The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:32 pm

She tried this once before and Johnny's team blocked her because she did not have the consent of a judge to lift the NDA. I doubt that she got any kind of order because we would have heard about it. She might be flying there to attend the hearings but I really doubt she will be able to testify absent an order from a CA judge. Sometimes DM just doesn't report the facts correctly, and it happens a lot. Right now they are moderating comments which means they will block anyone if they don't like their comments.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
stroch
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: New Orleans
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by stroch » Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:53 pm

I don't understand...if she cannot testify about any incidents, how can Johnny? I thought the gag order was mutual. Also the DM article is disgusting in the way it presents the information...still biased toward AH.
I'll buy you the hat....a really big one.
St. Roch -- patron saint of pilgrims

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:21 pm

stroch wrote:
Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:53 pm
I don't understand...if she cannot testify about any incidents, how can Johnny? I thought the gag order was mutual. Also the DM article is disgusting in the way it presents the information...still biased toward AH.
Johnny can testify because he is suing The Sun for calling him a wife beater. Amber is not a direct party to the lawsuit and therefore she needs to get a Judge in CA to grant an order lifting the NDA. He said he would not oppose to her testifying or if she applied for the order but she has to do this to be able to legally testify against him.

https://dam.tmz.com/document/db/o/2018/ ... fc5f89.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:31 pm

Count me as cynical that Amber has any intention of appearing in UK court.
Saying she will is like a repeat of 2016.
The only reason I can think of for her to attend is that News Corp have let her know that there will be worse written about her if she does not assist them. She might be more concerned about being on the wrong side News Corp than of British justice system.
Image

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:13 am

I think if she were to go to there it would ONLY be to show her face because Johnny showed up by surprise. The DM said he was married to Vanessa and we all know that isn't true so it only goes to show that that they don't have their facts straight. Seems kind of childish like saying " Well, if Johnny showed up then I will show up too!" :dunce:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:24 am

Don’t forget her lawsuit re London Fields was the same. She dodged her deposition for more than a year. They finally got the judge to compel her and she still dodged it. They sanctioned her and she ultimately lost on appeal. So sad her plaintiffs weight bankrupt and dropped the suit

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:25 am

Amber says she likes a good fight but she runs away from it every chance she gets in court.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3479
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:19 am

Yeah, and "be there to tell the truth" doesn't quite sound like her either. But I guess, she sees it as "her moment" to preen, and remind everybody how angelic she is. On the outside. On the inside she's more like a fallen angel.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:52 am

Rumlover I think you are spot on - I think the Murdoch press have told her to appear. I cannot see any up for her apart from a few sensational headlines - she is going to have to face evidence she committed perjury.

This whole thing about whether she can appear or not is a nonsense. (1) NDA's cannot legislate for having to appear in court cases (2) she could easily get a waiver. It may well be used as an excuse and we'll have more of "Johnny tried to silence me" but it will simply be untrue.

Next few weeks are heads down, hard hats and protective clothing on! There will be more sensational stories like the New York Post stuff, more tweets like Rosanna Arquette's - which have been thoroughly, thoroughly countered in her replies.

The MSN will continue to pile on the pressure on JD's side. I am guessing this is all part of the negotiations which must be going on but as we've agreed I think, at this stage JD needs either a settlement in which the Sun prints a total apology, or his day in court.

I keep reminding myself of the whole argument through the second leaked audio. He was fully prepared to go to court throughout, she is the one who didn't want to and I cannot forget her silence and then panicked tone in her voice when he said "that's it".

If she had right on her side, why no police report (since that was being held against her) and why no day in court?

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:55 am

Some timeline context for texts of 6-7 November 2013.
Johnny and Paul Bettany were filming Mortdecai in London for first weeks of November 2013.
Also London Fields was filmed from September to October 2013 with some extra shots until 5 November.
Amber was photographed in LA around 5 November.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:13 am

I want to mention that Amber's lawyer at the time she claimed she could not testify for the Sun due to NDA was human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson (also lawyer to Julian Assange). (Ms Robinson is named in Depp's Witness statement.)
The judge said “I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms Heard’s concerns about the restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” He that even if they were, “the matter is capable of resolution”.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-fail ... ter-claim/

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:17 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:52 am
Rumlover I think you are spot on - I think the Murdoch press have told her to appear. I cannot see any up for her apart from a few sensational headlines - she is going to have to face evidence she committed perjury.

This whole thing about whether she can appear or not is a nonsense. (1) NDA's cannot legislate for having to appear in court cases (2) she could easily get a waiver. It may well be used as an excuse and we'll have more of "Johnny tried to silence me" but it will simply be untrue.

Next few weeks are heads down, hard hats and protective clothing on! There will be more sensational stories like the New York Post stuff, more tweets like Rosanna Arquette's - which have been thoroughly, thoroughly countered in her replies.

The MSN will continue to pile on the pressure on JD's side. I am guessing this is all part of the negotiations which must be going on but as we've agreed I think, at this stage JD needs either a settlement in which the Sun prints a total apology, or his day in court.

I keep reminding myself of the whole argument through the second leaked audio. He was fully prepared to go to court throughout, she is the one who didn't want to and I cannot forget her silence and then panicked tone in her voice when he said "that's it".

If she had right on her side, why no police report (since that was being held against her) and why no day in court?
I don't know but I would think if it were that easy to get a waiver on the NDA she would have done it the first time when she wanted to testify.

On the second recording she said that she had time stamped photos which is news to all of us because she has not produced ONE photo with a date and time stamp. She was mad that he "always" leaves when there is an argument. So far we know he went to another hotel room, locked himself in bathrooms, left the house in the Bahamas and left the apartment to avoid it escalating. Never once did she say that she left because she feared for her safety.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:34 pm

I owe you all an apology as an interesting and not irrelevant side fact has just occurred to me.

Rebecca Brooks is the Chief Executive of News UK in September 2015 - she is the former editor of the Sun, very senior in the Murdoch Empire and was accused of involvement in the hacking scandal.

Before she was Rebecca Brooks, she was Rebecca Wade, editor of the Sun and married to a man called Ross Kemp. If you aren't a Brit you probably won't know him but in brief he was an actor in a very popular soap called Eastenders where he played a real tough guy. He then went on to make 'hard hitting documentaries' about gang warfare, drugs and did a lot of hanging out and filming with the army. Image: hard as nails.

In 2005 one of the two was arrested for violence against the other. Now can you guess which way around it was?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/ ... publishing

You cannot make this stuff up.

I don't know if this has been talked about before but I don't think it is entirely irrelevant - if someone can tweeted it? Maybe to Brian? Or to IFOD or one of you many, effective influencers who do such a fantastic job of getting the facts out?

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:54 pm

AdeleAgain, thank you for that info. I am sure it will get to IFOD and/or Brian.

If you all saw the article about Johnny being considered for POTC again, whether it is true or not, I think it will give more fuel for Amber to try and block this from happening by contacting the media to put out articles against him. She is probably seething right now about the possible POTC news. :grr:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Sun Mar 01, 2020 3:29 pm

Someone finally takes the media to task for its ongoing indulgent bias in the Depp/Heard case and, as a consequence, it’s disservice to the concept of journalism as a whole.

Please read, slowly, thoughtfully, and do not skim. I felt it was worth every minute and long overdue.



Thank you, Eli Z.
Found on Twitter’s Support Johnny Depp @ MyGrindelwald
"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