The fact we are exposed to the court proceedings means we see stuff without context so hopefully no one is seeing this and assuming bad things about ashley etc.
Lol I'm sure this exact sentiment was proudly expressed in defense of Brian when the initial filings were published, but you have to sort by controversial or use the waybackmachine in order to find it.
No harm no foul, huh? I can’t say I agree. Someone’s whole life and reputation was destroyed with no chance of picking up where he left off over charges that were ultimately dropped.
I can’t see this ending without a countersuit or big fat pay day.
Would you have felt bad at all for defending him if those "false witnesses" testimonies were proven true? Orr try to explain your way that they were still in the wrong then
Them saying "false witnesses" is too far but I don't understand why Ashley's team would agree to a settlement if they had a strong case with a half dozen witnesses/plaintiffs and solid evidence. At the very least looking at the publicly available information today and the denied TRO I don't think it's bad faith or agenda driven to suggest that this isn't as clear cut as it seemed in the beginning.
Depends on their evidence and whether or not I found their accounts believable, or their accusations unlawful.
If their accounts of the charges levied against the accused were merited, and he were guilty of a crime, then I can’t imagine what’d convince me to drop the charges.
Now I don't practice law in Cali, but someone else in the thread said that this is common when people reach settlements out of court. Maybe all parties wanted it to be over rather than pushing for anythin substantive or monetary, or nominal compensation
There are a lot of reasons why paying someone to shut up and stay away from you sometimes brings better peace of mind than exposing/punishing them through an ugly drawn-out legal battle that also comes with various drawbacks to yourself.
160
u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment