The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:58 pm

Lbock - totally hear you about risks of VA - you are right we thought UK case was in the bag, because for crying out loud - the evidence!

But I wouldn't equate what people on TV are saying with how a jury will react necessarily. Anyone who has heard the tapes has a strong kick-in of comments sense - I mean apart from a mad few, and I honestly think they are either totally closed minded, delusional or have only pretended to listen.

If you are reacting to the judgement without any analysis of it - then you won't favour him.

But that jury is going to consider the evidence. And I reckon they are going to play that tape over and over.

I do think Team Depp needs to make some changes to their narrative - there is nothing to suggest JD wasn't truthful just sometimes he was a bit vague. In US cases you can do as much witness preparation as you like. It cannot change people's personalities but it can help them to give much clearer answers.

He did leave space in his narrative on Australia and the Boston plane. Having met one or two AH's myself over my life - and from what I've read from all the witness statements etc on the Boston plane it seems pretty clear to me what happened. She was flipping out, he was grumpy, quiet and probably anaesthetised with some alcohol. He tried humouring her out of the tirade, she gets up, he taps her and she probably screamed "you kicked me, you kicked me". And the whole thing then became about that. Stupid to have attempted appeasing her via Stephen texting.

He would be much better to say that. I tapped her, perhaps I shouldn't have - she went crazy, I went to sleep in the bathroom - I had a history of hiding in the bathrooms as they are the only places with locks on the door.

Her narrative is a lie - if I had kicked her why would she need to invent a chair being pushed into her?

In Australia - yes I had cocaine with me. On the set up breakfast table of the Orange Street apartment - yes that's my skull and crossbones box. At Hicksville - yes I took offence at another person sexually touching my girlfriend. Yes I was bewildered and impatient over her making another film with James Franco when she had done nothing but complain about him. I don't think he should shy away from these things - just keep strong on the - yes I did all of that - but I have never been violent to her, but plenty of witnesses have seen her be violent to me.

I am sorry I am banging on - things keep coming into my head about the appalling judgement. Boston plane - well never mind she said a chair was thrown at her and that's impossible - but hey I believe she was kicked. Australia - never mind the hyperbole (his exact word) and clear exaggeration - but yes I believe he attacked her and oh, let me have a little old speculation about how his finger was cut off.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:06 pm

I completely understand where you are coming from. My head is turning it all over and over.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:18 pm

I've been there. I have moments when I'm all ready to fight on - and moments when the unfairness makes me feel so ill.

Another one of her lawyers has withdraw - that guy Timothy Mc - something.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:20 pm

Update in Fairfax. AH lawyer asking $5900 in sanctions over removing Adam
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 2-2020.pdf

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:33 pm



Yes indeed, BYE BYE

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:38 pm

Sorry but this old news. They’ve been gone nearly a year
That I can see. Think they forgot to withdraw lol

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:47 pm

Oh well.

A head clearing walk and I have come up with a brilliant legal strategy, I wonder if this would be possible or being considered.

Instead of appealing, bring a complaint of perjury against her.

Lay low for now - if the evidence that she didn't donate the divorce money is made available to JD's side, could this be brought in as an official complaint/investigation to the UK courts I wonder. Or perhaps some other thing she or Whitney lied about.

If they do this, I hope they keep us all calm by telling us - "the Sun won this case because AH committed perjury. We aren't appealing due to costs and the time, but we are going to bring a complaint of perjury against her".

This would critically damage her in the US as well.

I know - I am dreaming and there is probably no way to do this ..... or is there? Come on Schillings - now is the time you apply your massive legal brains and earn those fees.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:36 pm

I believe that an attorney cannot sue someone for perjury. The attorney would most likely contact a prosecutor who would open the case and do an investigation.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/ ... 94overview
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:47 pm

Pretty good article explaining the judgement and appeal. It’s opinion based. And contrasts to the USA case

A critical analysis of the Johnny Depp libel trial
By Benjamin Ramsey
Nov 5 2020 11:55am

https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-p ... bel-trial/

Fyi I only meant the article as kinda an outline of how it works vs USA abs appeal info
Last edited by Lbock on Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:57 pm

I think JD should definately appeal. That is what those courts are for. Judge Nicol made decisions based on assumptions, such as believing JD could have been drunk and high and doesn't remember things she said happened so she must be telling the truth.

The judge deciding why he did not believe the ex had created a hoax: "As Ms Wass said in her closing submissions, if Ms Heard had been constructing a hoax there are various measures which she might have taken, but which she did not (see paragraph 91 of the Defendants' closing submissions). I agree that those points add further force to the conclusion I would anyway have reached, which is to reject the "hoax" or 'insurance policy' thesis. "

I wonder how the judge can explain a "bruise" that moves around the face or why staff and police who saw her without make up on and said they saw no injuries...or a video that was heavily edited with the ending cut off before she sold it to TMZ???

This judge is the worst. I hope he retires sooner than later so nobody else gets screwed like he did to Johnny.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:39 pm

Interesting article - makes a good point about the appeal which Lbock has already said. I really wonder if they will do something else - Johnny's team has been quite creative and inventive (viz going to VA) - Adam is being terribly quiet - quite rightly I think - but I cannot believe he is just starring into space and twiddling his thumbs.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:43 pm

Thanks a lot for explaining about the video, Lbock :airkiss2:

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:29 pm

On second thought, if Justice Nicol is any indication of how the British Court thinks or reasons then JD's appeal is dead on arrival, imo. :perplexed3:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:04 pm

Because I believe those on Amber's side are pure evil, I started wondering how they could maximise the damage they are doing.

Publicly bringing down a well-known and loved man and thoroughly humiliating him is of course the prime objective, why not take down ALL men? One theme of the current toxic feminist movement is to convict a man on no more than a woman's allegation - unchallenged. Some lawyers are publicly calling for this to be enshrined in the legal process, if not directly into legislation.

Was this a test case? Take a slam-dunk win based on evidence, ignore all said evidence and convict purely on the allegation - untested allegations that will not be examined or challenged because that would be cruel to the "victim-survivor". Straight from her mouth to a prison cell. Was it an accident that he repeatedly states he believed everything Amber said, then rejected all other physical evidence and sworn testimony that contradicted her narrative? Rejected out of hand and without even a cursory examination. Police. Medical professionals. Eyewitnesses. Even challenging Amber's account is interpreted as part of the patriarchal conspiracy.

With Justice Nichol about to retire, maybe he agreed to trash the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a presumption of innocence and a fair trial to bring about this agenda. If it didn't work, his career wouldn't be damaged and his record would remain mostly intact. They would just try again later with some other poor patsy and another disposable judge. And each judge they burn provides the opportunity to appoint a misandrist (with agenda) to the bench. They can keep this up indefinitely until they win. The reason this is possible is because they are never sanctioned or punished for their actions if they are unsuccessful. They can never lose and will sometimes win. Each wnl builds on the previous.

Unless they are severely punished at each failed attempt, they will eventually win by attrition.

Streaming Mordecai atm.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:05 pm

Of course Stephen has put on his twitter the Schillings statement about an appeal.