first tweet he made with third claim had to be at least 5 weeks ago if not longer
yet notta, zilch, squadush from Roberts in terms of a cease & desist or a defamation lawsuit !
maybe he cant find a good defamation attorney?
or more likely he knows Lin has the evidence?
Wood's source says that Roberts's illegally adopted children were from Wales, though they were moved to Ireland before the adoption was finalised.
Here in Wales we did have a problem a few years ago with people who were at risk of having their children taken off them by Social Services fleeing to Ireland and then onto the continent. There was an ultra-shady old ex-pat based in Monaco helping them do it, he bragged about it in a news piece.
Just because some of those being helped were the parents, it doesn't mean that in all cases. In essence he (and others like him) were able to move children to wherever was wanted for whoever wanted.
Wales's First Minister, Mark Drakeford, is a previous child services Social Worker, up to quite high up levels (he's now a fellow of Cardiff University, still doing articles on social work theory and practice).
He has two sons who both have criminal records. One of them is currently serving time for violent rape. Before he went down, he'd previously been charged with... sexual assault on a minor.
It's a big jigsaw, and who knows who's in it.
Roberts wants to hire the best defamation lawyer, but thats Lin Wood. Poor Roberts.
Dread Pedo Roberts.
No, I don't think he's crazy. The guy has had a very long career as a trial lawyer specializing in defamation cases. He knows exactly what he's doing with every single tweet and public statement. He's at least got that whistleblower testimony to back up his claims.
That said, silence is probably the best course of option for John Roberts. He's likely hoping that others dismiss Wood as a nutter and that it's all eventually forgotten with the Xiden administration. Even if he were confident he could win, the fact that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS is personally suing someone would bring unnecessary attention on things we all know the DS wants to keep very hidden. Transparency is their enemy.
I’m fairly certain that if you sue someone, you open yourself to the “Discovery” process (think of the Dominion lawsuit against Sidney, for example). I doubt he wants to open the door for Wood.
The fact that they are not trying to Barry Lin on his claims is huge to me. I think Lin is the real deal.
I don't think he had a choice. Pretty sure that it's in his script. This is all a great movie.
...in exchange for ability to keep his head, literally
yeh, that is a scenario i can fathom
David Icke is calling the British monarchy archons for ages. He also stated the the prime minister E. Heath, was killing babies. David Icke got never a law suit.
The best way to win here is not to fight.
They aren't scared, if he has evidence then you'll deal with that but if he doesn't why look scared by suing him?
You have to prove damages in a defamation case. What damage has Lin done to CJ Robert's life?
None, really. Best to ignore and make him seem beneath your notice.
If I were to make such a claim here, about you - that is, call you a pedo - would you feel obligated to respond to me in any way? If the assertion is blatantly false, wouldn't you just ignore me as a crazy dude on the internet? Responding to me would dignify and continue the assertion. Put another way; if you were to accuse me of being a pedo, and I know I am not a pedo, how would I even begin to prove that I'm not? How does anyone prove they are NOT something? I could be a God-fearing, 'perfect' guy but if you want to believe I'm a pedo, I don't think there's anything I could possibly to do prove you wrong. So - I think I'd just ignore you, which is what Roberts is obviously doing.
couple of things...
you and i are unknowns with no public persona and not much influence
for roberts to bring claim he'd be demanding from Lin that HE PROVE he had a basis for his outrageous claims. without a basis Roberts very likely wins given the harm to his persona from such a wild claim. Roberts would have no obligation to prove a negative
Right you are, as the old Roman law states: negative facts must not to be proven (negativa non sunt probanda).
He's a defamation lawyer...he knows better so he has the evidence to back up his suggestions about Roberts plain an simple.
I hate to be the 18th doot here, but if not me, it’d be someone else, so...
DOOT!