The Lawsuits Thread

[Someareborn]

I am sorry if I upset you - I try to understand the legal aspect of it all - and much of it seems to be two sides of a coin.

Did you mean me? You did not upset me. The VA case is a defamation case against Amber Heard. What Johnny has to prove is that what he says is more likely true than not true. It is also called preponderance of evidence. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is a much lower standard of proof than a criminal case.

Yes, I meant you. I had the impression you sounded frustrated with my lack of understanding. Apparently I got it wrong!
I am glad you explained the details to me, everybody here seems to follow the case for a long time - I am learning a lot.

[Someareborn]

Yes interesting that AH hasn't called on Savannah. I wonder if Savannah and Nathan are both in similar positions in that testifying would expose them to possible criminal charges - Savannah over breaking immigration rules and Nathan over drug dealing - he was clearly obtaining drugs for someone else's consumption and at the very least that could lead him to be unable to go to the US or Australia ever again.

Thats a good guess. And they probably had no chance to"legalize" their actions, like Kevin Murphy tried, after he was pressured into perjury for the dog incident in Australia. Adam just posted contradicting evidence about Savannah Mcmillan - does anybody know when Savannah sent the textmessage to Kristy, introducing herself as Ambers assistent?

On Dr Kipper and the nurses - there are surely medical confidentiality issues? Given that Johnny has been (fairly) open about addictions and the damage has really been done, it is AH I think who has most to fear since she claimed every single medical note was a lie and that she barely drank of took drugs. And haven't they both been compelled to hand over relevant medical records?

They have, in my recollection. But isn`t AH fighting it?

About Eve Barlow: archetype of my personal social media nightmare user. Absolutely irrelevant.

[AdeleAgain]

Eve seems to be the new iO.

[Judymac]

I am sorry if I upset you - I try to understand the legal aspect of it all - and much of it seems to be two sides of a coin.

Did you mean me? You did not upset me. The VA case is a defamation case against Amber Heard. What Johnny has to prove is that what he says is more likely true than not true. It is also called preponderance of evidence. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is a much lower standard of proof than a criminal case.

Yes, I meant you. I had the impression you sounded frustrated with my lack of understanding. Apparently I got it wrong!
I am glad you explained the details to me, everybody here seems to follow the case for a long time - I am learning a lot.

O.K. I am sorry if I sounded that way.

[RumLover]

The statements about the Boston flight airplane incident seem problematic for both sides.
There are inconsistencies about who was on plane. In Heard's first UK witness statement she says Keenan Wyatt, Stephen Deuters, Nathan Holmes, Jerry Judge, Savannah McMillan and flight attendant were on plane.
IO Tillet Wright Witness statement says Amber said Stephen Deuters, Jerry Judge, Savannah McMillan and one or two others were on the plane.
Amber does not mention in later statements that Savannah or Nathan were on the plane.
Stephen Deuters drew a plan of where people were seated which did not include Savannah or Nathan. Also there is one empty seat in the front and the other two empty seats are at the table with Johnny and Amber. No one was said to be sitting at the table with them.
I would love to know if the flight attendant remembers the flight and whether there were one or two women passengers.

There does not seem to be any subpoena or witness statement for Keenan Wyatt, Nathan Holmes or Savannah McMillan.
My suspicion is that all these people have information which would not reflect well on both Johnny or Amber.

I am sure that Johnny's attorneys will argue that part of io's statement is heresay. You can't testify about something that someone else told you. io would need firsthand knowledge of the incident. He can not testify about anything that happened on the plane because he was not on the plane.

If Savannah was not on the flight, the IO's statement about what Savannah saw is not hearsay but a lie. There is a similar statement from Raquel. So it seems they were trying to give Amber a witness on the flight but this story has been since dropped. If Savannah was not on flight, then saying she was is indication of a group lie.

Consider, if Savannah was on the flight, then that implies that Stephen Deuters seating plan is wrong. Which raises question of why.
If Amber says Savannah was on flight, was it as friend or assistant? The statements from Amber, Johnny and Stephen say nothing about what Savannah did or said during alleged event.

Team Heard subpoenaed the flight manifest in December 2019. I have since learnt that these might not be totally accurate as different people arrive for flight and manifest is not changed.

[Judymac]

IO Tillet Wright Witness statement says Amber said, Stephen Deuters, Jerry Judge, Savannah McMillan and one or two others were on the plane."

I wasn't debating who was on the plane or what happened on the plane. My point is that io can not testify that Amber told him who was on the plane. It is hearsay and will not be admissible. It does not matter if heresay is the truth or a lie because it is inadmissible. io put that information in his witness statement but it will not be admissible at trial. If they do Johnny's attorney's will object. io can not testify to anything that happened on the plane because he was not there.

[RumLover]

If Io, Raquel and Whitney all told a story about Savannah being on the flight and that Savannah spoke to them about the flight but Savannah was not on flight, should that be admissible as evidence of a hoax? (Even if not admissible evidence of what happened on flight.)
My current opinion (until further information) is that Savannah was not on the flight. Those who said she was expected that she would give a statement supporting Amber's version but Savannah drew the line, realised these people were not her friends and is not saying anything.

Whitney Witness Statement
47. I was not on the plane, so | did not see when Johnny kicked her. But | heard about it a couple of days later from Amber and Savannah McMillan (Amber's friend), who had been on the plane with her, and discussed it with iO Tillett Wright, who was with Amber when she got back to LA.

[AdeleAgain]

This is all very interesting. Honestly you guys/Depp community - nothing goes unnoticed.

Does anyone know what Savannah does now? Interesting that she was not a key witness for AH in the London trial - has she hung around AH after the divorce or recently?

If she was or is going to wholly back up AH's version of events then I don't understand why AH has not deployed her before?

If she does not back up AH, then her testimony is going to be difficult because if she contradicts AH's version of events then she likely was working and will have to admit she lied to US immigration. So that undermines her as a witness for JD's side.

Almost best outcome for JD and Savannah is if they can demonstrate Savannah was not on the flight - then iO, Whitney, Raquel and whoever else claims to be repeating her - have lied, and Savannh does not even need to testify.

Can someone please explain the hearsay rules please? Surely you can testify to what someone told you, albeit that it is not given the same weight as if you actually witnessed something? I believe that's how it works in the UK - is the US different? I can see perhaps in a jury trial it would need to be different.

Going back to Greg Williams - he and Alice Temperley split up a good time ago - he was remarried before the London trial. Alice Temperley was photographed with AH and that art dealer boyfriend in - I want to say 2018? - but then she was also delightfully friendly to JD when she saw him in Qatar. Depp fans were posting photos from that 2015 shoot in the Bahamas years ago to undermine AH's claims. I still don't understand why they weren't used in the trial - she is so utterly flawless it simply beggars that she had the type of injuries she described. In the James Corden show her make up is quite heavy - looks to me like it was covering up tiredness and possibly hangover - albeit all that screwing up of her face - no way she has a broken nose etc.

[justintime]

Too close for comfort? How might this impact (if at all) Adam Waldman’s continued association with Johnny as, now his “personal lawyer”, given his home base:

Adam R. Waldman
The Endeavor Law Firm, P. C.
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 350
Washington DC 20006

[Lbock]

So Elon Musk’s is on the board of Endeavor who is the parent company of William Morris Endeavor talent agency that employs Amber. Looks like Amber will be getting allot more work and Johnny just ongoing bad publicity.

Hearsay: Io can testify to what Amber told him. But if it’s an out-of-court statement, it’s hearsay.

Double Hearsay: Jennifer Howell repeating what Whitney/Paige was told by Amber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_i ... States_law

[Lbock]

I’m not sure the question about Adam

I personally believe neither Elon nor Adam have been served their subpoenas yet. IMHO

[Judymac]

Can someone please explain the hearsay rules please? Surely you can testify to what someone told you, albeit that it is not given the same weight as if you actually witnessed something? I believe that's how it works in the UK - is the US different? I can see perhaps in a jury trial it would need to be different.

A person can not testify to something that someone else told them. Hearsay is seen to be unreliable. It is not a matter of it having less weight, it is not allowed. It also does not matter if it is a jury trial or not. There is a way around this. When Amber is on the stand they could ask Amber questions about what she told io about the plane trip. Then they would be able to call (or recall) io and ask him what Amber told him. It would not be hearsay because Amber testified to the statements that she made to io. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule but it would be up to the judge to decide if testimony is allowed in. In general hearsay is not allowed. I wish I could explain this better. What I am saying doesn't have anything to do with who was on the plane. I am only addressing io testifying to something Amber told him.

[Lbock]

Depp awarded legal fees from Heard but now under reconsideration and Ben Chew has to provide an itemization

[RumLover]

Too close for comfort? How might this impact (if at all) Adam Waldman’s continued association with Johnny as, now his “personal lawyer”, given his home base:

Adam R. Waldman
The Endeavor Law Firm, P. C.
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 350
Washington DC 20006

Are you sure the Endeavor Group Holdings (formerly WME) is related to Endeavor Law?
Endeavor is a common name for businesses ranging from snowboards to investment funds to health devices.

[justintime]

No, RumLover, I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear: I’m not sure if there is any connection at all. That is my question. This Musk/Emmanuel alignment seems to have come out of left field at a very odd time, or maybe not such odd timing at all. Rather perfect timing, perhaps, for a lot more reasons than the obvious AH lifeline. You know, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. I doubt Musk counts Mr. Waldman amongst his nearest and dearest...

I’ve stumbled on comments such as: “... since 2001, The Endeavor Group’s team of highly skilled professionals has been assisting the world’s visionaries to extend their influence around the globe” and “...the Group has contact profiles located in Washington D.C.” that have made me wonder. Is Mr. Waldman being targeted again?

When I came across the following recent BusinessWire description found in the link below referencing “... specializes in talent representation....”, I thought I’d ask if anyone had anything more definitive:

“Endeavor is a global entertainment, sports and content company, home to many of the world’s most dynamic and engaging storytellers, brands, live events and experiences. The company is comprised of industry leaders including entertainment agency WME; sports, fashion, events and media company IMG; and premier mixed martial arts organization UFC. The Endeavor network specializes in talent representation, sports operations & advisory, event & experiences management, media production & distribution, experiential marketing and brand licensing.”

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... c-Offering