The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:38 pm

TUG has posted that FBI taking USA witness statements and working with Australia agents investigatin perjury charges against Amber in Australia

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:41 pm



Depp to Get Drafts of Article at Center of Defamation Case Against Heard
April 30, 2021 JOAN HENNESSY

A Virginia judge said actress Amber Heard must also turn over a range of documents related to claims that she was the victim of domestic violence.

Johnny Depp’s lawsuit accusing his ex-wife Amber Heard of defamation enters its third year in court with a ruling that the actress must turn over drafts of an editorial she published in The Washington Post.

Fairfax County Circuit Court Chief Judge Penney S. Azcarate ruled from the bench Friday that Heard must also turn over certain communications with partners and associates, along with a passel of other documents related to claims that she was the victim of domestic violence.

Drafts of the editorial would reveal the writing process of a piece published in the Post on Dec. 18, 2018. That editorial, in which Heard, 35, described the backlash she faced after stepping forward as a survivor of domestic abuse, is the basis for Depp’s complaint, filed three months later in Fairfax County, where the newspaper is printed.

She wrote the editorial “with the assistance and advice of others,” according to court filings. She didn’t pen the headline, which read, “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”

While there have been numerous hearings in the case, Friday’s was the first before Azacarte, who took over for retiring Judge Bruce White. It also produced one of the more heated exchanges in the legal saga.

Other than Heard, “Depp has never been accused by a single woman of raising a finger to them,” charged Depp’s attorney Ben Chew of Brown Rudnick. The attorney repeated claims made in the the 57-year-old “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor’s original complaint that Heard had been accused of assaulting a partner. Those charges were dropped.

Chew also accused Heard of lying about donating her $7 million divorce settlement to charities, including the ACLU and Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

“That was false,” Chew said. “That was perjury.”

For her part, Heard’s lawyer Elaine Charlson Bredehoft told the judge that Chew was “trying to get into your honor’s head.” Heard pledged the money to charities and intends to make good on the promise, the attorney said.

Bredehoft, a partner in her firm Charlson Bredehoft Cohen & Brown, pointed out that the “Aquaman” actress has produced all kinds of documents already – a hard drive, communications, voluminous paperwork.

“We’ve done nothing to hide anything,” she said.

In court filings, the attorney wrote that Heard, who has also filed a counterclaim in the case, had provided more than “one million responsive documents supporting her damages.”

Earlier this year, Bredehoft fought for – and won – the right to use an anti-SLAPP defense. The term SLAPP – strategic lawsuits against public participation – was coined to describe lawsuits that aim to silence or short-circuit free speech. Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law allows immunity from civil liability for statements about matters of public concern protected under the First Amendment.

Bredehoft also filed a notice with the court outlining the findings of last summer’s court case in the United Kingdom. Depp sued in that country over statements alleging abuse of Heard reported in The Sun. The burden of proof was on the defendants in that case, the newspaper and its editor. The court ruled in favor of the publisher. In March, the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal rejected Depp’s request to appeal the lower court’s ruling.

The two cases are based on the same set of operative facts, the brief pointed out.

“The high court found that Depp failed to prevail on his libel claim because the statements were substantially true and that Depp committed domestic violence against Ms. Heard on at least 12 occasions, at times causing Ms. Heard to fear for her life,” the filing states.

It added that the Fairfax County court should recognize the U.K. judgment, giving it full effect. Such a finding would mean that the statements in the editorial were found to be true, the filing noted, “so Ms. Heard is entitled to the immunity and relief afforded by Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute as a matter of law.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/depp-to- ... tion-case/

Highlighted sentence I think is incorrect in their article that they link it says


Chief Circuit Court Judge Bruce White took the matter under advisement. It is unclear when he will issue a ruling.
https://www.courthousenews.com/heard-tu ... tion-case/

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 54253
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:01 pm

In court filings, the attorney wrote that Heard, who has also filed a counterclaim in the case, had provided more than “one million responsive documents supporting her damages.”

:rotflmao:

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:25 pm

“We’ve done nothing to hide anything,” she said.

The ex was refusing to produce receipts and medical records and now, obviously other documents

If she had a pledge to donate the money why not produce it from the very beginning? That's such a sorry and pathetic excuse.
:no2: :facepalm: :smh:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
nebraska
Posts: 31152
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: near Omaha
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by nebraska » Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:29 pm

Does anyone else worry that she will prevail with all this nonsense? After the horrific UK verdict I don't trust anything, no matter how reasonable and right things seem.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:48 pm

nebraska wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:29 pm
Does anyone else worry that she will prevail with all this nonsense? After the horrific UK verdict I don't trust anything, no matter how reasonable and right things seem.
I can't speak for anyone else but I am not worried. I've lost count on how many times she tried to get the complaint dismissed and her motions have been denied. The UK case was a joke with Nicol having personal connections with Robinson, the founding partner of her firm and his son being employed by a radio station connected to NGN or The Sun. We had hoped the appeal judges would be more open minded and reasonable but that didn't happen. Anyway that's history. The VA case has a judge without all that nonsense going on isn't going to be manipulated by her and lies.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat May 01, 2021 7:40 pm

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

gipsyblues
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:36 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by gipsyblues » Sun May 02, 2021 4:06 am

:thanks!: ForeverYoung !!! :hug2:

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun May 02, 2021 10:21 am

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed May 05, 2021 12:43 pm

Can someone please clue us in on what is happening with the case in CA? I read on twitter the ex's motion to compel police personnel records for one officer was denied but she is still pursuing the records for the other police officers with a different judge?

I also read something about a motion to quash the subpoena for the deposition of iO to produce documents.

Is this correct?

Thanks
“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 » Wed May 05, 2021 12:49 pm

ForeverYoung,
IO filed in February that he wasn't properly served and many of the items the judge ruled improper or too broad (which is false). So He is trying to quash his subpoena. Meanwhile, it has been re-issued and probably reserved. But that is to be heard in California in June

Recently AH was DENIED her LAPD Pitchess motion which is to get access to police personnel/training records etc. The California judge said it wasn't the proper jurisidction and therefore she had no authority to hear or rule on the motion. Pretty much said this Pitchess motion is for criminal trials only involving the police, not civil trials.

AH filed the Pitchess motion again (it's on the hearing schedule but documents haven't been uploaded so we are sumizing its for the second set of LAPD). It's scheduled to be heard in October.

Andrea responded she thinks she doing so just to preserve motions/hearsings in case of an appeal


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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed May 05, 2021 1:58 pm

From TUG's newest video - his first screen shot appears to be a teaser between AH and ACLU - either she wrote the oped all about Johnny using his name and they rewrote it - or someone else wrote it entirely - "Skirting her husband'. Looks like proof the OpEd was always about Johnny and not "men in general". I would think that would hurt her anti-SLAPP claim.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed May 05, 2021 5:23 pm

Thanks. Sounds like she is abusing the court system by refiling that same motion that was originally denied and I hope a judge sees right through that and she gets sanctioned.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

arturradukevic453
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by arturradukevic453 » Thu May 06, 2021 12:52 pm

Hello, do you think that it is possible to appeal and something will change?

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu May 06, 2021 4:15 pm

I don't see why she can't appeal if she looses. She doesn't need permission to do that and many strange things can happen in a litigation so who knows if something will change BUT a lot is coming out about the ACLU and proof the article in the Washington Post was about JD. The Umbrella Guy is going to be releasing more stuff, including an LAPD investigation.

https://twitter.com/ThatUmbrella

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."