Like I've said, I haven't got a dog in this fight.
I am now nearing the end of this and the testimony. And I think I'm willing to rest my case that both parties are abusive.
I can't tell you who started this circle:
abuse-reactionary violence- reconciliation. And round and round we go.
However on the actual cases, that is monetary damage. I do not believe AH has a proven counter claim of 100million of losses.
But...this is where I am going to get flamed by some.
With regards to the op-ed. I do believe that some defamation has taken place against JD. I believe this because AH has attempted to portray herself as a sole victim, negating all her negative behaviour in the relationship. She has not inferred her abusive behaviour, only that she was ever the victim. This has then cast JD out to be the "sole abuser" "the sole aggressor" when in fact, some of the violence that occured could have been retaliatory, self defence, and also JD has been a victim himself.
I'd award damages to JD but not the full 50million. Circa 5million.