Sorry I couldn’t post. I have the baby. Very sad outcome. Bottom line the judges believed (irrespective of her credibility issues) Johnny’s own admissions and texts would prevent him from being successful in his appeal—overturning all 12 incidents plus private ones. Essentially “one and done”=wife better
Judgement: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... d-down.pdf
The Lawsuits Thread
-
meeps
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
- Location: Hiding in my imagination?
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
I think you're right. But did judge Nicol - and do others that think like him - think for a moment about the fact that despite using drugs, and drinking hard liquor Johnny Depp has earned all his money (and more - also those TMG and Bloom swindled from him) himself by his own creativity, and hard work?AdeleAgain wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:37 amI think simply that he did not like a rich man who took drugs.
And despite using drug, and drinking in probably 44 years, give or take, he is still going strong when it comes to working in both acting, and music!
Not to mention he has decades old friendships among both men AND women - how many monstrous abusers have that?
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
You are right Lbock - what we have to remember is the NGN played a very clever legal strategy - that did not need to rely on truth.
When AH filed for her TRO she claim three incidents of violence: the James Corden night before taping; her 30th birthday; the 21 May. And when the Sun wrote the story - they hadn't even got an affidavit from AH.
Remember also there were other little embellishments - that he had been violent on a plane to Japan for the Lone Ranger premier - but ooh whoops had to drop that one because - well unlikely to have happened with his kids of board and one of her friends who publicly liked Gina posts about Johnny.
So back to the original three - a vague date in December which Brian narrowed down to the night before James Corden taping. But that was looking a bit shaky - Samantha McMillen came out for him and then the inconvenience of - well the fact she was on TV twisting her lips and clearly not in any pain.
So once they had a bunch of raw texts, they appear to have concocted stories around them. Inconvenient again that pictures or other bits of truth kept upending the story - but no matter. She just switched dates, suddenly remembering things, as did her sister - suddenly remember they had the wrong dates.
I really believe that the Sun told AH to come up with any and every thing she could think of - all to fit conveniently around texts she had or other pieces of evidence which didn't prove abuse. And so what they had was an overwhelming number of incidents.
You can tell a world of difference between AH and JD's legal representation. You can criticise Johnny's lawyers for many thing - Adam is maybe too aggressive and PR focused; David Sherborne should have gone after the charity issue - but what you don't have is incidents of them deliberately lying. Not so of AH/NGN side. Kaplan and Elaine - both spin outright lies to the media. In the CoA last week - Adam W and Wass actually said AH had made the payments which had come from Musk. They claimed all of that money was from her donation. An absolute lie.
Hopefully in a year, 12 people will hear all of this. They'll read Johnny texts yes, but won't it be interesting if we get to read AH's texts? They will see pictures of him asleep wearing ice cream, and they'll hear her voice on those tapes and maybe other tapes. And I imagine that just as Wass played the cupboard beating video over and over we are going to be treated to AH on Dutch TV over and over.
She isn't a witness, she is the defendant. And the people making the decision won't be academically pondering the finer points of law they will be deciding whether or not she is a liar who defamed him.
Dog is watching Edward Scissor hands - he prefers Pirates films but I am trying to broaden his mind.
When AH filed for her TRO she claim three incidents of violence: the James Corden night before taping; her 30th birthday; the 21 May. And when the Sun wrote the story - they hadn't even got an affidavit from AH.
Remember also there were other little embellishments - that he had been violent on a plane to Japan for the Lone Ranger premier - but ooh whoops had to drop that one because - well unlikely to have happened with his kids of board and one of her friends who publicly liked Gina posts about Johnny.
So back to the original three - a vague date in December which Brian narrowed down to the night before James Corden taping. But that was looking a bit shaky - Samantha McMillen came out for him and then the inconvenience of - well the fact she was on TV twisting her lips and clearly not in any pain.
So once they had a bunch of raw texts, they appear to have concocted stories around them. Inconvenient again that pictures or other bits of truth kept upending the story - but no matter. She just switched dates, suddenly remembering things, as did her sister - suddenly remember they had the wrong dates.
I really believe that the Sun told AH to come up with any and every thing she could think of - all to fit conveniently around texts she had or other pieces of evidence which didn't prove abuse. And so what they had was an overwhelming number of incidents.
You can tell a world of difference between AH and JD's legal representation. You can criticise Johnny's lawyers for many thing - Adam is maybe too aggressive and PR focused; David Sherborne should have gone after the charity issue - but what you don't have is incidents of them deliberately lying. Not so of AH/NGN side. Kaplan and Elaine - both spin outright lies to the media. In the CoA last week - Adam W and Wass actually said AH had made the payments which had come from Musk. They claimed all of that money was from her donation. An absolute lie.
Hopefully in a year, 12 people will hear all of this. They'll read Johnny texts yes, but won't it be interesting if we get to read AH's texts? They will see pictures of him asleep wearing ice cream, and they'll hear her voice on those tapes and maybe other tapes. And I imagine that just as Wass played the cupboard beating video over and over we are going to be treated to AH on Dutch TV over and over.
She isn't a witness, she is the defendant. And the people making the decision won't be academically pondering the finer points of law they will be deciding whether or not she is a liar who defamed him.
Dog is watching Edward Scissor hands - he prefers Pirates films but I am trying to broaden his mind.
-
In-too-Depp
- Posts: 176627
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:20 pm
- Location: Walking my beat in deepest UK
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Johnny Depp refused permission to appeal libel verdict
bbc.co.uk
25th March 2021
Johnny Depp has been refused permission to appeal against a High Court ruling that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard.
Last year, the US actor lost his libel case against the publisher of The Sun over an article that labelled him a "wife beater".
Mr Depp asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the ruling.
But on Thursday, a judge refused his application and said his appeal had "no real prospect of success".
What was the original ruling?
The Sun's article, published in April 2018, was the focus of a three-week trial in July last year.
The 57-year-old sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) - the publisher of The Sun - over the accusation that he was violent towards Ms Heard, but the newspaper maintained its article was accurate.
The Hollywood star's libel claim was dismissed by Mr Justice Nicol, who found The Sun's accusation to be "substantially true" and ruled in the publisher's favour.
The judge found Mr Depp, 57, had assaulted Ms Heard, 34, on a dozen occasions and put her in "fear for her life" three times.
The verdict was not made public until November.
Days after the ruling was announced, Mr Depp announced he had been asked by Warner Brothers to resign from his role in the Harry Potter spin-off franchise Fantastic Beasts.
What happened with Mr Depp's appeal?
The US actor asked the Court of Appeal to grant permission for him to challenge the High Court's ruling, with the aim of having its findings overturned and a retrial ordered.
At a hearing last week, Mr Depp's lawyers asked the court to consider fresh evidence relating to what they said was Ms Heard's claim that she gave her $7m (£5.5m) divorce settlement to charity.
Mr Depp's barrister Andrew Caldecott QC told the court that claim was a "calculated and manipulative lie".
After the couple divorced in 2016, Ms Heard said she would split the $7m between the Children's Hospital Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
But Mr Caldecott said the hospital wrote to Mr Depp's business adviser in 2019 to say Ms Heard had not made "any payments".
The court heard $100,000 (£72,000) was donated to the hospital and $450,000 (£322,000) to the ACLU, but Ms Heard claimed she made a further $500,000 (£358,000) donation to the second charity anonymously.
Ms Heard's legal team has previously said: "Amber has already been responsible for seven figures in donations to charitable causes and intends to continue to contribute and eventually fulfil her pledge."
But Adam Wolanski QC, representing The Sun's publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN), said the new evidence Mr Depp wanted to rely on "would not have had any impact" on the result of the libel trial.
On Thursday, the court refused permission for Mr Depp to appeal.
Speaking at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Justice Underhill said: "We refuse Mr Depp's application to admit further evidence in support of his proposed appeal and we conclude that the appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.
"We accordingly refuse permission to appeal."
What has the reaction been?
In a statement after the ruling, a spokeswoman for The Sun said: "The Sun had every confidence that this leave to appeal application would not be granted and are pleased with today's decision.
"The case had a full, fair and proper hearing, and today's decision vindicates the courageous evidence that Amber Heard gave to the court about domestic abuse, despite repeated attempts to undermine and silence her by the perpetrator."
A spokeswoman for Amber Heard said in a statement: "We are pleased - but by no means surprised - by the court's denial of Mr Depp's application for appeal. The evidence presented in the UK case was overwhelming and undeniable."
She added: "Mr Depp's claim of new and important evidence was nothing more than a press strategy, and has been soundly rejected by the court."
In a statement, Mr Depp's solicitor Joelle Rich from the law firm Schillings said: "The evidence presented at last week's hearing further demonstrates that there are clear and objective reasons to seriously question the decision reached in the UK court.
"Mr Depp looks forward to presenting the complete, irrefutable evidence of the truth in the US libel case against Ms Heard, where she will have to provide full disclosure."
What is the US libel case?
While Thursday's ruling effectively brings to an end Mr Depp's UK court case, the actor is embroiled in a separate libel battle in the US.
He is suing Ms Heard personally over a 2018 Washington Post opinion piece in which she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse, but did not mention the actor by name.
The actor's $50m (£35m) US case against Ms Heard was recently delayed until April 2022.
bbc.co.uk
25th March 2021
Johnny Depp has been refused permission to appeal against a High Court ruling that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard.
Last year, the US actor lost his libel case against the publisher of The Sun over an article that labelled him a "wife beater".
Mr Depp asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the ruling.
But on Thursday, a judge refused his application and said his appeal had "no real prospect of success".
What was the original ruling?
The Sun's article, published in April 2018, was the focus of a three-week trial in July last year.
The 57-year-old sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) - the publisher of The Sun - over the accusation that he was violent towards Ms Heard, but the newspaper maintained its article was accurate.
The Hollywood star's libel claim was dismissed by Mr Justice Nicol, who found The Sun's accusation to be "substantially true" and ruled in the publisher's favour.
The judge found Mr Depp, 57, had assaulted Ms Heard, 34, on a dozen occasions and put her in "fear for her life" three times.
The verdict was not made public until November.
Days after the ruling was announced, Mr Depp announced he had been asked by Warner Brothers to resign from his role in the Harry Potter spin-off franchise Fantastic Beasts.
What happened with Mr Depp's appeal?
The US actor asked the Court of Appeal to grant permission for him to challenge the High Court's ruling, with the aim of having its findings overturned and a retrial ordered.
At a hearing last week, Mr Depp's lawyers asked the court to consider fresh evidence relating to what they said was Ms Heard's claim that she gave her $7m (£5.5m) divorce settlement to charity.
Mr Depp's barrister Andrew Caldecott QC told the court that claim was a "calculated and manipulative lie".
After the couple divorced in 2016, Ms Heard said she would split the $7m between the Children's Hospital Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
But Mr Caldecott said the hospital wrote to Mr Depp's business adviser in 2019 to say Ms Heard had not made "any payments".
The court heard $100,000 (£72,000) was donated to the hospital and $450,000 (£322,000) to the ACLU, but Ms Heard claimed she made a further $500,000 (£358,000) donation to the second charity anonymously.
Ms Heard's legal team has previously said: "Amber has already been responsible for seven figures in donations to charitable causes and intends to continue to contribute and eventually fulfil her pledge."
But Adam Wolanski QC, representing The Sun's publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN), said the new evidence Mr Depp wanted to rely on "would not have had any impact" on the result of the libel trial.
On Thursday, the court refused permission for Mr Depp to appeal.
Speaking at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Justice Underhill said: "We refuse Mr Depp's application to admit further evidence in support of his proposed appeal and we conclude that the appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.
"We accordingly refuse permission to appeal."
What has the reaction been?
In a statement after the ruling, a spokeswoman for The Sun said: "The Sun had every confidence that this leave to appeal application would not be granted and are pleased with today's decision.
"The case had a full, fair and proper hearing, and today's decision vindicates the courageous evidence that Amber Heard gave to the court about domestic abuse, despite repeated attempts to undermine and silence her by the perpetrator."
A spokeswoman for Amber Heard said in a statement: "We are pleased - but by no means surprised - by the court's denial of Mr Depp's application for appeal. The evidence presented in the UK case was overwhelming and undeniable."
She added: "Mr Depp's claim of new and important evidence was nothing more than a press strategy, and has been soundly rejected by the court."
In a statement, Mr Depp's solicitor Joelle Rich from the law firm Schillings said: "The evidence presented at last week's hearing further demonstrates that there are clear and objective reasons to seriously question the decision reached in the UK court.
"Mr Depp looks forward to presenting the complete, irrefutable evidence of the truth in the US libel case against Ms Heard, where she will have to provide full disclosure."
What is the US libel case?
While Thursday's ruling effectively brings to an end Mr Depp's UK court case, the actor is embroiled in a separate libel battle in the US.
He is suing Ms Heard personally over a 2018 Washington Post opinion piece in which she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse, but did not mention the actor by name.
The actor's $50m (£35m) US case against Ms Heard was recently delayed until April 2022.
And Wit, was his vain frivolous pretence
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
Of pleasing others, at his own expense
Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man
-
Lbock
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Her original 3 when he filed against the Sun, I thought “good for you Johnny” (and no oped yet). When she got involved and piled on 12+3, I thought get the hell out. No way a judge today could disbelieve all 12. It was too much and they knew it. All lies on her part, but perfect defense
And he really had to sue when the opportunity presented itself (via the Sun). She turned her lies into activism and ACLU and UN ran with it. She was getting endorsements like L’Oreal worth it campaign. Talking at hearings in Washington DC.
It would never stop unless he did something. He has no way to clear his name because if the divorce NDA. She could alude to her public claims/TRO without mentioning him. He couldn’t say “I didn’t harm her”
And he really had to sue when the opportunity presented itself (via the Sun). She turned her lies into activism and ACLU and UN ran with it. She was getting endorsements like L’Oreal worth it campaign. Talking at hearings in Washington DC.
It would never stop unless he did something. He has no way to clear his name because if the divorce NDA. She could alude to her public claims/TRO without mentioning him. He couldn’t say “I didn’t harm her”
-
AdeleAgain
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Agree again!
To everyone who says why did he sue - well remember 2017 and 2018? She not only had the press on her side but quite alot of ordinary folk (although I still think from the social media evidence not a majority) sided with her.
This would have been unrelenting. She would never have stopped talking, talking, talking about standing up for women.
And because he sued we got the tapes, and now we have the evidence on charity.
So the press can keep defending her - truth is out.
Adam is back and you now what I am feeling buoyed because I suspect there is more and more to come:
https://twitter.com/adam_waldman
Pity she has to be in the picture (but that's the point of the picture). Tell me please - look at him. If you were married to that would you not wake up every morning of your idyllic island and thank god for your good fortune. He looks like so much fun!
Oh and she isn't bruised.
To everyone who says why did he sue - well remember 2017 and 2018? She not only had the press on her side but quite alot of ordinary folk (although I still think from the social media evidence not a majority) sided with her.
This would have been unrelenting. She would never have stopped talking, talking, talking about standing up for women.
And because he sued we got the tapes, and now we have the evidence on charity.
So the press can keep defending her - truth is out.
Adam is back and you now what I am feeling buoyed because I suspect there is more and more to come:
https://twitter.com/adam_waldman
Pity she has to be in the picture (but that's the point of the picture). Tell me please - look at him. If you were married to that would you not wake up every morning of your idyllic island and thank god for your good fortune. He looks like so much fun!
Oh and she isn't bruised.
-
justintime
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Not such “small beacons of light”, AdeleAgain.AdeleAgain wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:03 amTwo small beacons of light (which in a way only makes the overall judgement so much more sickening):
1. CoA says she did mislead the court
2. CoA says likely that she was violent to him.
Not sure if those are useful in Virginia.
I would have thought a judgement saying she misled a court in UK along with the Australia perjury should help....
1. Whether a civil case or criminal case, misleading the court can and should reap intimidating consequences to the liar:
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/11/ ... the-court/
2. By acknowledging AH was likely violent to Johnny and then just letting it hang there, what are they insinuating? His injuries were trivial? That twisted concept, mutual abuse, was in play? The casual mention of the devastating fallout to Johnny’s career, his life is a condescending throwaway comment.
Thank you, Lbock, for the link to the Judgement. I forced myself to read it. IMAO, Johnny Depp was wrongfully denied permission to appeal, with or without the inclusion of the adduced evidence. I can’t begin to imagine how Johnny is internalizing all this injustice.
"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
"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
-
Granna
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Justintime: The verdict stinks. I am totally blown away. However, as stated all of those "extra" made up incudents - didn't help. As I suggested before, no matter the outcome - we should plan a celebration. I still feel that way. Some options: 1) Join Stevie J Raw on 4/17/2021 for a live stream. Since the female "Voldemort" did not donate the $3.5 million - let those of us that believe and support JD, help raise the money for the CHLA; 2) the female "Voldemort" has a birthday - let us celebrate - by streaming JD's films -- it's ALL about JD; 3) In June our gentleman has his birthday -- let us stream again & possibly buy some Sauvage (Fathers Day, starting Christmas shopping a little early?) 4) continue to point out the wrong doings of "Voldemort" to the world - not letting up on ANYTHING; & 5) December past was really "Deppember" let's organize a repeat! Above all support, believe and have faith in our gentlemen and his team members: Adam and Ben. I am sure he is reeling from the decision but he has hundreds of thousands of those who do believe him. As previously stated - the world is a better place with him in it, then without him. He has much to offer to the world and the best is still to come. Let us keep the faith and look towards the VA trial with a positive attitude.
-
Lbock
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
CHLA allowed her to falsely claim she donated. As Adam tweeted prior, they enabled her. They aren’t getting my money.
-
gipsyblues
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
If Adam tweeted this, you're right Lbock.
On June 9, 2021 at 6 p.m. I will buy a good bottle of wine or champagne and toast our sweetheart and angel. I will celebrate his birthday and see his films.
On June 9, 2021 at 6 p.m. I will buy a good bottle of wine or champagne and toast our sweetheart and angel. I will celebrate his birthday and see his films.
-
Granna
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
If Adam did tweet this, ok. I do not go on twitter at all it is too toxic for me. I was not supporting CHLA as such- I thought this was for the kids , that is who needs the help. No worries, I won't post anything else on this format ever again.
-
ForeverYoung
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
It's another crap decision but pretty much what I had expected. From what I hear it's very hard to get granted permission to appeal and these two judges didn't give a crap that Amber Heard lied under oath and that Judge Nicol based his decision on assumptions when she presented no proof. That being said, even if he had been granted permission to appeal, I don't think he would have had a chance at winning because some of the allegations come out to a she said/he said and they only need one reason to make a decision go in The Sun's favor.
Johnny can move on now and put this behind him. Now he can focus on his projects and the upcoming trial while Amber Heard hides out in the desert.
Johnny can move on now and put this behind him. Now he can focus on his projects and the upcoming trial while Amber Heard hides out in the desert.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
Someareborn
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
I haven't had the time to read the judgement yet, but I am also very disappointed by todays decision. Maybe the judges somehow "protected" him for another loss at a retrial.
But I seriously question myself how a case this clear could go so wrong and against any feeling of justice. Maybe because its a libel case and I fail to understand the details of the case.
Maybe he has better chances to win the case in the US. Altough its hard to have hope on this.
Adam can release private pictures, proving AH lied, all day, it had no effect in court so far. And its safe to say he already released the biggest truth bombs (tapes, cctv, donations...). I can't imagine what else could have an impact.
Can't believe I have to trust a jury now to give justice to JD. Hopefully they will.
I hope JD stays safe and true to himself - the judgement its disheartening on a personal level.
But I seriously question myself how a case this clear could go so wrong and against any feeling of justice. Maybe because its a libel case and I fail to understand the details of the case.
Maybe he has better chances to win the case in the US. Altough its hard to have hope on this.
Adam can release private pictures, proving AH lied, all day, it had no effect in court so far. And its safe to say he already released the biggest truth bombs (tapes, cctv, donations...). I can't imagine what else could have an impact.
Can't believe I have to trust a jury now to give justice to JD. Hopefully they will.
I hope JD stays safe and true to himself - the judgement its disheartening on a personal level.
-
stroch
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:41 pm
- Location: New Orleans
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
I don't have much hope for Virginia. His name is never mentioned in the op-ed, and opinions have broad protection under the 1st amendment.
I'll buy you the hat....a really big one.
St. Roch -- patron saint of pilgrims
St. Roch -- patron saint of pilgrims
-
nebraska
- Posts: 32891
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:15 pm
- Location: near Omaha
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
It is really hard not to be discouraged.
The best thing about this case is that he is fighting and doing his best to get the truth out there. The stain of the accusations will be with him forever, but at least he isn't taking this laying down! And people have a chance to see her true colors.