The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

Judymac: As it has been said via an YT lawyer, JD does not have to be present. There is strong speculation that Ben Chew has options for todays' proceeding, all with JD's blessing. It will be Chew's call, after he hears the defendants intentions.

Tomorrow 11am EST

[ForeverYoung]

Here is a video I posted a few weeks ago. It is an in-depth explanation about how the appeal process works. This is a lawyer and also very active on twitter with the JD fans. She was one of the visiting lawyers on the live stream channel I was watching the trial on.

[Inquiring Minds]

I just saw this article. It contains a really great testimonial from Courtney Love. JD saves another life.

[fireflydances]

I just saw this article. It contains a really great testimonial from Courtney Love. JD saves another life.

Good piece. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the media. How sadly true. Thank you.

[ForeverYoung]

JD would not be able to come to court anyway. I just read the Jeff Beck concert in Norway for 6/24 is cancelled because someone in the band has covid, which usually means they all have to quarantine for at least 5 days now.

[Judymac]

JD would not be able to come to court anyway. I just read the Jeff Beck concert in Norway for 6/24 is cancelled because someone in the band has covid, which usually means they all have to quarantine for at least 5 days now.

I hope that everyone is OK.

[Inquiring Minds]

fireflydances wrote:

Good piece. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the media. How sadly true. Thank you.

Glad you enjoyed it also In a similar vein, I love his recent “This is a Song for Hedy Lamar” (she has been a fav of mine for many years).

[Topic change]

Whilst the MSM is overwhelmingly in denial and damage control, a frequent claim I read is that the one defamation count found against Mr Depp was because it used the word “hoax”. Some basic fact checking disproves this misconception, and provides a more plausible, and much less interesting reason the jury may have arrived at their verdict (on the AH counterclaim).

Statement 1

"Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield depending on their needs."
"They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr Depp."

Not defamatory


Statement 2

"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt did not do the trick."
"The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property."
"So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

Defamatory


Statement 3

"We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp."

Not defamatory


I want to break down the 2nd, defamatory statement:

Quite simply this was an ambush – Rocky’s miraculous appearance and Amber’s surprise when the bodyguards burst in would suggest this it was an ambush. Io could maybe be considered an unwitting participant (believing he was hearing an assault in progress). Calling it an ambush was a reasonable inference given the known facts (and therefor not knowingly untrue).

a hoax – the term “hoax” has been deemed true and not defamatory by the jury (statements 1 and 3).

They set Mr Depp up – not proven, but supported by the “ambush” context reasoned above.

by calling the cops – True. The call was placed by Io (to the NYPD)

but the first attempt did not do the trick – True. Assumes that the “trick” was to have the police register a DV incident, but without charges being laid. Note: if charges were laid, the subsequent extortion letter would lose most of its power. As we have seen, once the allegations became public and involve the police and courts, withdrawing the allegations does not make them go away in the public’s perception, potentially fueling them. The use of the word “first” however, whilst technically accurate, also infers that there is a “second”, and that the existence of this “second” was known at the time the word “first” was used.

The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property – True. Supported by LAPD testimony.

So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine – True (a reasonable conclusion). No damage or evidence of an assault was reported by the first police in attendance.

and roughed the place up – True (a reasonable conclusion). Photos were taken before the 2nd police visit and the mess was cleaned up before the second police visit.

got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist – True (a reasonable conclusion). She made calls to both her lawyer and publicist (but not the police, that was Io). The actual discussion however is unknown (once any hearsay is dismissed).

and then placed a second call to 911 – False. No second call was placed. In VA it was revealed that the “second call” was a re-issue of the first, original call to the NYPD, dispatched from the NYPD to the LAPD at the time, then again later, administratively and without another, 2nd phone call being placed. Although untrue, the second police visit could have been reasonably seen, from the outside (ie Adam), as having been invoked by a phone call, not an administrative glitch. I’m not sure Mr Waldman could have known this to be untrue (or had any reason at the time to believe it wasn’t true).

As it can be reasonably assumed that all statements were malicious in nature, that means that statements 1 and 3 must be considered true to be judged not defamatory. Statement 3 explicitly calls out “Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp”. This was a hoax, Hoax, HOAX. Calling this hoax a hoax is not defamatory.

If Adam’s statement that “We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp” is true, then it follows that at the beginning, middle and end of the beginning it was an abuse hoax against Johnny. It was also an abuse hoax at every stage between the beginning of the beginning and the end of the end (the end maybe comes after the appeal is rejected - and AH is struck mute by a freak lightning bolt, inside, whilst lying during a studio interview).

[Theresa]

[Theresa]

Heard’s representative shares statement
The Independent


A spokesperson for Amber Heard tells The Independent: “As stated in yesterday’s congressional hearings, you don't ask for a pardon if you are innocent. And, you don't decline to appeal if you know you are right.”

Clemence Michallon24 June 2022 16:58

[ForeverYoung]

Heard’s representative shares statement
The Independent


A spokesperson for Amber Heard tells The Independent: “As stated in yesterday’s congressional hearings, you don't ask for a pardon if you are innocent. And, you don't decline to appeal if you know you are right.”

Clemence Michallon24 June 2022 16:58

Where are these people getting their info? You're right, its a JUDGMENT, not a settlement and the case doesn't get "moved" anywhere. It only winds up in the court of appeals IF she decides to appeal it because that is where she would have to begin the process but Judge A would be copied on the papers.

[ForeverYoung]

[ForeverYoung]

The official order has been filed.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 4-2022.pdf

[myfave]

So, she absolutely has to pay him what was settled?

[Granna]

Myfave: Not a settlement. JUDGEMENT is FINAL. Signed by Judge Penny.

[ForeverYoung]

So, she absolutely has to pay him what was settled?

Nothing was "settled." The judgement that the jury handed down became official today and the judge signed and filed the Order, which I posted above. Just click on the link and you will see the amounts. Whether he puts a lien on her future earnings (such as the sale of a "tell all" book (cough...cough...) or makes some kind of other arrangement about payments is something the judge does not decide. Her job is done at this point.

If she does decide to appeal, she has to do it in the appeals court and would need to put up a bond for the total amount of the judgement (not minus what he owes her), plus 6% interest. Same with JD.