The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

NGN filed an "errata" notice, which is calling out Anya Goldstein's filings for Melanie Inglessis hearsay. The filings are declarations made by Anya, not Melanie.

Based on the filings by her lawyer (not Melanie herself) I don't think Anya knew Mel gave a declaration for the VA case and was blindsided. But surely, if AH/Kaplan hired Anya for all the witnesses, they would have shared that with her? Why keep Anya in the dark?

[AdeleAgain]

Do you think AH wants her to testify? Although the obvious answer is yes - does she I wonder.

[Lbock]

Do you think AH wants her to testify? Although the obvious answer is yes - does she I wonder.

I don't know. She seemed to think she had her lying on the illegal recording she made.

It's out of her hands now. Up to the USA court in California.

[Granna]

I do not believe that AH wants to testify. I believe she will dodge this also. Being that there is questions concerning her allegations of sexual abuse. It was my understanding, the green nightgown in question, that she has said that JD ripped she was wearing the day after. If I understood everything correctly, there is evidence to support this claim.

I believe that's why the Sun newspaper and NGN are pulling out all the stops. If she does not testify they've lost the case.

I truly believe that she'll come down with a medical issue or something so she does not have to testify in the UK trial. How can she legitimately prove her point.? As well as her friends that are supposed to testify via video. Too much evidence has come out to support JD. I am sure, Waldman and Chew will make sure that anything she does say that is harmful will find its way into the US trial.

IMHO both AH & Kaplan are grasping for anything that will to stay afloat. They are sinking with the ship. And they both know it.

[AdeleAgain]

Do you think AH wants her to testify? Although the obvious answer is yes - does she I wonder.

I don't know. She seemed to think she had her lying on the illegal recording she made.

It's out of her hands now. Up to the USA court in California.

Sorry I am confused - isn't it Laura Divinere who was illegally recorded?

I wasn't very clear - my question is that I am wondering if AH wants Melanie to testify. Seems to me the more who testify the more they risk (1) repeating some things parrot fashion which makes it seem not credible (2) getting details wrong and contradicting one another.

I agree AH and any of the witnesses may well come down with some ailment to get out of testifying.

[Lbock]

My bad, I wasn't sure who we were talking about. AH and The Sun need Melanie to testify exactly as she stated in her declaration. So we will see

[ForeverYoung]

AH is done in Hollywood. There is nothing left for her to do now but to try and continue to trash him. She has nothing better to do at this point but to show up and testify for The Sun with the hope that something will go in their favor but it won't because she has no credible witnesses or proof. She is a stubborn person who does not listen to reason and it comes back to bite her in the every time. She owes a lot of people who are footing her fees which gives her the means to be able to do this. "We will pay all your legal bills and give your good compensation if you agree to testify for us..."

That's the way I see it anyway. I know there are people who disagree and that's ok.

[justintime]

Thank you so much to so many for your extended, invaluable efforts - and sometimes just a few incisive words of wisdom (e.g. Chocolat: “...She (AH) got the gullible to side with her and with ongoing financial backing and shady negotiating, her supporters pushed a lie into the truth....”) - to help the rest of us make some sense of the up coming June 10th ruling.

I must be the most dense JD supporter ever trying to follow these last couple weeks. It currently seems like so much is at stake for Johnny only because of one imbecile’s cowardice and misplaced loyalty. Perhaps someone can set me straight on what to expect/hope for on Wednesday:

* Is there a potentially devastating ruling possible on either side? If so, would it impact both lawsuits (UK and VA)? How?

* What June 10th ruling would be considered the absolute best outcome for Johnny (in Waldman’s, Chew’s, and Sherborne’s estimation)?
In other words, what should we be praying our hearts out for??

[Ruby Begonia]

I'm glad JD has such top-notch attorneys representing him in England and in Virginia. Since it is almost impossible for a public figure to sue successfully for defamation in California, filing the defamation suit in more lenient Virginia was a brilliant move on the part of East Coast pros Chew and Waldman.

The way they've managed and untangled all the various lawsuits (Heard, Rocky Brooks, TMG, Bloom Hergott, The Sun/Dan Wooten) with the help of the surveillance videos and other "hidden" evidence is remarkable. A divorce action turned defamation action with an ever-growing number of players and interests involved. "The tip of a defamation iceberg." How far are JD and team willing to take all of this? Will we as the public ever know the whole story?

I remember the story Heard told of the nightgown being torn, and I'm guessing that's part of the sexual violence testimony rumors say she gave/will give in private before the UK judge. Do we know that she can prove that story? Unless she can provide concrete evidence to help The Sun's case, I can't imagine her attorneys want her to testify in either court case. Heard is the defendant in the Virginia action; no attorney allows the defendant to take the stand. The newspaper and its editor are the defendants in the UK action and their case hinges on her testimony. That testimony will carry over to the VA case and either hurt or help her.

If Heard testifies in the Sun case, I'm guessing that will be because Kaplan has some degree of evidence and Heard's financial backers want to be vindicated for siding with the flappy fish market; or because Heard is arrogant/stubborn/deluded enough to think she can fool the High Court.

[Lbock]

Regarding Wednesday. I can’t imagine the judge will rule in her favor with so many other witnesses willing to go to the conference room. So we pray when she gives testimony that she tells the truth. That’s all we have. We pray AH and her hoax assisting friends are NOT perceived as credible.

[Chocolat]

Amber Heard's claim of ripping of the nightgown is questionable, to say the least. How can she prove that even happened when all the drama behind and after the "incident" is a pretense from Heard? Having her privately testify about the moment is also suspicious. She wants her privacy for reasons about the nature of the subject. Why? All long she was quite eager to divulge every little exploitative (and false) detail to publicly punish Johnny. As one of her last resorts to wiggle out of her lies, I would think that hinting at "sexual assault" would be just the juicy bit she'd love to be exposed for her own benefit. I'm calling this private testimony just another extension toward her ongoing hoax and though we may not be privy to it, I have no doubt Johnny's legal team will be the ones ripping apart her lies.

[Lbock]

I don’t think it’s about the “nightgown incident”

It was about just one incident described in detail and he didn’t think it would take up very much time, but obviously it would interfere to an extent with press and public attendance but was of limited scope.

The evidence it related to was that of Ms Amber Heard and Miss Kristina Sexton which was also of limited scope on the same topic.
...
Turning to the hearsay evidence of Ms Sexton, if it was granted and some allegations were not accepted it was not be for a short time or for a limited incursion.

Kristina Sexton is apparently an acting coach and worked with her on Aquaman
https://johnbrace.com/the-hon-mr-justic ... with-repo/

[AdeleAgain]

Here is my view on what to pray for regarding Melanie. I don’t think it matters. If she testifies I doubt her story will hold up. If she doesn’t then she doesnt help AH.

[ForeverYoung]

I don’t think it’s about the “nightgown incident”

It was about just one incident described in detail and he didn’t think it would take up very much time, but obviously it would interfere to an extent with press and public attendance but was of limited scope.

The evidence it related to was that of Ms Amber Heard and Miss Kristina Sexton which was also of limited scope on the same topic.
...
Turning to the hearsay evidence of Ms Sexton, if it was granted and some allegations were not accepted it was not be for a short time or for a limited incursion.

Kristina Sexton is apparently an acting coach and worked with her on Aquaman
https://johnbrace.com/the-hon-mr-justic ... with-repo/

So Kristina Sexton wasn't even around when the alleged injuries happened? Sounds like another looser witness who saw nothing.

[RumLover]

I too think it is not about the Australian "nightgown incident".
I am thinking it could be about Hicksville 2013. In Depp's UK response, he denies ripping Ms Heard's dress and that he grabbed Kelly-Sue. That paragraph also mentions "new alleged incidents raised in the confidential schedule".