The Lawsuits Thread

[SnoopyDances]

And yet again I shake my head in bewilderment. How did he allow himself to be taken in? How did he not see any of this coming? How did she manage to maneuver herself into his life in spite of all the people surrounding Johnny who should have been protecting him? It's like a really bad B movie.

Con artists are very good at what they do.

[ForeverYoung]

And yet again I shake my head in bewilderment. How did he allow himself to be taken in? How did he not see any of this coming? How did she manage to maneuver herself into his life in spite of all the people surrounding Johnny who should have been protecting him? It's like a really bad B movie.

She is very manipulative but like Doug Stanhope said, people saw this but were afraid to get shut out of the circle. Even if those close to him like maybe family had said something he probably would not have listened anyway. I think a lot of things changed after they got married and not for the better.

[Chocolat]

She is very manipulative but like Doug Stanhope said, people saw this but were afraid to get shut out of the circle. Even if those close to him like maybe family had said something he probably would not have listened anyway. I think a lot of things changed after they got married and not for the better.

Agree. Once she had him under her thumb, the control and demands began.

[ForeverYoung]

She is very manipulative but like Doug Stanhope said, people saw this but were afraid to get shut out of the circle. Even if those close to him like maybe family had said something he probably would not have listened anyway. I think a lot of things changed after they got married and not for the better.

Agree. Once she had him under her thumb, the control and demands began.

That's a very good way to put it as I think we all know how she had him under her grip.

[Lbock]

Johnny's team has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she defamed him intentionally in her op-ed piece and the result of her actions cost him work/money.
...
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the key phrase. Not ALL doubt, just reasonable doubt.

Thank you for this, I’m Not a lawyer either just so interested in the ins and out of the law since Johnny first sued TMG. Reasonable doubt applies to criminal cases not civil cases. As I understand.

The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial, and it is usually the standard used in criminal cases.”

I found this (and yes, in defamation cases especially all the proof lies in Johnny. AH was originally using a truth defense like The Sun. With the latest Demurrer they are waiving SLAPP and claiming opinion and for the good of the people defense)

Evidentiary Standards in Civil Cases
Preponderance of the Evidence

Second, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion. This burden determines which standard of proof the plaintiff must follow in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome.”

[hollyberry]

And yet again I shake my head in bewilderment. How did he allow himself to be taken in? How did he not see any of this coming? How did she manage to maneuver herself into his life in spite of all the people surrounding Johnny who should have been protecting him? It's like a really bad B movie.

Because Johnny is, putting it simply, too nice.
This is the man who is not only generous with his money, but with his time. Some time ago, a little British girl who'd gone to one of his premiers was knocked over by a member of the paparazzi. Her dad said candidly that just as he was about to attack the idiot Johnny and Jerry (rip) gave him a real telling off, and Jerry marched him off.
Johnny picked the little girl up, cuddled her and talked to her until she was smiling again. Her dad had nothing but praise for him.
My cousin holidays in the Lake District. The hotel have a number of signed photos of celebrities in its vestibule. Johnny is one of them, and the hotel manager told my cousin he was the only one who refused payment for the pic. He also told my cousin he was one of the nicest men he'd ever met.
Johnny's no Saint of course! He's had his problems. But I suspect he only saw the best in Amber, and either didn't listen or his friends were too concerned for his feelings to tell him what she was really like. I just thank God they never had any children.
The woman's like a real life Amy from Gone Girl.

[Lbock]

Now the ACLU wants in on Amber’s side as a friend of the court.

Our sources say, Depp's team is actually considering adding the ACLU as a defendant in the case for its connection to the publishing. The organization and anyone with knowledge may also be called as a witness. Johnny Depp's legal team went as far as to call them "co-conspirators."

Depp's lawyer Adam Waldman tells The Blast, "The ACLU, co-conspirators with Ms. Heard in her defamation against Mr. Depp, also today sought permission to file a "friends of the court” brief. Since the ACLU will be a fact witness, and possibly a defendant in their actual role as "friends of the hoax,” we have denied their request. Ms. Heard may have failed yet again in court, but she is succeeding at sucking a number of social movements that have hit rock bottom but are determined to keep digging into her scam."

About our ACLU who always stood to protect accused innocent until proven guilty, changed their position after #metoo re Kavanaugh who they said needed to prove he was innocent to be appointed.

The ACLU has insisted over the years on the presumption of innocence and due process for Nazis, KKK members, the pedophiles at NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), terrorists, and known criminals. We’ve often wondered whether there might be anyone so horrible, whose alleged offenses were so great, that they might compel the ACLU to abandon these long-held principles? We found our answer, apparently, in a distinguished jurist who admits to drinking beer in high school.

[SnoopyDances]

I found this (and yes, in defamation cases especially all the proof lies in Johnny. AH was originally using a truth defense like The Sun. With the latest Demurrer they are waiving SLAPP and claiming opinion and for the good of the people defense)

Evidentiary Standards in Civil Cases
Preponderance of the Evidence

Second, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion. This burden determines which standard of proof the plaintiff must follow in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome.”

Good points, Lbock.
My experiences have been in Missouri which could differ greatly than, say, Virginia law. Plenty of reading material between now and February.
Here are some legal sites about defamation and civil cases in Virginia:

Virginia Code of Law


The Virginia Defamation Blog published by Berlik Law, see quote below

Whether a particular tort is deemed intentional, as opposed to merely negligent, can have far-reaching implications. Intentional torts and negligent torts are treated very differently when it comes to things like insurance coverage, sovereign immunity, and recoverable damages. Defamation is one of those torts that cannot be easily categorized, as the degree of intent required to hold someone liable for defamation differs depending on the circumstances. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he will have to prove the defendant intentionally made a false statement, or at least made the statement with a high degree of awareness of its probably falsity.

The Minc Law Guide to Virginia Defamation Law, see quote below

Virginia’s Definition of Defamation
Under Virginia defamation law, no distinction is made between libel and slander, and only requires a defamation plaintiff prove the following three (3) elements:

1. The publication of
2. An actionable statement with (a) a false statement (b) of and concerning the plaintiff
3. With requisite intent. Jackson v. Hartig, 274 Va. 219, 228 (2007). Jordan v. Kollman, 269 Va. 569, 575 (Va. 2005).
Statements will be considered defamatory in Virginia if the words used “tend so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him,” or “make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092 (4th Cir. 1993).

For element two (2), “of and concerning the plaintiff,” an allegedly defamatory statement can be “of or concerning” the plaintiff even if the plaintiff is not identified by name. The element will be satisfied if the plaintiff shows that the statement was “intended to refer to him and would be so understood by persons reading it who knew him.” The Gazette Inc. v. Harris, 229 Va. 1, 35–37 (1985).

Furthermore, publications by the same defendant regarding one specific subject or event and made over a relatively short period of time, some of which clearly identify the plaintiff and others which do not, may be considered together for the purpose of establishing that the allegedly defamatory statements were “of or concerning” the plaintiff. WJLA-TV v. Levin, 264 Va. 140 (Va. 2002)...

[Chocolat]

Thanks SnoopyDances. We certainly have our homework cut out for us!

[Lbock]

I agree. Reasonable doubt has no part

For element two (2), “of and concerning the plaintiff,” an allegedly defamatory statement can be “of or concerning” the plaintiff even if the plaintiff is not identified by name. The element will be satisfied if the plaintiff shows that the statement was “intended to refer to him and would be so understood by persons reading it who knew him.” The Gazette Inc. v. Harris, 229 Va. 1, 35–37 (1985).

Isn’t that Johnny’s case in a nutshell “clapping hands “

[justintime]

For accurate reference: Link below is to the full Washington Post Op-Ed, as written by Amber Heard, December 18, 2018 @ 5:58 p.m. EST.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... edirect=on

Note the use of the phrase “sexual violence” in the title (first thing people read and, since it’s AH, the natural association would be JD - coincidence?) and in the second paragraph before slipping into her “domestic violence” experiences “two years ago”. These are apparently the eye-catchers that led to the recent lumping of JD with “perpetrators of sexual violence” in a Daily Titan article (September, 2019: see link below ) that has just yesterday been removed and apologized for being printed. Proves how accessible the WP Op-Ed still is, how it is still referenced as fact by careless writers, and still used to vilify JD in public venues anywhere without regard for truth - unless somehow seen and embarrassed into a retraction.

https://dailytitan.com/2019/09/sexual-p ... rt-crimes/

https://www.thecut.com/2018/12/amber-he ... women.html

[meeps]

Now the ACLU wants in on Amber’s side as a friend of the court.

Our sources say, Depp's team is actually considering adding the ACLU as a defendant in the case for its connection to the publishing. The organization and anyone with knowledge may also be called as a witness. Johnny Depp's legal team went as far as to call them "co-conspirators."

Depp's lawyer Adam Waldman tells The Blast, "The ACLU, co-conspirators with Ms. Heard in her defamation against Mr. Depp, also today sought permission to file a "friends of the court” brief. Since the ACLU will be a fact witness, and possibly a defendant in their actual role as "friends of the hoax,” we have denied their request. Ms. Heard may have failed yet again in court, but she is succeeding at sucking a number of social movements that have hit rock bottom but are determined to keep digging into her scam."

About our ACLU who always stood to protect accused innocent until proven guilty, changed their position after #metoo re Kavanaugh who they said needed to prove he was innocent to be appointed.

The ACLU has insisted over the years on the presumption of innocence and due process for Nazis, KKK members, the pedophiles at NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), terrorists, and known criminals. We’ve often wondered whether there might be anyone so horrible, whose alleged offenses were so great, that they might compel the ACLU to abandon these long-held principles? We found our answer, apparently, in a distinguished jurist who admits to drinking beer in high school.

Since ACLU consists of people, they have probably as much difficulties with admitting to have been wrong as any other kind of people. And the more public their involvement have been, the more they don't want to have to be humble and say "OK, we were wrong there"
Unfortunately for them Johnny might win, and then they'll have to admit it. I guess. And look even more foolish than if they had done it earlier.

[ForeverYoung]

Johnny's legal team is handling things perfect. Her legal team is trying to turn this case into a circus and the judge is going to see right through that, if he hasn't already.

[Chocolat]

I was just thinking the same thing. Either AH has proper evidence and witnesses or she doesn't. It's quite simple that the court will be looking for facts, not fluff. If the judge wasn't impressed with AH making her "celebrity" appearance in court last week, he won't want her bandwagon either.

[Lbock]

I see several limine filings on the Rocky case. So now is the time each side tries to keep things out of court. Of course, Johnny wants his other cases, anything about AH, and any claims or rumors of alcohol/drug use/abuse kept out. This got me thinking of how all this started.

We first heard about the issue when Page Six broke the story in May 2018. "Several sources reported", but they all said Johnny tried to hit Rocky,
"When the well-liked worker told Depp, “I’m just doing my job,” a source said Depp tried to punch him in the ribs. But the weak blow didn’t make an impact, and Depp yelled, “I’ll give you $100,000 to punch me right now!” The stunned staffer stood still, and Depp was finally pulled away."

Rocky didn't file suit until July 2018. Its quite possible he was contacted and received an incentive to sue Johnny, including legal fees. (speculation) What if this suit was intended to discredit/embarass publicly as much as possible before the Bloom Trial? Maybe it's not exactly about Rocky winning.

(They probably didn't anticipate the script supervisor having those photos when they filed)