The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:30 pm

Judymac wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:19 pm
Absolutely right! Johnny wanted more than anything to settle the divorce peacefully and quietly but she wanted no part of that. All she wanted was to try and save whatever reputation she thought she had left and look where she is now especially after those recordings were released. She even jeopardized her own career because she has nothing in the works and nothing on the horizon either.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:42 pm

In-too-Depp wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:36 am
The importance of the Johnny Depp libel trial
[...]
Unlike in the film and celebrity world of the past, reputational attacks of this magnitude now have a permanent impact unless they are legally challenged. Mr Depp is looking for vindication, and he needs to win this trial to get it.
Thank you, In-too-Depp, for posting this article in its entirety in addition to the link. One of the very few clearly objective and informative pieces of its kind out there right now - and with a Conclusion that, IMHO, couldn’t be more on target. So, “Thank you, too”, to Ms. Emily Cox.

So much hinges on Mr. Justice Nicol’s finding in this trial, I can’t seem to properly quantify it nor to accurately process anything more concerning it at this time. Apologies to so many of my fellow Zoners for sitting on the sidelines right now.
"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

Cskipper
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:47 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Cskipper » Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:43 pm

RumLover wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:35 am
Cskipper wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:01 am
YES! I could open your link!! Thank you! Can you link me to at least the 4 days of Johnnys testimony? I’d like to start there if possible.
It would be better if you could configure your browser to allow popups from nickwallis.com
Try googling how to configure popups from <your browser software> to get instructions.
It seems that it is not the actual document that is causing the problem.
D4
D3
D2
D1
Thank you so much!! Looking forward to reading them!
I’m on an iPad so I don’t have browser controls. You can’t open preferences for things because there is no Options or files for the browser.

But thank you for linking them. It’s the only way I can read them.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:34 pm

John Murdoch has resigned from the News Group board. :rotflmao:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... nt-1305446
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Granna
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:25 pm

Hey - sorry for the stupid favor. Can someone please refresh this old lady's memory - who is Tracy Jacobs? & what on earth is she wanting from Disney? Is she trying to burn ALL of her bridges?

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:33 pm

Granna wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:25 pm
Hey - sorry for the stupid favor. Can someone please refresh this old lady's memory - who is Tracy Jacobs? & what on earth is she wanting from Disney? Is she trying to burn ALL of her bridges?
Tracy Jacobs was Johnny's long time talent agent. AH subpoened her for documents and there has been lots of back and forth. So AH compelled her and was going to sanction her. But apparently they have worked out some agreement as to what Tracy will share.

AH is also pushing their subpoena against Disney, who hasn't provided all the documents in all the categories they asked for. Specifically they want casting and casting decisions and procedures/discussions regarding POTC6 and how Johnny was included, not included or how her OPED affected any decisions. She is asking for legal sanctions too $4,773.50

AH is also trying to quash the subpoeana for Children's Hospital regarding her donations, basically saying the defamation lawsuit has nothing to do with whether she donated or not. I expect Depp team will argue it 1) goes to credibility 2)she announced "it was never about money and was always going to donate". So we will see who wins this argument.

Granna
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:42 pm

What relevance with any of the documents that Miss Jacobs have have anything to do with the defamation trial?

I would think that Disney would not want to discuss this. They are still working on negotiations for POTC 6. They are not even sure if Johnny Depp will be in this movie. I would think this would be a disadvantage forgive me to say anything at this time.

I will agree with Team Depp as far as the donations going to the hospital as she promised. That would have a direct impact on her credibility.

Best new set of lawyers seems to be a little bit more sneaky.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am

Depp's claim for 3x$50million damages is at least partly based on him losing Pirates.
If Disney documents say he lost role for other reason or has not lost role, then the estimated damages would not apply.

User avatar
stroch
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: New Orleans
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by stroch » Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:46 am

I also think she intends to renegotiate the divorce settlement, because they asked E. White about Johnny's finances on the stand and then later testified that she was entitled to half of his earnings.
I think she finally settled up originally after having trashed Johnny because she did not want any of her behavior to be revealed. Then, when she couldn't just maintain a dignified "I've put all that behind me" facade and kept after him, the videos and recordings came out. I wouldn't be surprised if it got worse from her end---she has nothing to lose, and evidently someone to pay the legal bills.
I'll buy you the hat....a really big one.
St. Roch -- patron saint of pilgrims

User avatar
myfave
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: South
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by myfave » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:23 am

That abusing psycho shrew wants half his earnings? Seriously?
"Hello South Carolina" ...............*swoon*

Granna
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:40 am

In California, she is entitled to 50% . However, that comes AFTER taxes, & expenses (which JD footed the entire bill for all of her freeloading friends as well) were paid. Don't forget, her monthly allowance of $50,000 per month.

She went crazy with his credit card for her clothes and spent alot on her friends. I think her legal team has not taken any of that into consideration.

With her legal team trying to quash the request of prove she did donate her 7 million probably has alot to do with it. I doubt she donated ALL of it, & has now been caught by JD's legal team. Remember, she is going broke, if she isn't all ready.

When the UK ruling comes in favor of JD, that is a good indication how it will go down in VA - she wii be bankrupt and uninsurable, with no offers on the horizon. Hopefully, LOreal will can her. She is TOTALLY DESPERATE NOW.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:32 am

She must have something to hide or else she would not be trying to block the subpoena.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 52599
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:01 pm

I believe the 50% is from earnings made while married, arriving at the $7m mark.

Their marriage was brief, POTC and other monies Earned were probably paid on deferment plans.

She was trying to squelch gold digger rumors, saying it wasn't about the money, while subpoenaing his financial records from all earnings, including Hollywood Vampires, Endorsements, Cameos, etc.

Also demanding the penthouses, alimony, the SUV, and whatever else she could get.

Then claiming to donate her $7m.

If Waldman can prove she never donated all the money, her credibility is again in question.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:07 pm

stroch wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:46 am
I also think she intends to renegotiate the divorce settlement, because they asked E. White about Johnny's finances on the stand and then later testified that she was entitled to half of his earnings.
I think she finally settled up originally after having trashed Johnny because she did not want any of her behavior to be revealed. Then, when she couldn't just maintain a dignified "I've put all that behind me" facade and kept after him, the videos and recordings came out. I wouldn't be surprised if it got worse from her end---she has nothing to lose, and evidently someone to pay the legal bills.
She can not renegotiate her CA divorce settlement in a VA court. That is just not how it works. The only way she could renegotiate her CA divorce settlement is in a California court. She could only do it if Johnny hid assets or did something else illegal, that effected he amount of the settlement. It is illegal to hide assets in a divorce. She can not renegotiate her divorce because she thinks she can get a better deal the second time around. Courts do not do that. It seems to me that her goal in the VA case is to throw allegations and see what sticks. Even if the judge allowed her to have access to all of Johnny's finances that does not mean she can use any of that in court. She would have to convince the judge that it is relevant to this case. Defendants ask for many things but that does not mean that they are going to get what they asked for or that they will be able to prove their relevance.

Couples who have children have more leniency renegotiating a divorce because of issues such as child support. That does not apply to them.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:21 pm

Granna wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:40 am
In California, she is entitled to 50% . However, that comes AFTER taxes, & expenses (which JD footed the entire bill for all of her freeloading friends as well) were paid. Don't forget, her monthly allowance of $50,000 per month.

She went crazy with his credit card for her clothes and spent alot on her friends. I think her legal team has not taken any of that into consideration.

With her legal team trying to quash the request of prove she did donate her 7 million probably has alot to do with it. I doubt she donated ALL of it, & has now been caught by JD's legal team. Remember, she is going broke, if she isn't all ready.

When the UK ruling comes in favor of JD, that is a good indication how it will go down in VA - she wii be bankrupt and uninsurable, with no offers on the horizon. Hopefully, LOreal will can her. She is TOTALLY DESPERATE NOW.
It doesn't matter what she wants. Amber and her attorneys negotiated her divorce settlement and signed off on it. She is stuck with it. Couples who have children together can renegotiate a settlement as it applies to child support, and custody. People who do not have children are pretty much stuck with the settlement they negotiated, unless one person did something such as they hid assets. Hiding assests (which is illegal) would be relevant to the amount of the settlement. Courts do not renegotiate because one side decides that they don't like the deal that they want.