The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
justintime
Posts: 1778
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:03 pm

A lot IS happening - now. Despite implausible “perhaps the writers/producers/casting are unaware(!)” of the sworn testimony against AH that has been steadily mounting over the last few weeks, look who has nailed a leading role in a highly anticipated production scheduled to begin shooting THIS September. Who/What is behind the continued blatant push to strengthen this vile liar’s and abuser’s foothold in the film industry??

http://hollywoodnorth.buzz/2019/06/even ... inter.html

And where is the ruling on the motion re: a dismissal/change of venue that was supposedly such a slam-dunk in Johnny’s favor that we were expecting word early this morning?

Sorry for the rant - well, not for the content, just the whining tone. I know in my heart we are all on edge right now. Still keeping fingers crossed and praying as hard as I can . . .
"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
Chocolat
Posts: 10054
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:13 pm

justintime wrote: And where is the ruling on the motion re: a dismissal/change of venue that was supposedly such a slam-dunk in Johnny’s favor that we were expecting word early this morning?



According to the motion document, the time set was for 10:00 am EDT this morning.

Image

We should be getting an update soon.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 10054
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:54 pm

So far, the update according to posts on IFOD:

~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

justintime
Posts: 1778
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:06 pm

OMG . . .

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-Kv6t_X4AA ... name=large

But the Post DID accept it. They were fully aware of the ACLU working as a go-between for AH in order to get that acceptance. Was the Op-Ed ever actually posted, in entirety, on-line? Anything done with it after they (The Washington Post) accepted and published it is irrelevant, no?

I can’t believe Waldman et al were not prepared for this “discussion”.
"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

AdeleAgain
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:06 pm

Hi this is Ade - sorry had to rejoin with a different user name - new computer and couldn't remember my password.

So as I understand it this was just the motion which AH brought to dispute where the case should be heard. She didn't manage to get it thrown out yesterday. Virginia I believe has tougher perjury laws so yay if it comes to that. Adam Waldeman et al definitely knew this was coming - that's what all of those papers about previous precedents were all about. So there is a chance the judge could decide that Virginia does not have jurisdiction over the case I guess - but in that case they can simply do as AH suggests and try it in California or New York. As long as it is heard, or she apologises and admits her lies (not likely) - I will be satisfied.

Today would have been one of those legal, technical discussions which no doubt gets lawyers very excited but leaves the rest of us cold.

It is so unbelievably frustrating and it simply beggars belief that she breezes about the place as if nothing were afoot but there is nothing to do but keep going and keep the faith. The weight of evidence is simply compelling and one day it just will catch up with her.

The Sun law suit should come to fruition before the defamation suit anyway.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:11 pm


User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 10054
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:44 pm

Court document for scheduling date for trial.

~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 10054
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:11 pm

More from The Blast.

~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:09 pm

Unfortunately, @babewhlte's twitter account is suspended. Unless it's in Johnny's attorneys court pleadings somewhere (I think there were legal citations referencing other VA defamation cases), I believe it was "Babe" who explained in detail why VA would be the most appropriate and also beneficial venue for JD. The Washington Post Op-Ed was published in print in VA locations where the movie premiered, as was the online edition with the Op-Ed. Damage caused by defamation is also easier to prove in VA than CA and perjury penalties are harsh, some including jail time. There are other ways for witnesses to testify than appearing physically in court (plus, JD's CA-based witnesses would face the same travel issue). Also, JD's attorneys do much of their work in the VA and DC area - they know the VA court system.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:04 pm

According to the Blast article the judge will not have a decision until after the July 4th holiday.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:46 am

It is probably worth a recap here of the legal strategy behind this law suit - a few points occur to me. I think I am right, just based on my experience of working on UK litigation cases, obviously I don't know the US system as well but:

1. The purpose of the defamation case is not to get 50 million dollars from AH - she doesn't have it, this is not about the money. If money is paid over from her to him it will be a far, far smaller amount, I wouldn't mind betting it will go to a domestic violence charity or something, and it will be part of a settlement deal in which she has to admit wrong doing.

2. The US system is different to the UK. There are extremely strict laws here about media coverage of legal cases so most of Johnny's evidence has not aired in the press relating to the Sun case. In the US it is different there is far more coverage of disclosure.

3. I think the Sun case is a straightforward matter of them writing an opinion based on misinformation. But it was clear from fairly early on that AH would not turn up as a witness for the Sun. I don't think she will or ever intended too. And so imagine this scenario: Johnny wins the case against the Sun or more likely they settle, and as part of that the Sun has to put on its front page that it was wrong and apologise. AH will continue to claim that the reason they lost was because she was silenced and couldn't appear as a witness because Johnny refused to waive the confidentiality agreement. Yes - that will be a complete lie but that will undoubtedly be her strategy. And whilst the majority of people will know that this is nonsense, it will allow her to stick to her story and as we have seen, some people simply cannot accept facts.

4. So the ONLY was to get exoneration is to sue her directly. I wondered why they didn't sue the Washington Post but of course - same problem. She will duck out of being a witness and claim she was silenced and attacked.

5. If they had sued in California we would no doubt be having a hearing now claiming that this is nothing to do with California because the article was published in Virginia.

6. If the case has to move - yes there are differences in the system but Johnny has a literal mountain of actual evidence. If he just had the video footage of her in the lift, well then people might convince themselves she did have marks. But he has video footage AND multiple witnesses and that's before you even get all the instagram photos of the aftermath of her supposed savage beatings where she is remarkably bruise free. If you consider the witnesses - all of them can arguably sit on a stand and say they are independent - the police, building employees, stylist and former employees don't work for Johnny. They aren't dependent or being paid by him. IF you only had the body guards - then she might have a chance of saying they are biased. But he has a range of credible witnesses. And then she has a small problem of repeatedly breaking the law.

Apologies for the length of this - just all points I have been sitting on or discussing with other interested friends for a while.

User avatar
reindeermoon
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:17 pm
Location: Basel, Switzerland
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by reindeermoon » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:29 am

Thank you Ade-ele for your explanation. I hope the case will not be dismissed and stays in Virginia. Heards witnesses might think twice there to lie in front of a judge.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:41 am

I hope also it won't get moved because guess what Amber's PR will say - "case dismissed' and then all her minions will say that this proves she didn't lie ...... when of course it proves nothing of the sort, it is only about jurisdiction.

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 10054
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:26 am

Thank you Ade. Points well made. Good thoughts that all will be in favor of Johnny's requests.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

justintime
Posts: 1778
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:07 pm

Ade-ele wrote:It is probably worth a recap here of the legal strategy behind this law suit - a few points occur to me. I think I am right, just based on my experience of working on UK litigation cases, obviously I don't know the US system as well but:

1. The purpose of the defamation case is not to get 50 million dollars from AH - she doesn't have it, this is not about the money. If money is paid over from her to him it will be a far, far smaller amount, I wouldn't mind betting it will go to a domestic violence charity or something, and it will be part of a settlement deal in which she has to admit wrong doing.

2. The US system is different to the right UK. There are extremely strict laws here about media coverage of legal cases so most of Johnny's evidence has not aired in the press relating to the Sun case. In the US it is different there is far more coverage of disclosure.

3. I think the Sun case is a straightforward matter of them writing an opinion based on misinformation. But it was clear from fairly early on that AH would not turn up as a witness for the Sun. I don't think she will or ever intended too. And so imagine this scenario: Johnny wins the case against the Sun or more likely they settle, and as part of that the Sun has to put on its front page that it was wrong and apologise. AH will continue to claim that the reason they lost was because she was silenced and couldn't appear as a witness because Johnny refused to waive the confidentiality agreement. Yes - that will be a complete lie but that will undoubtedly be her strategy. And whilst the majority of people will know that this is nonsense, it will allow her to stick to her story and as we have seen, some people simply cannot accept facts.

4. So the ONLY was to get exoneration is to sue her directly. I wondered why they didn't sue the Washington Post but of course - same problem. She will duck out of being a witness and claim she was silenced and attacked.

5. If they had sued in California we would no doubt be having a hearing now claiming that this is nothing to do with California because the article was published in Virginia.

6. If the case has to move - yes there are differences in the system but Johnny has a literal mountain of actual evidence. If he just had the video footage of her in the lift, well then people might convince themselves she did have marks. But he has video footage AND multiple witnesses and that's before you even get all the instagram photos of the aftermath of her supposed savage beatings where she is remarkably bruise free. If you consider the witnesses - all of them can arguably sit on a stand and say they are independent - the police, building employees, stylist and former employees don't work for Johnny. They aren't dependent or being paid by him. IF you only had the body guards - then she might have a chance of saying they are biased. But he has a range of credible witnesses. And then she has a small problem of repeatedly breaking the law.

Apologies for the length of this - just all points I have been sitting on or discussing with other interested friends for a while.
Thank you, Ade, for your concise summary of the two most prominent, and still unresolved, Johnny-initiated lawsuits. I have copied your whole recap here rather than misquote you at any point. I apologize ahead of time for what are really just ramblings - and rants - that I can’t quite let go of just yet.

First Suit, Johnny’s libel action against The SUN, for which, apparently, there has still not been a trial date set(!). Please, please correct me if you have info to the contrary.

The first link below is to The SUN article itself, in case anyone might care to re-read it to perhaps conclude (IMAO) it was not based on “misinformation” but rather an arrogant, conscious, self-serving decision to not bother researching the basic facts already out there (the Divorce Decree itself for one) and instead just go with the most inflammatory garbage they could put together. To hell with any semblance of journalistic integrity, to hell with an innocent-until-proven-guilty man’s reputation, career, family and life, and to hell with a renowned and respected author’s obviously well-considered decision - this was a new article and a potential windfall of clicks awaited . . .

The second link is to the March 1, 2019, Press Gazette article re: The SUN’s failure to put a halt to JD’s libel action. It is this article that ends with the “. . . no trial date set” statement. I am concerned about this, if it is still true, as it would obviously be enormously helpful, for some logical flow, to have this suit resolved - in Johnny’s favor, of course - before the defamation case begins.





And,
Second Suit, his defamation action against AH currently set for court on February 3, 2020, but waiting for Judge White’s jurisdiction decision.


I found after reading your recap (thank you), there are some potential overlapping resolution elements that I am thinking we, who support Johnny, should perhaps be a bit more restrained in putting forth. Two of those are:

1. the presumption that Johnny doesn’t really want or need a settlement award and/or damages to be determined by the court/jury/or presiding justice, and the speculation as to what he might do with same should he be so awarded

Nothing speaks louder or requires less interpretation as to winner/loser than long numbers with dollar signs. And that indisputable “verdict”, more than anything, can go a very long way in giving Johnny the elusive justice he so dearly deserves.

We don’t know Johnny’s true financial situation, nor should we be privy to same. But it doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist or person-in-the-know to legitimately surmise JD’s legal fees must have crept into the millions a long time ago, now with no end in sight. Whether he can personally absorb those costs or not, he shouldn’t have to!; nor should there be a risk of him being painted as less than generous because we may have unwittingly set him up for such scrutiny.

When all this is said and done, I am hoping beyond hope that Johnny walks away with the store, so to speak, and that these results are “shouted” from the roof tops of every media vehicle now in existence, be they brick and mortar or internet ether. And a pox on any scum who dare utter even a whisper to the contrary. IMAO, always.

2. the willingness to allow an apology from The SUN and/or AH to somehow be the acceptable cornerstone of any form of resolution, be it settlement or jury trial in each of Johnny’s respective suits against them, and that “said apology” might obviate the need for a monetary element to rise above token status

I’ve stumbled down the settlement road before, I know, and a Zoner here was kind enough to clarify its multifaceted potential for me. I still hold fast, however, to the notion that the apology factor of a settlement is a minefield of potential misinterpretations, omissions, and flat-out disregards on the part of the all-important media and the public at large, especially where Johnny Depp is concerned. In the AH defamation suit, a settlement option may have become a moot point given the recent validation of Johnny’s evidence as being worthy of a jury trial, regardless of jurisdiction.

Here is where overlap in the two cases begets some confusion: A resolution in The Sun case means 200,000£ and damages are considered. A resolution in the AH defamation suit means $50,000,000 is considered. Crazy as I might sound, I don’t for a second feel this was meant to imply, if the jury in the defamation trial decides in Johnny’s favor, that AH should be off the hook with an apology or some token monetary payment because the poor dear doesn’t have $50,000,000.

No, I believe Johnny chose that number for its shock value: to let the powers that be in the judicial system (and the jury itself) know, without equivocation, how important this case is to him and how much he has suffered due to her false allegations directly linking him to the perpetration of domestic violence upon her. AH may not have $50,000,000, but she sure did damage in excess of that to Johnny’s stellar career, reputation, family, and life in general - his children, e.g., were abused by people, emotionally and psychologically, on line for years with threats and comments so hideous most of us can’t even imagine sane human beings could stoop so low.

The fact is, ordinary people get hit with financial judgements seemingly beyond their means every day and they find ways - or, ways are found for them - to meet their obligations. Leveling lies and false accusations against an innocent person is vile, inexcusable behavior that, in truth, defies quantification.

AH may not have $50,000,000 NOW, but she’s young and ruthless. Freeze her bank accounts. Put your hand out, honey, and start putting the arm on all those eager backers - L’Oreal, the ACLU, the UN, etc. Maybe Bloom and TMG could lend a hand. Assess her belongings, the jewelry Johnny gave her and her refitted little red sports car to start with, the paintings and furniture she made off with from JD’s penthouses when she finally left - have a fun-filled auction to dispose of it all, or just donate everything - for real - and let Johnny get the tax deduction. She just came off a triumphant turn as a major character in a phenomenally successful WB film - will she be cast in its sequel? She recently landed a major part in the 10-episode adaptation of Stephen King’s The Stand, to begin filming this September 16 through March 11th. Have every contract she signs include withholding language and every paycheck that comes her way into perpetuity be docked by every employer, studio, etc. she works with. I’m sure Mr. Waldman could be very creative, as well.

Although she may never come close to fulfilling her obligation, her life into the foreseeable future would be imposed upon. One thing is for certain, she is a monster. It is not indulging in dramatic overkill to acknowledge she nearly killed Johnny. AH cannot be permitted to walk away from the fundamentally irreparable harm she routinely and casually inflicted, with just an apology. She would do so, laughing.
"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