Thread by @ravesxrants

My 2 cents on the civil complaint vs #CR7.
Feel free to respectfully agree or disagree but only if you've read the complaint please ✌
Tagging @OmVArvind because his article forced me to read up on the issue.

I feel like so many people are misinformed about Mayorga's case vs Cristiano as detailed in Der Speigel. First of all, it's not a criminal case, it's a civil case. The news that the investigation has been reopened doesn't mean that a criminal case has been filed.

Here are some basic differences between a criminal and civil case:

As such, there is no 'guilty' or 'not guilty', nor is there the possibility of going to jail. The only thing this case is supposed to determine is whether the defendant (CR) is liable for the claims of the plaintiff (KM) and if he is, how much in damages he will need to pay.

Again, because this is a civil case, there is no presumption of innocence nor is there a need to prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plaintiff must only prove that it's more likely than not, that defendant is liable.

The complaint outlines 11 causes of action:

Read the complaint & you'll see that some of the claims are flimsy, frivolous and even contradictory. So much can be discussed but I'll focus on 8 & 9 because these I feel are the 2 most important parts of the complaint & I think they should actually have been filed first.

No 8: Declaration that the settlement & NDA is void because of incompetency, undue influence, coercion and/or fraud

So KM wants the court to declare the 2009 settlement & NDA void because she did not have competent counsel, was coerced/misled into agreeing to the settlement, etc

Regardless of whether this is true, what's clear to me is that a settlement from 2009 actually exists.

9. Declaration that plaintiff is excused from performance under the settlement & NDA due to defendant's breach

KM wants the court to allow her to speak on the case bec CR was the first to talk about it when he denied the claims in 2017, hence invalidating the NDA

Again take note that this refers to an existing settlement & NDA from 2009.

For the court to even hear the rest of the complaint, 8 & 9 must be granted. Meaning, the court must declare that the settlement & NDA are void & that the incident of 2009 can be discussed. Having the settlement cancelled also opens the door to possible criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, if the court disagrees, then the terms of the settlement and NDA must be upheld and the rest of KM's complaint is dead in the water.

In conclusion:

I'm still hoping I'm wrong