The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:20 pm

Let's see how many job offers she gets now....not that anyone was knocking her door down anyway.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:28 pm

Chocolat wrote: Interesting how Amber Heard chooses her comments in the video clip to be ambiguous. Though she doesn't deny that she wasn't speaking about Johnny, with his photo clearly shown behind her, it's more than suggests that Johnny was the catalyst for her human rights activism. Therefore, viewers are subtly influenced that Amber Heard was abused by her ex-husband

Justintime wrote: But, again, Chocolat, what public letter - written by AH - is Huys referring to that fits into this time frame?? There is no subtlety in how Huys names Johnny Depp as the subject of her “letter”.

Chocolat wrote: Yes, true, Johnny's name is mentioned by the host as well as the background photo of him, yet Heard does not acknowledge him. I was pointing out her deliberate avoidance of acknowledging Johnny and neither corrects the host either. Thereby, deliberately allowing the viewers/audience to believe Johnny did her harm. This is how she has always played her game, manipulating interviews and speaking engagements to convey her hoax.

Re: Johnathan Shaw's comment. He certainly doesn't hold back, does he? This is not the first time he's voiced his harsh opinion of Heard. Back when all of this exploded, he had some choice words as well. So he must have some knowledge of her evil ways. He's an interesting character to be sure, and very much supports Johnny.
So very sorry, Chocolat! I think we were focused on different things, but it was certainly my own confusion over the mention of AH’s “letter” that threw me off the bus entirely. I had no idea that everyone was talking about another letter! Thank you, and Lbock, too, for being so kind and patient!

And yes, Mr. Shaw has been a very vocal supporter of JD from the beginning. I hope he keeps on speaking his mind, loudly and clearly. Ms. Kaplan might not appreciate his frankness, consistency or honesty, but she should be able to relate to his earthy delivery. I wonder if he is on JD’s witness list.
"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

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 9654
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:36 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:53 pm
Meanwhile, Amber posted on her IG that she is heading off to Canada for the next few months to film that mini-series. How convenient for her to dodge her deposition again but we all know she will be seen in LA on breaks. Also, judging from Waldman's statement, her friends are dodging their depos too.
My gut feeling is that she's delusional and exaggerates how busy she is and how much she's sought after for films. Using her work as an excuse for dodging her deposition will only go so far. Mr. Waldman has been quick to point out her nonattendance and, hopefully, will have the court get her butt in the hot seat ASAP.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:51 pm

Ruby Begonia wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:31 pm
The above article link is to Jezebel, for those who don't want to give that rag any more clicks, but thank you for the information, Lbock :thanks!:

I'm a little confused as to the judge ordering release of non-privileged information along with the requirement for Johnny to sign the release form for medical records. Medical records are included in the numbered items the judge referenced as non-privileged, but most medical records are privileged.

Doesn't seem fair to any romantic partners or parties to NDAs or confidential agreements to have their identities or information revealed.
Yes I included the whole article so you didn’t have to click. But it has statements from Johnny’s lawyers and court room transcript than others hadn’t reported. Sorry

The medical records are protected by their agreed to order.

I don’t know what they’ll do now. Depose each partner as to violence drinking and drugs and how it may or may not have happened or affected their relationship or encounter. So I guess they find them from nda, agreements etc. the very piece of paper used to protect your privacy now will expose it. True. I think third parties should try to fight this, if they can afford an attorney. The protective order doesn’t protect this discovery
Last edited by Lbock on Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

justintime
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:03 pm

Lbock wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:22 pm
It’s bad. Ah got pretty much everything including partners NDA and confidentiality agreements. Seems no time frame limits
Is there ANY upside to this decision? All to be provided by November 15, 2019. Johnny must execute a HIPPA waiver, too, within 7 days!

Again, the use of the word “relevant”: relevant medical records. Who decides what is “relevant”? Certainly every single request can be challenged.

Can this ruling be appealed? What about Johnny requesting the same or more from AH? Did she dispute his statement that described her as being “high on alcohol mixed with amphetamines and prescription drugs” (probably HIS prescription drugs) when she attacked him?

Well, rank amateur that I am, I have to admit to being totally flummoxed by Mr. Gilmore’s apparently one-note strategy on an issue so extremely sensitive to his client. Judge White didn’t seem to want to trust what he was hearing and so actually gave Mr. Gilmore a moment to rethink and, perhaps, regroup. One would expect he’d have had at least a half dozen rebound/recovery reshoots ready to go. He didn’t. In one fell swoop, Johnny lost a decision on something he’d spent years keeping private. Lost to an opposition with an unscrupulous penchant for perfecting the art of the “leak”.

Please, please, please slap me down and tell me what happened wasn’t nearly so bad as I’ve interpreted. An “upside”, please . . .
Last edited by justintime on Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:00 pm

justintime wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:03 pm
Lbock wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:22 pm
It’s bad. Ah got pretty much everything including partners NDA and confidentiality agreements. Seems no time frame limits
Is there ANY upside to this decision? All to be provided by November 15, 2019. Johnny must execute a HIPPA waiver, too, within 7 days!

Again, the use of the word “relevant”: relevant medical records. Who decides what is “relevant”? Certainly every single request can be challenged.

Can this ruling be appealed? What about Johnny requesting the same or more from AH? Did she dispute his statement that described her as being “high on alcohol mixed with amphetamines and prescription drugs” (probably HIS prescription drugs) when she attacked him?
Relevant is drug and alcohol related, I think. But I guess could include any doctor or therapist for behavioral issues They noted their objections for future relevance and admissibility and potentially an appeal.

There is no upside to this. AH is getting access to very private and potentially prejudicial info that can be potentially twisted against Depp especially in court of public opinion. Trying to affect his future work

It appears she is agreeing to provide Dr Kipper meds records on herself

Keep in mind his allegation is defamation that he did not abuse her. If she abused him, I’m not sure the relevance of that claim for defamation other than to “set the record straight”. He never made statements of defense in 2016 other then general denial. His silence then may affect his case now.

Was the article about him? I believe yes. Did he abuse her? That’s the only relevant claim I think

justintime
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:38 am

Thank you, Lbock, for your thoughts and frank response. I think your last comment addresses the one arena we can all remember to breathe easy about - the only relevant question, after all is said and done remains: Did he abuse her?

Despite all the current wheel spinning, that question has been answered months ago with the very thing AH has been lacking from the beginning: solid, court-submitted, incontrovertible evidence. Answer: No, he absolutely did not.
"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

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:23 am

And I also think, that we can relax and tell AH and her lawyers "Knock yourselves out" looking for past abuse accusations and actual abuse.

I fully believe Johnny, when he says, he has never abused/hit a woman.

He has got into some scrapes over the years, yes. But with other men - not his girlfriends. And hotel furniture :biggrin:
Those, who want Johnny to be guilty, often drags out the old story of him "trashing a hotel room" while Kate Moss was present. As I remember it, he smashed one lamp and a table.
I have always imagined, although I don't know for sure, that he kicked the table, because he was mad at a man working for the hotel - NOT Kate - and the lamp, standing on the table, fell down. And both items got damaged.
But even back then he was a gentleman and offered to pay for the broken pieces right away. When the hotel didn't want that, and called the police, he only spend one night in the police stations lockup, so they can't have seen him as dangerous. Plus nobody has come up with any quote from Kate then or later, that she was scared of him that night.
And I don't call one table and one lamp "trashing a hotel room" Do you?

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:03 am

Perez Hilton wrote a decent article about how all his exes spoke up for him one way or another no won’t link it here. It had an Esquire quote from Johnny on the hotel damage
“I wasn’t embarrassed about it then, and I’m certainly not embarrassed about it now. I mean, you know, I was in a bad mood, I assaulted a hotel room. I broke a lot of stuff. And it felt good. I felt better afterwards. Can’t say that I would recommend it, but, you know, you do what you have to do in the moment. Then you have to do it.”

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:02 am

Whatever documents they get from the past has nothing to do with the claim against her or proves that Johnny was abusive to her. What might get revealed are the medical records of the abuse SHE did to HIM.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:06 am

Going back through some documents. There appears to be a limited time frame on partners and that would exclude Moss. I think that is good news. Interesting:
Heard's document Motion to compel page 14 defines Romantic Partner as
n. Romantic Partners, The term “Romantic Partners” shall mean any persons you have touched in a sexual manner in the past ten (10) years, meaning: (a) direct contact between any part of your body and another person’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks; or (b) direct contact between any part of a third party’s body and your genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks.

UPDATE: There is the section regarding prior arrests where they are guessing at least one partner may have been harmed. That is the reference to Moss I am thinking.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:51 am

If Kate was actually harmed, then why would the police let Johnny go the next morning? I have never heard they kept him or charged with anything except property (the hotel's) damage.

justintime
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:40 am

Kate Moss: “I was lucky to be with Johnny”


Police statement re: Johnny’s arrest at the Mark Hotel room
mandy 🔪 🎃
‏@queenbpip
Follow Follow @queenbpip
More
Replying to @redlikejungle @tralalalumbum @MerCleodora
When I was researching my thread and Johnny’s past arrests, I found this direct quote from the police officer, I remember it also had the officers name, so it shouldn’t be hard for them to find themselves.

"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

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:02 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:20 pm
Let's see how many job offers she gets now....not that anyone was knocking her door down anyway.
Nobody wants to work with poison. And this request for past partners over 10 years seems excessive and unwarranted. Disappointed that the judge authorized this no matter what Johnny's attorney said.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:48 pm

Thanks a billion, JustInTime :bouquet: