The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

Not only was it a negotiated settlement, but both waived financial discovery. Think of Brad & Angelina, how long that went on/still going? They bifucated the end of the divorce. Judge declared them legall divorced, single to marry if they wish. But the financial part was a separate case all toghether.

Remember, AH had Elon on the hook. She wanted JD marriage over and her money. Then she offered to donate it...why? Maybe because she thought Elon was a done deal - I now wonder if those frozen embyros actually exist. Clear up her Gold Digger status and remain a Gold Digger.

[justintime]

It doesn't matter what she wants. Amber and her attorneys negotiated her divorce settlement and signed off on it. She is stuck with it. Couples who have children together can renegotiate a settlement as it applies to child support, and custody. People who do not have children are pretty much stuck with the settlement they negotiated, unless one person did something such as they hid assets. Hiding assests (which is illegal) would be relevant to the amount of the settlement. Courts do not renegotiate because one side decides that they don't like the deal that they want.

You are absolutely right, Judymac. She can kick and scream or concoct all the tales she wants, she had highly qualified (ahem...) legal representation for her divorce; she would likely be opening an unruly can of worms by pushing for a renegotiated settlement at this point.

Perhaps the thing for Johnny to seriously consider, however, is to have his attorneys prepping now to head her off at the pass, so to speak, with an annulment petition. After all that has come out over the state of their so-called “marriage”, in particular her admitted abusive behavior, I would think an annulment would be reasonable (and, indeed, was actually suggested - perhaps in jest at the time - by JD himself at one point), not an option to be casually dismissed. And surely the defamation suit could, then, proceed as scheduled.

[ForeverYoung]

Amber tried to subpoena the money the Hollywood Vampires made and it was quashed. Her divorce was whatever money the both of them earned during the marriage minus expenses. If she has just handled the divorce like a normal person she probably would have walked away with a lot more because Johnny is known to be very generous. I have not one ounce of pity for her and I never will.

[justintime]

...I have not one ounce of pity for her and I never will.

I agree, ForeverYoung, without any reservations.

[myfave]

...I have not one ounce of pity for her and I never will.

I agree, ForeverYoung, without any reservations.

[meeps]

So sorry if this is a stupid question, but what good would getting an annulment do for Johnny?

[Lbock]

I can't imagine what an annulment would do, other than principle at this point:

Update on JD vs AH in Fairfax - actually AH is filing more in California Courts

1) AH has filed against Disney. AH is not suing Disney. She is trying to enforce their compliance fully in their subpoena. Disney has not for whatever reason. Therefore AH is asking for sanctions to cover the costs of additional legal hours in hashing this out ($4700+). More to come...
Fairfax Subpoena for reference: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2020.pdf

2) AH attempted to do the same with Tracy Jacobs, Johnny’s past talent agent. They, however, have worked out a compromise so AH withdrew her request for Sanctions
Fairfax Subpoena for reference: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2020.pdf

3) Because AH has nothing to hid regarding her donations: AH is trying to quash or cancel JD subpoena to Children’s Hospital basically saying whether she donated or not it is irrelevant to the Defamation claim. JD will file an opposition to this in coming weeks. More to come... (Unbelievably the Hearing date for this is set for Feb 3, 2021 - after the fairfax trial....which I think is set automatically by a court calendar based on COVID backlog)
Fairfax Subpoena for Reference: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 0-2020.pdf

4) Jennifer Howell, who was Whitney Heard's boss when she worked for Art of Elysium, as been subpoened and has some scathing stuff (hearsay) to spill including that Whitney said she was protecting Johnny on the stair incidient and was afraid Amber was going to "kill Johnny"
Fairfax Subpoena for reference: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... -28-20.pdf

Reference for LA court: Case: 19stcp04763 http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/i ... type=civil
This was originally started when AH vs TMG to compel them for discovery. Now this case is a dumping ground for all Los Angeles court filing needs for the Fairfax Trial.

[Judymac]

It doesn't matter what she wants. Amber and her attorneys negotiated her divorce settlement and signed off on it. She is stuck with it. Couples who have children together can renegotiate a settlement as it applies to child support, and custody. People who do not have children are pretty much stuck with the settlement they negotiated, unless one person did something such as they hid assets. Hiding assests (which is illegal) would be relevant to the amount of the settlement. Courts do not renegotiate because one side decides that they don't like the deal that they want.

You are absolutely right, Judymac. She can kick and scream or concoct all the tales she wants, she had highly qualified (ahem...) legal representation for her divorce; she would likely be opening an unruly can of worms by pushing for a renegotiated settlement at this point.

Perhaps the thing for Johnny to seriously consider, however, is to have his attorneys prepping now to head her off at the pass, so to speak, with an annulment petition. After all that has come out over the state of their so-called “marriage”, in particular her admitted abusive behavior, I would think an annulment would be reasonable (and, indeed, was actually suggested - perhaps in jest at the time - by JD himself at one point), not an option to be casually dismissed. And surely the defamation suit could, then, proceed as scheduled.

There can be no annulment. Their divorce is final and neither side can change the terms that they have agreed to. Even if he wins the U.S. lawsuit, the lawsuit is a civil lawsuit for defamation it is not a criminal case for fraud. Also, it is in a Virginia court not California. The simple answer to your question is that it just is not going to happen.

[Judymac]

So sorry if this is a stupid question, but what good would getting an annulment do for Johnny?

I think people are assuming that he would get his 7 million dollars back. I don't think that he could go back and change his divorce to an annulment even if he wanted to. It has been finalized for a few years. Even if he tried to get an annulment the grounds of fraud Amber Heard would have to be tried and convicted of fraud in a criminal court.

[Lbock]

Oh, another update from Fairfax.

On 7/29 they extended their judicial emergency plan because of COVID-19 to Aug 30. So all cases stay adjourned but discovery can continue. This means her deadline for her “answer” to Johnnys lawsuit is now due within 21 days of August 30

[justintime]

So sorry if this is a stupid question, but what good would getting an annulment do for Johnny?y

Not a stupid question at all, meeps. More to the point, a careless thought on my part that, perhaps, should not have been voiced.

To be honest, aside from confirming its definition and it’s impact on the parties (basically you leave the dissolved relationship with what you brought into it), I could not find any info (pro, con , or simply hypothetical) dealing with the implications of an annulment after the finality of a divorce. But how much weight should that swing considering the novel reality of how long Johnny had to wait to defend himself on any level until pertinent, previously hidden! evidence became accessible?

Considering some of the many grounds for an annulment (see the link below and scroll down to “Grounds ... etc”, first bullet) and, lo and behold, we are reading Fraud and Misrepresentation . The actual examples are narrow but the terms are broad and barely explored. I suggest, think “hoax”, and all the pain and ugliness the term has come to imply in this relationship; pain and ugliness that has been shown to be in play for quite some time before the “marriage”, only to strengthen after the wedding AH “worked so hard to make happen”.

I don’t think for a second Johnny would have had any chance of getting the marriage annulled before either the U.K. trial or the VA lawsuit occurred. The “hoax”, the underpinning of any legitimate grounds for annulling the marriage, gathered steam during the discovery process surrounding the filing of the two defamation lawsuits. We are left with the age old conundrum: what came first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps Mr. Waldman’s promise to pursue the hoaxters would, indeed, serve no other justice than “principle” at this point, but isn’t that exactly what is keeping Johnny going? Oh, to see Johnny’s smile should he be granted such a sublime, albeit ethereal, twist of fate!

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... wyers.html

[AdeleAgain]

There is a UK figure, I cannot remember which one, a business man who was married to a politician - apologies I will find out the name - but anyway, had a second marriage to a very beautiful much younger wife. That marriage was dissolved - I can't remember if it was annulled but I think so - on the grounds of fraud. She had completely misrepresented herself.

I have wondered why Adam relentlessly has used the word hoax. It maybe something he's keeping in his arsenal - he is certainly quite ground breaking as a lawyer. Remember most lawyers are inherently conservative - they do what the law says. Adam looked at JD's contract or lack thereof with his old lawyers and decided to do something about it. It has been kept quite quiet how much the settlement was worth - but JD has certainly had some justice in dollar terms against both his former financial managers and his ex-lawyers.

I say this not as a criticism but just as an observation - I think Adam enjoys kicking over "the system" and he's probably found a kindred spirit.

There are articles about fraudulent marriages. https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-comme ... riage.html

I personally think JD will be done with her after Virgina - this has to be emotionally exhausting. But demonstrating that she did not donate the money as she claims would be further evidence of her trustworthiness.

[Judymac]

An annulment is another way of ending the marriage. You get an annulment *or* a divorce you can not get both. An annulment would have taken place back when they split up and would have been instead of a divorce. The annulment and allegations of fraud would need to have been brought up at the time they were settling the divorce. Also, this is a complex matter. First, I do not believe that it could be changed to an annulment years after a divorce. Most importantly, allegations of a hoax in a civil trial would probably not be enough to reopen a divorce case, even if he could do it. Allegations of a hoax in a civil case are not the same as a conviction in a criminal case. Also that she caused him pain and ugliness is not grounds to reopen a divorce case. She can not reopen the divorce because she thinks she got a bad deal and he can not either. That is exactly what would be happening. It is too bad he did not realize her actions at the time they were splitting up. Back then he could have tried to file for an annulment. I know that people are really hanging onto this idea of an annulment but it is not going to happen. It is much more complex that citing cases where people have gotten annulments when they first split up.

[ForeverYoung]

Not sure why the question came up but when he was in Australia he suggested to Christi about an annulment. He cannot do it now that the divorce is final.

[Judymac]

Not sure why the question came up but when he was in Australia he suggested to Christi about an annulment. He cannot do it now that the divorce is final.

An annulment treats the marriage as if it never happened. He would not have to pay her anything. Each side gets only what they had before the marriage. Annulment are mostly for people who have been married a very short time (months) and do not have any joint assets.