Legal Analysis – Jessica Yaniv’s Response To Hamm

On August 19, 2020, Jessica Yaniv aka Jessica Simpson aka Jonathan Yaniv aka Whatthefuck IshedoingNow doubled down on his claim that Amy Hamm, a young mother that made the horrible mistake of (GASP!) walking into the bathroom, sexually assaulted him by taking his picture over the stall. He left out the part that his mother was also in the bathroom and, if Amy was indeed doing this, why didn’t Mommy Dearest step in? I digress..

We published our initial thoughts on this document here, and reached out to a MeowMix lawyer friend for his expertise. He knows who he is, and we’re very grateful for his support. His thoughts are below.

First thoughts – parts 1-3 are pretty standard and JY filled them out correctly. It’s virtually impossible to screw this part up.

Now it get’s interesting. I’m going to copy paste our lawyer friends thoughts into this because I simply can’t say it any better than he does.

Part 4 is a doozy. If you look closely at Amy’s application to strike, para. 1 of Part 2 says exactly what JY (or JS now?) should have said: the facts and the law are in the counterclaim. JY shouldn’t be vomiting up the facts again.

There are a few minor inconsistencies between the response / counterclaim and the response to the application to strike. There are also new facts being alleged in the response to the application (the PNE, suicide, hospitalization) that weren’t in the pleadings. You can’t do that. The new “facts” were known to JY at the time of the pleadings and a large amount of time has elapsed. You can usually get away with amending pleadings once, but the whole thing is just such a shitshow that the judge will probably just toss the whole thing.

Para. 1 alleges the police were recommending charges. First of all, police should not assess the likelihood of conviction; the Crown does. Second, it’s a lie, which is something you should not do in an application to the Court. It also is strategically idiotic, because if this somehow goes to trial, all the police/sheriff documents are going to be disclosed and Amy will call the sheriffs as witnesses. Judges tend to believe the sheriffs who literally provide security for the court.

Para. 3 is an admission of all three of the elements of defamation: a statement impugning the plaintiff’s reputation was communicated to a third party and that the statement referred to the plaintiff. What a moron.

Para. 5 is irrelevant. JY has every right to file counterclaims, but Amy also has every right to file an application to strike it and a judge has every right to grant the application.

Para. 7 doesn’t really counter Amy’s application. It’s also evidence of malice, which would defeat a defence of qualified privilege. It alleges two criminal offences, sexual assault and defamatory libel (s 232, Criminal Code), though I don’t think JY knows about the crime and is using it in a general sense.

At para. 8 JY says a list of documents will be filed shortly. It doesn’t seem like JY actually served particulars on Amy, which is required if JY is asserting a defence of truth under BC Civil Rule 3-7(21)(b).

Also, a list of documents for discovery should have been served by each party on the other within 5 weeks of the final pleadings (Rule 7-1(1), Form 22). This deadline may have been suspended by some of the Covid emergency orders. The parties have the right to then examine the documents. Again, judges sometimes let self-reps get away with a little extra time. However, if a lawyer tried this, the judge would give them hell. It’s also a good way to get some costs units awarded against you. Given that most of the “documents” are tweets, however, I don’t know whether a judge would award much because it’s not actually going to take much time.

In para. 13, that woman who shared office space is Morgane Oger, who coincidentally also happens to think JY is a predator and paedophile.

Part 5 is inane. Also, I think JY’s racism is showing. Anyone can litigate in BC as long as there is a real and substantial connection between the cause of action and the forum (Club Resorts v Van Breda). (NB – conflict of laws was one of my favourite subjects 🙂 It has nothing to do with citizenship.

At para. 3, civil court and Supreme Court are kind of the same thing – civil just means it’s not a criminal matter (sometimes the term is also used to exclude family cases). There’s also not an actual legal basis cited – no case law and not the BC Civil Rules. The “legal basis” is basically “I want to sue her because I can”.

The only way this is taking only 45 minutes (Amy estimated 2 hours) is if the judge loses it and strikes the counterclaim after about 10 minutes of JY whinging like with Kari Simpson. Also, I’m not sure why JY signed it “J Simpson”. That’s a good way to point out JY’s a real nutter and the judge might have a WTF moment if the judge notices that.