I would like to contribute my two cents about the case. First, I want to address the 28 billion amount mentioned in the ask. You do realise that this amount of money is enough to buy a whole studio, not just an IP, right?
Secondly, this is a civil case and not a criminal one, which means that no arrests can be made or people can be dragged to testify by force. So Natalie doesn’t hide from anyone.
In this case, the plaintiff is L’Heureux(producer) vs Miller(comic book writer) as a defendant. Again Natalie is not part of this procedure. She is mentioned only as a witness.
The case is on appeal which means L’Heureux has won the case and Miller asked for an appeal of the court’s decision.
In the appeal, the defendant claims that bringing Natalie's words to trial without her having testified is hearsay. When evidence is characterised as hearsay it isn't admissible to court, as the American justice system prefers the actual witnesses of an event.
So Natalie was given information by Miller’s agent personally and she didn't want to testify in court because breaking the trust could have her shunned from the industry.
L'heureux then goes on to say that he couldn't bring Natalie's testimony to trial because she lives in the UK, which is a different legal jurisdiction, and he can't subpoena her, also he mentions the fact that if she testified against Miller, she might have repercussion to her job.
This makes absolute sense because agents and producers are very careful what information they let on because if they appear that they share private information freely that would mean the end of their career.
So from what I get, Natalie didn't testify in the case but that guy made a statement of what she told him to court anyway. Therefore hearsay. Remember this is an appeal, which means that the trial-court judge accepted the evidence.
Again, Natalie wasn't part of the trial. L'heureux made a statement in court on what she told him privately and based one of his 3 claims on her words.
Since L'heureux brought the claim of what Natalie had told him, he had the burden of proof in court. He chose not to subpoena Natalie for the above reasons which is smart because if Natalie was called to testify in court she most possibly would claim that she doesn't remember anything to protect her status in the industry therefore she would cancel L'heureux's first statement. The guy played his card anyway and won.
Now, the defendant asks the appellate court to characterise the evidence as hearsay therefore inadmissible.
Natalie did her job properly. She found out that the rights of the IP mentioned didn’t belong only to one party but both. One party offered to sell the rights for $1 million and when the other party found out, they offered to sell for less ($750K) calling L’Heureux a liar (hence the defamation statement). So Legendary decided to go for the lower price. Eventually, the deal was off.
Another thing I would like to mention is that contrary to the gossip circulating, this case proves that Natalie worked as a creative exec at Legendary.
This is all public information and can be found with one simple Google search.
So she "worked" for legendary. Which I saw someone else stated as well. The problem is, there is much evidence to show that she also lied about her supposed current job through Vertigo. She has neither appeared at any of the films projected gigs nor red carpet events to aid in the promotion of the films themselves. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Thisisjanecitizen IG account proved she was manipulating truths and data around this entire thing which has many people speculating she is fraudulently claiming a VP title that is not hers to claim. Unless she of course bought the promotional title to claim through her paid PR contract? Also the website LinkedIn indeed reflects she has no credits to the specified job titled as well as official pages reflect photographic evidence that she does not attend any known events link to films she claims to take part in. So that is interesting!! Thank you! Anon for the full explanation around this topic as some are not fully aware of the specifics related to the court case itself and the turnout of it. Thank you for the details!
