The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:29 pm

Ade-ele wrote:I imagine that for some lawyers - the opportunity to argue pedantic legal points (and potentially further their reputations) - really motivates them. They aren't necessarily that invested in whether their client is right or wrong - just in testing the limits of the law. It would be monstrous for AH to get away with this on a technicality. It is so clear that she is doing everything to avoid court.

I can understand lawyers representing her because it's a big high profile case - what I still cannot understand is the parts of the media (not all but parts) that simply don't give any lines to consider that the fact is she may be lying. I've just been trying to find her Op-Ed to re-read it and I found a Grazia article which I just don't understand how anyone could attach their name to. It moaned about the fact that a survey of social media comments about their divorce found that one third of people outright said she was lying (and this is before the huge amount of evidence came out - this is just on the fact that the police and other witnesses said there were no bruises and the small matter of her DV record). Apparently just 9 percent of comments blamed Johnny. And Grazia's conclusion is that this was all because people liked Johnny and he was in their favourite films etc. It failed to give any mention at all about another possibility. It is so screamingly obvious my goodness even Perez Hilton now says he is forced to believe Johnny.

I was in such a grump about this last night because, once again, her antics just happened to coincide with him doing something big. And the pictures and reception he got were just so wonderful. And yet I went to bed worrying again that she'll get away with it.

But then I reasoned - whatever happens, so much evidence has been released against her. And amongst us we tend to say that she has got away with it but really has she? Yes in the sense that she has not yet received any serious punishment but think of it this way. Time is running out for her. Ever since she wrapped on Aquaman she should have been working non-stop. She was in a big franchise film which no thanks to her (my view) was a success. She had two very famous partners. She should be so much in demand. Think of Johnny's career at her age. Think of other pretty if only ok actresses. She doesn't have a deep well of acting talent to fall back on, so she needs to make it count now.

We also say she is the darling of the MeToo movement. I see her as having given herself that crown. Remember that get together at Cannes I think it was in 2018 when she got all dressed up on instagram and made it seem as if she was with the 80 other actresses or however many it was - but she wasn't there - wasn't invited. The 20 something women who I work with mostly don't know who she is, those that do think she's awful.

I apologise for this long rant. But when I am seething about her latest nonsense, I go to an article or post about her and read 90 percent (often 100 percent) negative comments.

Also - just as her new lawyer has limbered up her legalese to make an argument - so will Johnny's.


I agree she has a pattern of making sure she is in the headlines every time Johnny gets attention. I was wondering when she would pop out that big head to be seen going to the laundromat or something soon. She isn't high-profile. The only high-profile in this case is Johnny. A lot of people don't even know who she is because she isn't a well known actress and that's only because she isn't a good actress. If Amber was in a legal battle against someone who was not well known, then nobody would care.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Lbock
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Lbock » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:57 am

Looks Like Raquel has been officially served to appear Sept 12

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:05 pm

Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Lbock
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Lbock » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:06 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

I don’t always understand this but isn’t the demurrer the request for dismissal. And if judge won’t do that they want the plea in bar ?

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:45 pm

Lbock wrote:
ForeverYoung wrote:Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

I don’t always understand this but isn’t the demurrer the request for dismissal. And if judge won’t do that they want the plea in bar ?


What they did was file a motion to amend the first motion to dismiss. The plea in bar was a brief in support of this motion. You have to try and prove why your motion should be granted.

http://www.cameronmcevoy.com/wp-content ... essva.pdfs

Edit: Technically they are two different filings but the Virginia courts "lump them together."
http://www.vtla.us/2013/Journal/Vol_24_ ... sitive.pdf
Last edited by ForeverYoung on Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Lbock
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Lbock » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:50 pm

Is a demurrer the same as a motion to dismiss?

A demurrer is an objection to a complaint or counterclaim, not a motion to dismiss a case. ... A demurrer does not dispute the facts of the case but argues there is no legal claim even if the facts presented by the plaintiff are true. The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury.

Is a demurrer sustained or granted?

n. (dee-muhr-ur) a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. ... If after amendment the complaint is still not legally good, a demurrer will be granted sustained.

The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury. If a judge overrules the demurrer, the defendant must respond to the rest of the plaintiff's complaint or risk a default judgment where the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defendant the right to defend. If a judge sustains a demurrer, the case is either dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. A demurrer dismissed with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint and serve it to the defendant.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:02 pm

Lbock wrote:Is a demurrer the same as a motion to dismiss?

A demurrer is an objection to a complaint or counterclaim, not a motion to dismiss a case. ... A demurrer does not dispute the facts of the case but argues there is no legal claim even if the facts presented by the plaintiff are true. The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury.

Is a demurrer sustained or granted?

n. (dee-muhr-ur) a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. ... If after amendment the complaint is still not legally good, a demurrer will be granted sustained.

The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury. If a judge overrules the demurrer, the defendant must respond to the rest of the plaintiff's complaint or risk a default judgment where the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defendant the right to defend. If a judge sustains a demurrer, the case is either dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. A demurrer dismissed with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint and serve it to the defendant.


Hope this answers your question.

http://www.vtla.us/2013/Journal/Vol_24_ ... sitive.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Contact:

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby meeps » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:16 am

It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence :)

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:13 am

meeps wrote:It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence :)

Agreed. Miss "I will not be silenced" certainly doesn't want to talk now or have certain documents released.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Contact:

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby meeps » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:08 am

No, she don't! Not if she can wriggle out of it in any way ...

Lbock
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Lbock » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:12 am

meeps wrote:It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence :)

These just don’t age well

Heard’s attorney said in a statement to TheWrap. “If GQ had done even a basic investigation into Mr. Depp’s claims, it would have quickly realized that his statements are entirely untrue. Mr. Depp has blatantly disregarded the parties’ confidentiality agreement and yet has refused to allow Ms. Heard to respond to his baseless allegations, despite repeated requests that she be allowed to do so.”

justintime
Posts: 1484
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby justintime » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:36 pm

Thanks for those links, ForeverYoung.

It seems her new lawyers are doing the obvious and are basing their new motion on timing: supposedly, since so much time has passed between event and filing, they are claiming the lawsuit is inadmissible. But wasn’t this course of action already addressed and rejected by the first team? No need for evidence from anyone. Above all, no need for truth or justice. Sounds like it would have been right up their alley. Must have been a good reason why it was abandoned. Cretins.

Lbock wrote: “. . . . Heard’s attorney said in a statement to TheWrap. “If GQ had done even a basic investigation into Mr. Depp’s claims, it would have quickly realized that his statements are entirely untrue. Mr. Depp has blatantly disregarded the parties’ confidentiality agreement and yet has refused to allow Ms. Heard to respond to his baseless allegations, despite repeated requests that she be allowed to do so.”


Ha! First of all, I can’t believe any media source would be revisiting the “silenced woman” angle yet again in this case, much less use the same, tired verbiage. Mr. Waldman put it to rest quite eloquently early on. The fact is, if The Wrap or any of its vile, biased cohorts had done “even a basic investigation” perhaps they would have stumbled on a few facts themselves: Johnny’s GQ comments were a first and were made with an effort to not overtly reference her. She, on the other hand, had been routinely breaking the “parties confidentiality agreement” from day one in/on any medium/platform available - and many were provided.

So, I guess The Wrap - and probably others to come - are being recruited by the MeToo founder et al to play along in their blatant effort to catch up, rake in the publicity, and get paid for it. Seems we’re in for an inexcusable rehashing of the last few years just to make sure they’re earning their fees, which they’ve already laid at JD’s doorstep in the new motion. Do you think maybe this Queen of Metoo (Women Only Version) attorney has been hired just to waste time?
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Ruby Begonia » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:30 pm

justintime wrote:Thanks for those links, ForeverYoung.....

So, I guess The Wrap - and probably others to come - are being recruited by the MeToo founder et al to play along in their blatant effort to catch up, rake in the publicity, and get paid for it. Seems we’re in for an inexcusable rehashing of the last few years just to make sure they’re earning their fees, which they’ve already laid at JD’s doorstep in the new motion. Do you think maybe this Queen of Metoo (Women Only Version) attorney has been hired just to waste time?


Two of her new attorneys go by the names of Fink and Rottenborn. :grin:

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby ForeverYoung » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:07 am

It kind of looks to me like she is avoiding filing an Answer where she would have to admit or deny each count of the Complaint. These latest filings are pretty obvious that she is VERY desperate to have the complaint dismissed.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread postby Ruby Begonia » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:05 pm



Today there is a new document from Turd's new attorneys Rottenborn and Treece of Wood Rogers entitled "Letter to Judge White." The link is to the case on the Fairfax County site. I think most us have seen the Clerk of Court John T. Frey's stamp on the case documents, but her attorneys addressed their communication to him "Dear Clerk" instead of bothering to find out his name. Probably share Turd's disdain for the "little people."

They've sent Judge White material in support of her recent motion for a protective order. Specifically, 66 pages showing Johnny's approval of protective orders in 3 lawsuits: Depp v Bloom Hergott et al., Depp v Mandel, and Doe v Depp. I think the 2012 lawsuit involves the college professor Jerry restrained and had removed from an Iggy Pop concert Vanessa and the kids also attended because the woman was allegedly drunk, pawing JD and wouldn't leave him alone after being asked multiple times. I think she claimed she had some type of disability that the removal aggravated and suffered humiliation because her pants slid down while arena security dragged her belligerent self away from the VIP section .

None of those suits were filed for defamation, which makes them entirely different. Repeating the last part if In-Too-Depp's September 6th post from The Blast article:

The Blast broke the story, Amber believes the release of highly embarrassing and sensitive information would not only negatively affect her, but would significantly harm her family and friends.

Johnny disagrees, and argues Amber should not be allowed to hide behind a "wall of confidentiality" that he believes are based upon her alleged lies.

"Although she has not yet made the assertion, being embarrassed by the factual evisceration of one’s lies would not meet the standard. The court should not allow Ms. Heard to use confidentiality as both a sword and a shield," he argues.


With this letter to the judge, along with her attorneys' suggestion that the case should be dismissed due to late filing, plus their further attempts to make it seem like Johnny is delusional for thinking everything Heard says is about him and that her op-ed was instead about "a violent white man," it's clear they're at the point of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.


Return to “News & Views”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests