any case he filed there. Solely because he'd be so unlikable to a jury and a proven liar.

  This of course is ignoring the basic legal principle of jurisdiction. He has to prove the crime took place on Croatian soil. Or have some sort of extradition treaty for low-level crimes.

  My theory now is he is betting on the Croatian court system being "glacially slow" knowing full well they will reject it. All the while he can let this blow over and recover. Just a tough time in the distant past. When the court made a decision he and his lawyers were caught off guard. Now they can re-file and cross their finger. Hoping it takes longer this time.

  It will likely backfire again and the biggest loser will always be his pocketbook. The thing some might speculate he is likely trying to make look as small as possible for his ex-wife. Alimony and child support are coming if she is indeed following through with the divorce.
• 

  TonusOH

  pr0ner: My theory now is he is betting on the Croatian court system being "glacially slow" knowing full well they will reject it.

  That is my thought as well, that he would love for it to drag on for several years. He can complain to his supporters that the legal system is too slow, but that he is in for the long haul, and so on. And then he can either hope they forget about it, or use the dismissal as another launching point.

  And I agree that the case will be dismissed because none of the "crimes" were committed on Croatian soil. So he can continue to spin it as he pleases, knowing that it will never get anywhere.

  Because one thing to remember is that the claims made by Kim are not a "he said/she said" situation. Their communication was through messenger apps. Kim has mentioned that she has all of the messages he sent and discussions they had. If he thought that there was even a small chance that the case would progress to an actual trial, he would not have filed against Kim, since she can present his own words to the court.

  It's no accident that he made her the face of the 'defamation campaign' and tried to destroy her. One can only imagine the damage she could do by releasing all of his messages...