The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Newt
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:31 pm

Surely Adam wouldn’t be tweeting this now after last time without chatting about it with Johnny, Ben Chew and co.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:42 pm

Newt assume not but it's not up to Johnny and Mr Chew.

I wonder if a decision was made on the protective order around this - Team Depp was asking for it to be made public as I understand so maybe they got their wish, or may be there is some other legal mechanism Adam is using. It is thrilling but making me nervous, also interesting he is tweeting this rather than making a press statement to the Blast and which the Daily Mail (most read news source in the world) would pick up.

So many questions.

And now another tweet. Another donation was made by Elon Musk's charitable mountain in her name in 2018. Still nothing from her. What the heck is going on? I feel like Adam is teasing us royally and there is a whole lot more to this story.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:55 pm

It's a tax write off for Musk to donate to charities. Why he chose to put his contributions in Amber Heard's name is a mystery yet to be solved.

I think we can all assume a motion on her team against Adam will be filed shortly which is why he released the info over the NYE weekend, imo but he isn't lead counsel anyway. She is finally EXPOSED for her lies and I'm sure she's throwing every curse word in he book :biggrin: at her lawyer to take action.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Granna
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:00 pm

ForeverYoung:

Question - I thought donations to charities were a tax write-off and it would have to show up on your tax returns correct? That would be the easiest way to prove that she did not make those donations.

She is just upset because Adam Waldman is a better attorney than hers. She apparently likes throwing Tantrums.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:05 pm

Granna wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:00 pm
ForeverYoung:

Question - I thought donations to charities were a tax write-off and it would have to show up on your tax returns correct? That would be the easiest way to prove that she did not make those donations.
Not sure but it seems it depends on the charity.

https://www.smartaboutmoney.org/Topics/ ... Your-Taxes
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:42 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:55 pm

I think we can all assume a motion on her team against Adam will be filed shortly which is why he released the info over the NYE weekend, imo but he isn't lead counsel anyway. She is finally EXPOSED for her lies and I'm sure she's throwing every curse word in he book :biggrin: at her lawyer to take action.
I wonder therefore if this isn't covered by any protective order; Adam simply has decided it is worth the risk and any fine he incurs; or if the intention is to make a case that this perjury is so serious it needs to be brought to the attention of the court (either in the US or UK).

I've read what she said in her witness statement over and over again and whatever semantics she tries to argue, the meaning is clear, the judge rested a huge part of his judgement on this and she lied. So unless she is going to produce a bank statement which shows money left her account, went into one of Elon Musk's trusts, and then onto the two charities (and why would that even be a thing?) - she has lied to a UK court.

Part of me is in shock still at the enormity of this; part of me thinks it is yet one more thing she will get away with.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:18 am

I could be wrong but I thought the judge in the VA case denied her request for a protective order. I think she could possibly get away with lying in court but it's up to court officials to persue that. However, it puts a big light on her lack of credibility.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:15 pm

My view/my hope is that JD's side make some sort of formal fuss to the UK courts. Perjury is incredibly serious. I know we are all used to the lies by now and none of us expected anything different - and I apologise again for ranting on about it - but this is incredibly serious. I hope this does more than just undermine her credibility in the VA case.

justintime
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:48 pm

Yes, AdeleAgain. Thank you.

You’ve pointed out an horrific truth: “.... we are all used to the lies by now and none of us expected anything different ...” BUT, as you remind anyone perusing this thread, this is lying under oath, this is PERJURY, “an incredibly serious” criminal act, a crime deserving of punishment.

More than that, actually MUCH more than that, the foolish, smitten Nicol believed her and rested his decision re: AH’s gold-digging motives on her perjurious testimony! Perjury of this magnitude shatters whatever credibility AH (NGN’s and Wooton’s only witness) may have been presumed to be bringing to their “wife beater” argument.

A comment often pointed out is that Sherborne and Johnny’s team did not challenge that testimony at the time of the trial or in the summation. But, the challenging evidence has taken a while to put straight and was not available during the UK trial or even at summation. AH’s repeated descents into tainted testimony go to the heart of the UK case. Perjury of this depth and reach, and the supporting evidence now being brought forward, must be allowed in the appeal request, whatever “formal fuss” must be made to the UK courts, if ever Justice is to find its rightful place in undoing Nicol’s bloodletting circus of a “trial”.
"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

Kathelyndecoke
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:45 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Kathelyndecoke » Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:16 pm

I am wrong to think that Mollusk had not given anything on her behalf? Seems that he tried to associate her to HIS "ANONYMOUS" donations . One by a recommendation from her and the other one in the Designation: Donation from AH (ridiculous...as they specify: from a donator who wishes to remain anonymous)... they tried a concept here: donation by association.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:48 pm

This letter from CHLA cracked me up

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:49 pm

And this one where the letter implicitly states this grant may not satisfy a legally enforceable obligation/pledge.


User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:31 pm

Kathelyndecoke wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:16 pm
I am wrong to think that Mollusk had not given anything on her behalf? Seems that he tried to associate her to HIS "ANONYMOUS" donations . One by a recommendation from her and the other one in the Designation: Donation from AH (ridiculous...as they specify: from a donator who wishes to remain anonymous)... they tried a concept here: donation by association.
Musk gave to "donor advised funds" that gave money to the charties on her behalf. One of the names on the checks is Jane Greenfield, who is president of Vanguard Charitable. Musk gave them a ton of money in 2016.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/elon-mus ... ised-fund/
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:33 pm

Opinion letter of Judge White re: Crossclaim

Seems he isn't falling for her anti-SLAPP or that JD orchestrated a smear campaign against her and we're all not paid for bots.
Some of it he could not decide at this time.


https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... -24-21.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:36 pm

Judge's Opinion is up on the Demurrer and Plea in Bar.

1) Judge denied Amber's declaratory judgement that Amber Heard is immune from Civil liability as her op-ed is a matter for public concern (basically, anti-SLAPP)
2) The Judge did rule that 3 out of 8 of the statements in his opinion can be considered defamatory and not statements strictly from his lawsuit. These three statements were by Adam to the press. The judge also considered several of Johnny's tweets wanting Amber fired, and promising to ruin her if she goes through with the 2016 lawsuit. Judge found these were said with malice. (the other statements were considered time barred)
3). The judge overruled (or denied) Amber's claim of VA Computer Crimes - we are not bots, Johnny did not arrange for the petitions, and his texts to friends were meant to be private and never to be seen by her.
4), His plea in Bar for Anti SLAPP is denied as his lawyers did not give oral arguments, among other things.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 0-2020.pdf
Last edited by Lbock on Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.