Wasn't the initial cause of action that she painted him as an abuser in a newspaper article?
In the following I am mostly guessing but you can't miss the headlines. I think his position is that she's a fantasist and a liar. And in fact she's the abuser.
And hers is that he is a liar, druggie and abuser who has ruined her career. So what she wrote was the truth, which means it wan't defamatory.
Whether or not it was defamatory, and whether or not she feels she has rights, indeed whatever the legal position, it looks to me as if writing that article and having it published was a provocation. And he's responded by using the court to fight back. And she's responded in kind. There's the touchpaper and the dumpster fire.
My opinion. Don't use the media as a means to virtue signal/ victim blame your ex over your crappy relationship. Especially if you shat in the marriage bed. And not just metaphorically but actually and maliciously. Fuel on the fire.
I don't doubt it was a terrible marriage. But they both contributed to it. Accept that. Don't fight a battle in the public domain in which you blame your ex for everything. Move on. No?
That's where I got off the bus, anyway. No angels in this story. Just two beautiful people paying attorneys to destroy the other in court where it's safe to do so.
| 