Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

Puppycow said:
The messages you quoted seem to explain how she could have gotten it. "I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at" and "I am sharing with another girl H..."
If "H" paid half of that and she scraped together the rest by working shifts at a cafe, maybe she had just enough to pay the bond.
I can see the "economic prisoner" argument in a way.
Click to expand...
Here are some straws for you clutch at...

Graspingatstraws.jpg


Puppycow said:
Do businesses in NZ typically "shut up" between Christmas and mid-January?
Click to expand...
Well, not quite as far as mid-January, but essentially yes. Many businesses (especially those that are not in the service industry, such as supermarkets, corner stores, cafeterias and taverns) will close for business for one to two weeks over the Christmas/New Year Break. I used to close my Fuji Image Lab from Christmas Eve until I opened again on the first weekday after January 2. Some others in the local area close until the second week of January - around the 9th to 12th.
Puppycow said:
There are various degrees of destitution and homelessness. Some people are quasi-homeless in the sense that they rely on the kindness of friends or family to have a roof over their head, but don't have a place of their own.
Click to expand...
No. Her claim was that she was completely homeless, sleeping on the beach, and that Gaiman never paid her at all until the very end.

Those claims simply do not stack up with what she says in her messages...

Of course, we cannot believe what she says in those messages because (insert psycho-babble excuses here).
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
She paid a bond for the house - and that is four weeks rent up front... so NZ$1,500. Where the hell did she get that if she was destitute, homeless, living on the beach and "an economic prisoner"
Click to expand...


Puppycow said:
The messages you quoted seem to explain how she could have gotten it. "I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at" and "I am sharing with another girl H..."
If "H" paid half of that and she scraped together the rest by working shifts at a cafe, maybe she had just enough to pay the bond.
I can see the "economic prisoner" argument in a way. Do businesses in NZ typically "shut up" between Christmas and mid-January?
There are various degrees of destitution and homelessness. Some people are quasi-homeless in the sense that they rely on the kindness of friends or family to have a roof over their head, but don't have a place of their own.
Click to expand...

In fact, in the complaint she said that Gaiman had paid her, but this was after some time...

This took place "weeks after she started the job"'

1743761917675.png

Later on....

1743762002800.png
 
Sure there is a lot of he-said, she-said, so if it goes to court it will be interesting to see how much of either person's claims stand up.
 
smartcooky said:
No. Her claim was that she was completely homeless, sleeping on the beach, and that Gaiman never paid her at all until the very end.
Click to expand...

At one stage she says she was sleeping on the beach, but there were lots of stages of the claim.

smartcooky said:
Those claims simply do not stack up with what she says in her messages...

Of course, we cannot believe what she says in those messages because (insert psycho-babble excuses here).
Click to expand...
You're the one clinging to those messages because of your "gold-digger" psychobabble.
 
smartcooky said:
But that is exactly what happens. Its called Trial by Media. On no more than the unsubstantiated word of the accuser, the accused gets vilified and publicly branded a rapist before any evidence is even looked at while the accuser gets to remain anonymous. The accused ends up with the burden to prove they didn't do what they are accused of if want to avoid their life being destroyed. That is a reversal of natural justice.

And the saps in here lap it all up!!
Click to expand...
We can discuss whether it's right or wrong to immediately identify suspects with full name and photo before they're sentenced. They're way more careful about doing that in Norway, for example, often you don't learn the names of criminals even when they're convicted. You can agree or disagree with that, and that's a discussion that might warrant its own thread at some point, but yes, people are definitely judged when they are picked up for, among other things, SA. it's the police sniper's "He's got to have been the target, I just shot him!" rationale from the Four Lions movie.

Do you really think that doesn't go both ways, though? I've talked to lots of SA survivors and read lots and lots of stories, and I've lost count of the horror stories of even close friends and family members not believing survivors when they come forward, often on flimsy grounds like "no, he's such a nice guy, he could've never done that" or "if that was true you'd have told us a long time ago", or your "if you were really abused you'd never have stayed with them for so long". In fact that's a big part of the reason why it takes survivors 12 years on average to break their silence, they know there's a very real chance they'll be shamed, humuliated, have all the blame put on them, or accused of being liars. SA is a taboo topic and the ignorance surrounding it is staggering.
 

The author Neil Gaiman is seeking more than $500,000 from Caroline Wallner, the potter who accused him of sexual misconduct during the time she lived and worked on his property in Woodstock. Gaiman has filed a demand for arbitration, accusing Wallner of
breaching their NDA by sharing her story with the media, including with New York Magazine. In his claim, Gaiman argued that Wallner violated the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of their agreement and is requesting a full repayment of their settlement amount, plus attorneys’ fees and $50,000 for each interview she’s given to the media.
 
Suing people for disclosing the thing you paid them not to disclose is a bold strategy, for someone trying to deny that the thing happened.

Also, the very existence of the NDA is suspect. A "non-disparagement" clause? Innocent people don't pay liars hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop lying about them, and then sue them when they break that agreement. They just skip straight to the lawsuit part, and save that money for their lawyers.
 
theprestige said:
The complaint, you mean? Yes. It's been linked recently in this thread.
Click to expand...


Orphia Nay said:
Do you mean Wallner's lawsuit, or perhaps Gaiman's against Wallner?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant this bit "Gaiman has filed a demand for arbitration,"

I want to know if it solely is based on breaking the NDA or whether there is more to it, such as a defamation claim.

Because if Gaiman is telling the truth (or as some might say, his accuser is a "gold digger"), then I would presume the best approach is to answer the specific claims and maybe sue for defamation. Whereas just going after the NDA looks like the only problem he has is with her telling the truth.
 
Tortoise Media (the podcast creators) say:

"Gaiman has since filed an arbitration claim against Wallner, accusing her of breaching her NDA by speaking to the media about the alleged abuse.

"According to New York Magazine, Wallner has filed her own claim against Gaiman, alleging that he breached his end of the NDA when his lawyer held onto digital evidence of their relationship that was meant to be destroyed."

www.tortoisemedia.com

Neil Gaiman seeks $500,000 from accuser

www.tortoisemedia.com www.tortoisemedia.com

I'll keep looking to see if I can find the document(s).

Eta: nothing on Courtlistener yet.
 
Last edited:
I presume the NDA was under NZ law? If so then it looks like it is generally the same as UK, can't use one to cover up something criminal also have to be specific, wide ranging ones are often found to be unenforceable.
 
Darat said:
I presume the NDA was under NZ law? If so then it looks like it is generally the same as UK, can't use one to cover up something criminal also have to be specific, wide ranging ones are often found to be unenforceable.
Click to expand...
Caroline Wallner lived in New York state, so I'm guessing it's under that jurisdiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom