The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:07 pm

Saying something and doing something are two completely different things. She flat out admitted to being physical with him. After what she put him through I don't blame him one bit. How many times have all of us said something in a text because we were angry?

If these Heard fans had any sense at all they would see that he said he couldn't hurt someone he loved.

And another thing...Johnny did exactly what Amber didn't like. He removed himself from her by locking himself in the bathroom.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:26 pm

Maybe AdeleAgain
:girlwave2: can confirm if it's due to strict confidentiality rules in Britain, but it seems to be difficult to find public info online about JD's Sun defamation lawsuit except for public court days.

His current legal representation situation is a little confusing and unnerving (painful to think of losing Ben Chew unless he was the one who sent the texts to Heard's legal reps in England), but I'm sure it will be clarified in coming days. Apparently JD is represented by attack dog Schillings as well as David Sherborne, who has taken over for the retired Mr. Price at 5RB. Here's something about Mr Sherborne from the 5RB website; from his picture, he may be the man the DM pictured following JD into court. Mr. Sherborne has been very active recently in litigation against News Group, which owns The Sun.


David is a leading barrister in the field of media and communication, specialising in privacy, confidentiality and defamation, as well as matrimonial and sports law. He is particularly well-known in the industry and press for his extensive reputation management practice, as well as his ground-breaking pre-publication injunction work.

Although the majority of the high net worth individuals, world politicians, entrepreneurs, blue-chip companies and other influential organisations David has acted for are confidential, his representation of the following clients is a matter of public record: Diana, the late Princess of Wales; Benazhir Bhutto, Cherie and Tony Blair, Donald and Melania Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Sheikh Abdulla Al-Khalifa, Sir Paul McCartney, Michael Douglas, Jude Law, Kate Winslett, Sienna Miller, Kate Moss, Kelly Hoppen, David Walliams, Frankie Boyle, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, the Spice Girls, Paul Weller, Amy Winehouse, Harry Styles, Cheryl Cole, the Beckhams, Paul Gascoigne, Ashley Cole, Don King and Mike Tyson.

He has been responsible for a number of the landmark privacy cases (such as Douglas v Hello, McKennitt v Ash, Mosley v NGN, Weller v Associated Newspapers, Gulati v MGN, ERY v Associated and PJS v NGN), anti-harassment orders and reporting or confidentiality protection in big money divorce cases.

He is currently Lead Counsel for the victims in the multi-million pound hacking group litigation against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, and represents several hundred individual clients, having obtained record damages in the trial of eight representative claims and successfully upheld the media challenge to these awards in the Court of Appeal. He was also Lead Counsel for the victims of press intrusion at the Leveson Inquiry.

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 52810
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Online

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:39 pm

Thanks everyone for keeping us up to date. :airkiss:

And thanks, Joni, for keeping us all honest. :chocolat:

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:50 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:07 pm
Saying something and doing something are two completely different things. She flat out admitted to being physical with him. After what she put him through I don't blame him one bit. How many times have all of us said something in a text because we were angry?

If these Heard fans had any sense at all they would see that he said he couldn't hurt someone he loved.

And another thing...Johnny did exactly what Amber didn't like. He removed himself from her by locking himself in the bathroom.
Totally agree, ForeverYoung! Words can be awful, and I imagine it was uncomfortable for JD to have to hear those texts read in court today and now blasted hysterically by the pro-Heard media.

But nasty texts didn't leave a pile of dung on his bed or scar an actor's face with a lit cigarette and his hand with a glass bottle, nearly causing him to die from MERSA during recovery.

It was clear to me that JD texted he could never harm Amber, even while intoxicated and acting like a jerk to the rest of his team. Courtesy of Lbock's kind post from Page Six, here's Adam Waldman confirming that:
“Inconveniently for the Sun, here is what Mr. Depp actually said next in his text – that he could never harm Amber: ‘I am admittedly too f–ked in the head to spray my rage at the one I love’.”

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:17 pm

Hi :) Late to the party - the media blackout has meant I only stumbled on Johnny's plight about 2 weeks ago. I've obsessed every since, dived deep on the research and found the depth of the Amber's hoax/conspiracy issue (and its implications) are staggering. I found this thread about a week ago (randomly at page 97 and just kept reading).

The most recently released pair of texts are, (imo) incredibly damning for Amber. The first was a typical vengeance fantasy from a victim that feels powerless to fight back. There are whole sub-genres of fiction devoted to this very subject - the "I Spit on Your Grave" types of movies. The target of such fantasies is always the abuser (in this case, Amber). The righteous wrath may also extend to the abuser's enablers, but the primary target will be the abuser. Generally the worse the imagined retribution, the worse the perceived abuse suffered. He was really hurting. Anyone that would interpret this as anything other than a futile cry for respite from a living hell would have to be deaf, dumb and blind.

But he's bigger, he weighs more than 115lbs so how could he be powerless? His next message explains - because he could never spray his rage against [his tormentor,] the one he loves.

There was no plan to do violence, it was just an expression of the bitter frustration of hopelessness.

Instead of violence and revenge, he opts for the (happy) pill to make the emotional pain go away.

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:17 am

Its actually even more.

The text is a candid, un-staged snapshot of the anguish Johnny was suffering as a result of her on-going abuse.

Out of 70K texts, they chose to present the one that would demonstrate graphically to everyone the state of mind into which she had driven him.

justintime
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:01 am

Thanks so much ladies, for all the information gathered so far.

>Maybe I missed it somewhere but when, then, did David Sherborne, Barrister at 5RB, actually come on board for JD if James Price QC announced his retirement on July 25, 2019? Mr. Sherborne appears to already have an extremely full plate if, “.... He is currently Lead Counsel for the victims in the multi-million pound hacking group litigation against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, and represents several hundred individual clients ...”!

>Schillings, introduced to us as “an attack dog” and, presumably, a ruthless attorney of some sort is actually a (ruthless, I hope) London Law Firm, “... well known for representing high profile clients against the press ...” and whose “....client list includes Sir Phillip Green, JK Rowling , and Ryan Giggs.”
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/10/ ... on-sunday/

>Although JD’s legal representation may seem in a bit of an upheaval right now, it appears his team has known since last July there would be some key changes to be absorbed before they went to Court. I don’t think they were banking on 70,000 of their client’s personal texts landing on the opposition’s desk three and a half weeks before that Court date. I can only hope the new attorneys know they are on the right side of the roaring rapids and will go for the jugular as needed. Finally.

>I think we all need some clarification re: JD’s legal representation on both sides of the pond for the foreseeable future if we are going to get any rest. Deep breathing isn’t working so well right now.

>Thank you, Inquiring Minds, for your excruciatingly on-point comments in your last two posts. That is exactly what needs to be conveyed to the jury at both trials, about those texts and their pain-ridden author, to properly debunk their graphic but unequivocally false implications with respect to Johnny. The analysis you’ve laid at AH’s doorstep, however, is eye-opening and, sadly, downright believable.
"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

AdeleAgain
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:37 am

Ruby Begonia - yes you are right there are strict rules around what you can find out ahead of trials in UK it is much less open than the US system although I’ve only ever worked with a few US law firms.

Just because Brown Rudnick are off the case in the UK it does not necessarily change the US team. In law firms each partner acts almost like their own company and all the top law firms are very familiar with one another and work together a lot. One case I am working on has just been switched from one law firm to another and it seemed very smooth. These guys tend to keep their files in such great order although handing over a case means handing over sometimes hundreds of thousands of files it is all so well indexed etc the legal teams really quickly are up to speed. It’s much more complicated I guess in a commercial dispute involving lots of complex off shore arrangements but for something like this there will be key arguments witnesses and documents already sorted out.

It is also really common for barristers to switch don’t worry about that. The original guy retired but it’s also common to change barrister sometimes known as the Brief for different parts of a proceeding. So you’ll have some barristers who are good at cross examining witnesses others better at summing up. There will be more than one barrister involved but generally one lead. What also happens often is a delay and the original barrister cannot make the rescheduled dates due to another trial. My point is this chopping and changing may look alarming to outsiders but it is not unusual and given that Schillings specialise in emergency interventions (of which this isn’t the case file has been put together over a year and a half) they will be well up to speed.

The barristers work very closely with the solicitors ie Schillings in this case and the solicitors will also sit in the court room and hand notes to the barrister. As with all things in life very often it is the young lawyers who’ve sat up all night reading every text who are the best versed! Schillings is headed by someone called Rod Christie Miller who is a very very well known name in London. Adam Waldman must know them quite well as other of his clients use them and in fact I was surprised they weren’t involved in this before as they really are the go to people for the super stars. Some criticise them as too aggressive and the press hate them being involved but I think the time for playing nicely has well and truly gone. Maybe three years ago JD would have naturally stayed away from them because they are so aggressive but I imagine he has become more hardened and angrier if anything. As he said in the call, the other side doesn’t want to make nice, nice.

Hope this all helps.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:16 am

Let's not forget with technology these days and a lot of law firms doing things electronically, it isn't hard to accidentally attach the wrong link or set documents, a computer glitch, clerical error, whatever. In my work I accidentally attached the wrong set of documents to an e-mail and even though I recalled it the recipient still received the e-mail. However, I was able to call and give a heads up before they opened the attachment, which was confidential. OOPS! :smh:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:45 am

Thank you, AdeleAgain, for the helpful info about the British court system and Schillings. I'm very glad to hear they are attack dogs, since that is what JD needs in this lawsuit against his attack dog ex-wife.
AdeleAgain wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:37 am
Some criticise them as too aggressive and the press hate them being involved but I think the time for playing nicely has well and truly gone. Maybe three years ago JD would have naturally stayed away from them because they are so aggressive but I imagine he has become more hardened and angrier if anything. As he said in the call, the other side doesn’t want to make nice, nice.

Hope this all helps.
Welcome and thank you :wave: to Inquiring Minds and your insightful posts!

GalmOne
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by GalmOne » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:54 pm

Well, where there's money, there's bound to be howling dogs trying to extort some $$$ in one way or another... If I got rich, I think I'd search how to legally change my name, living address and nationality (I didn't know the latter was possible, but you can actually become a citizen from several countries by buying things there, for example, you can get a Montenegrin passport https://tranio.com/montenegro/passport/ ) and just tell my closest family about it.

justintime
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:10 pm

A bit more from Mr. Waldman:


Thank you, Sir.
"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

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:35 pm

Thanks to justintime and Ruby Begonia:wave:. There has been a lot to absorb in just a couple of weeks. It may take me a short while to master formatting etc.

Another thought, this time on another text I have seen in the press.
"Ugly, mate... No food for days... Powders... Half a bottle of whiskey, a thousand red bull and vodkas, pills, two bottles of champers on plane and what do you get...???

"An angry, aggro Injun in a f*****' blackout, screaming obscenities and insulting any f*** who got near... I'm done.
At first and (frustratingly) out of context, this sounds like Johnny describing his own collapsing life. But this text is at worst ambiguous and at best it could be actually describing Amber's actions and abuse:

No food for days - We've been partying and haven't eaten for days/she hasn't let me eat for days/She hasn't eaten for days

Powders... Half a bottle of whiskey, a thousand red bull and vodkas, pills, two bottles of champers on plane and what do you get...???
- we've consumed between us/I've consumed/she's consumed

An angry, aggro Injun in a f*****' blackout - I had to flee the situation and seek refuge in the toilet where I fell asleep/I got wasted, angry and passed out/She got wasted on a cocktail of alcohol and non-prescription drugs, lost control and can't remember what she said or did.

The latter (on a cocktail of alcohol and non-prescription drugs) may seem like a long stretch if it weren't for her long established record for such a violent combination. "aggro injun" may be indicative that the text was Johnny referring to himself, however "injun" does not preclude "squaw" and "aggro injun" may have been an alliterative construct only. His trade is words.

[She was] screaming obscenities and insulting any f*** who got near [her][ and I had to get away]

I'm done - pretty unambiguous in intent. Done with the lifestyle or done with the relationship? I seem to recall Johnny using similar words when he decided to divorce Amber following the humiliating and insulting defecation incident.

If only the poor besotted lad had turned and run at that point (and kept running)........

I'm not sure if Depp's lawyers have issued any response to this one or provided some context yet.

Scout
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:10 pm
Location: New York City
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Scout » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:23 pm

I know this is UK law and not US but I am sure the UK also has laws about attorney-client privilege. The texts given to the Sun "accidentally" should carry severe consequences I would hope. Even though they are no longer Johnny's lawyers that privilege should still attach to them and any "documents" in their possession.

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:36 am

I've only located a little more of the texts, but it provides much more context. Alan Waldman also stated in the same article that they would show the opposite from what the Heard team claimed. Assuming the texts provided so far are not extracts (the absence of many pronouns plus the frequent runs of full stops concerns me), when put together a very different narrative can be seen. Depp's team seem to be totally on top of things, so anything I suggest is only speculation. This interpretation also makes more sense imo. So here goes:

<trigger event/s described in the second of the texts>

<first text. Hurt, cliche vengence fantasy>
[drown, burn, defile the corpse]

<sanity returns, 2nd text>
<Things have to change. I will tell her"]
I’m gonna properly stop the booze thing [you are doing], darling
<aside, explaining to Paul>
[She] Drank all night before I picked Amber [her] up to fly to LA, this past Sunday
[What I found was] Ugly, mate.
<after surveying the debris>
[It was obvious she had had] No food for days,
[Then on top of that on the plane she consumed] powders, half a bottle of whiskey, [figuratively] a thousand red bull and vodkas, pills, [and] 2 bottles of Champers
And what do you get??
An angry, aggro Injun in a f–kin’ blackout, screaming obscenities and insulting any f–k who got near [her]
I’m done [with her unless things change]
[despite the way she treats me] I am admittedly too f–ked in the head to spray my rage at the one I love [even if she does spray her rage at me] <in retrospect, this should have been an indicator>
<he essentially admits here that he recognises himself as a victim of her abuse, but is so in love he submits>
For little reason <despite his submission, she still shows him little respect>
as well I’m too old to be that guy <this suggests that he was not doing the hard partying, not the one to want a passionate, volatile and violent relationship - despite the tapes later revealing she doesn't think he loves her if he isn't physically fighting with her>
<having just explained to Paul the sort of things he needs to discuss with her, he finishes what he would say:>
But, pills are fine!!! [you don't go violent on just pills, its with the alcohol that causes the problems, blackouts etc]

Originally I had thought he meant the pills were for him. Now I tend to think that he was saying "If you give up the booze, I won't ask you to stop taking the pills"

I suspect that this will just be one of many pieces of evidence that collectively form part of Depp's prosecution. They didn't seem at all phased when it was leaked.