The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
gipsyblues
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:36 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by gipsyblues » Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:10 am

Theresa wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:52 pm
Just adding a comment regarding some edits I had to make one page back.

We DO NOT attack other Zoners on this board, so if anyone feels like making a "how dare you" kind of post to any Zoner, please think twice about that before you post. It will be removed.

And as for why something "offensive" might be on the thread more than a few minutes...well, I have job that doesn't allow me to be here on the spot every minute of the day. If you come across a post that is offensive, please click the "Report this post" button that is on each post (looks like an exclamation point) and report it privately to me or Joni. We'll take care of it without it becoming a major point in this thread.

~ Theresa
:thankyou: Theresa and :agreesign:

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:28 am


User avatar
nebraska
Posts: 30485
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: near Omaha
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by nebraska » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:23 am

Newt wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:37 am

And just maybe we don't know the whole story and Johnny wasn't fired because of "bad" optics. Who knows. What I see is Johnny got to announce it himself via a letter. How many actors can even do that or have done that? Break the news themselves before any trades? The trades would have loved to be the ones scooping it. So that tells me that it was possibly a condition of Johnny's and WB agreed because somehow they still (don't beat me up) respect him.
No, we probably don't know the entire story about anything surrounding this case!

I believe in Johnny and I think he will make decisions that are right for him. Technically he wasn't "fired". For whatever reason they asked him to resign and he agreed and he was given the chance to tell us about it himself. He announced that he was leaving the film with quiet dignity. I want to honor that by behaving with dignity and grace myself, in the matter of the film and the court cases.

User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:28 am

Years back, I had read about AH practicing for a fight movie and that her opponent was ending up badly bruised. I haven't seen the post again until now. I am reluctant to post this, because he is not telling his story due to a call from her lawyers. I, however, found this online... Delete if needed.
► Show Spoiler
"Music touches us emotionally, where words alone can't."-- "The truth will come out...and I will be standing on the other side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will too." --Johnny Depp #justiceforjohnnydepp #listentothetapes

User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:13 pm

This is before the James Corden show backstage. I believ it was 12/16/15? Notice how "careful" the hairstylist is being since her "hair was pulled out". Also, that's a mighty big grin for someone who was busted in the mouth with a hand full of rings. Puleeeeeeeze!! COME ON!!
"Music touches us emotionally, where words alone can't."-- "The truth will come out...and I will be standing on the other side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will too." --Johnny Depp #justiceforjohnnydepp #listentothetapes

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:32 pm

Unfortunately that photo was just debunked. It from a photoshoot 2018. Bummer

Thread


User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:34 pm

Lbock wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:32 pm
Unfortunately that photo was just debunked. It from a photoshoot 2018. Bummer
Apologies Zoners!! :namaste:
"Music touches us emotionally, where words alone can't."-- "The truth will come out...and I will be standing on the other side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will too." --Johnny Depp #justiceforjohnnydepp #listentothetapes

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:41 pm

But Adair follows Johnny (and Amber) and Greg, Stella and BB Sturm. He recently dressed up as Edward Scissorhands. I hope they talk with him. After audio tapes Maybe help me More pro JD

Please use proper capitalization per Zone guidelines.
~Joni
Last edited by Joni on Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Capitalization

Someareborn
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Someareborn » Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:23 pm

Yes, I hope they talk to Adir, because I am pretty sure I saw a post on his instagram where he takes credit for her hairstyle for the Cordon show. So, I guess we can assume he did her hair. I wonder why JD's team did not subpoena him...maybe because AH did invent the chunks of missing hair later. But Adir could certainly give some light concerning the "conflicting" statements of Melanie Inglessis and Samantha. And, it will be interesting to see if Adir will post a throwback on 15. December.
Last edited by Joni on Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Capitalization

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:26 pm

Two things concern me about the UK trial that hasn't been mentioned much since.

The first is that Amber had to be removed from the public gallery because she was messaging Whitney while she was on the stand. Having ordered her removal, how can the judge then consider that either one was an honest witness? And isn't witness tampering a crime itself?

The second was related to Robert Palmer. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest (employed by NGN and working alongside one of the defendants), there is the aspect of the job itself. Robert strikes me as the ne-er-do-well son. His father founded a law firm, has written books and is a judge. His mother is a respected QC. Robert is probably the one they worried about. Being an ex-corruption fighter and advocating for "tax reform" sounds like another way to describe an unemployed bludger.

TalkRadio was sued for defamation (surprise, surprise) and they argued that the audience reach was so small that it hardly constituted defamation (ie no-one was listening to what they were saying). So why is Robert even working there? No audience to speak of so no real use to the community. With no audience then they would have little or no revenue. With no audience they aren't even working in an influencer role. This sounds and looks like a corporate front to channel money (ie bribes) indirectly and (on the surface) legally. So why is he employed and how does TalkRadio justify his salary? Why does TalkRadio even exist and how do they manage to remain solvent?

Is Palmer in his job purely (or mostly) to provide Murdoch with control of the UK judiciary? If so, what other judges are in a similar compromised position?

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:11 pm

Inquiring Minds wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:26 pm
The first is that Amber had to be removed from the public gallery because she was messaging Whitney while she was on the stand. Having ordered her removal, how can the judge then consider that either one was an honest witness? And isn't witness tampering a crime itself?
This is what I recall happened. Whitney was taken to the hallway where she would enter the court for her testimony. While outside, David Sherborne asked the Judge to order Amber to NOT use her phone or secure her phone for fear she would text Whit. The judge said he believed she was not doing that. David said, We have new evidence we do NOT want Whit alerted to. The judge again, didn't believe she would, what is the new evidence. David described it, Wass argued that Whit should NOT be blindsided by the evidence and should be able to review it. The judge agreed and Whit reviewed it with both parties in attendance before she was questioned on it. And, of course, throughout Whit's testimony she was looking to her sister in the gallery for cues.

Not to mention, Whit was able to sit through all the testimony before taking the stand. Unlike Amber, she was not assisting NGN during the trial (as the Judge said Amber would be able to do if NGN asked. That is why Amber was allowed to remain).

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:28 pm

Many thanks Lbock for the clarification on this issue. I only heard the abridged (and inaccurate) version. You also filled in a few details of which I had no idea. You continue to be a bottomless font of knowledge :loveshower:

Lbock wrote:
Wass argued that Whit should NOT be blindsided by the evidence
Sorry, but I think this goes beyond the pale. Isn't a trial about revealing the truth through cross examination and exposing inconsistencies? As pointed out, Whitney wasn't on trial (and nor was Amber), they should not have required any legal representation themselves and whilst it would be fair to notify NGN and Dan Wootton's lawyers, involving them in a private pow-wow during Whitney's cross-examination screams witness coaching. If they didn't like the questioning in the box and at the time, they could object then. And "I don't want to answer because I'm afraid it might inadvertently contradict the fragile hoax and then Amber would beat me up" shouldn't be accepted as valid grounds for an objection. imnsho.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:31 pm

Considering Amber had two lawyers with her throughout each day of the trial, and they were seen attending events and dinners throughout. I’m sure Amber had allot of coaching along with her sister.

justintime
Posts: 1873
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:05 pm

There have been so many instances of blatant irregularity, and downright travesties of justice revealed in
Nicol’s comments, findings, and rulings during that fiasco of a trial, it’s almost as though a genuine search for truth never even occurred. Worse, truth was not what Nicol wanted, nor could he handle it when slapped in the face with it over and over again. Hence his erratic, baseless, biased rulings. Rulings that ultimately and repeatedly shone a glaring spotlight on the lack of fairness in Mr. Justice Nicol’s High Court.

The closer we look at Nicol’s arrogant dismissal of fact and witness testimony we are made to cringe: audio tapes disregarded as “hearsay”, likened to some sort of written report documenting another person’s words?? There were two people in the courtroom to attest to the veracity of the tapes - the two people who made them. This is not the childhood game called “Telephone”. To toss out critical, authenticated audiotape testimony is overbearing superiority at its most obvious and damaging.

When the Libel ruling was disclosed, Schillings sounded its outrage, loud and clear: Johnny would be foolish not to appeal. What do we take from that? Did Schillings not do it’s absolute :censored: for Johnny the first time around? Did they grossly underestimate the complexity of this case? They seemed unsure how, and were ultimately unable, to derail the impact of the sly, needling, persistent QC Wass. Were they unaware of, and totally taken off-guard by, Nicol’s all-in, women-must-be-believed bias in favor of AH, and how that might figure in Nicol’s desire to enhance his own legacy in light of his pending retirement?

OR, at some point, despite all the smiles and hugging engaged in on the courthouse steps, did Schillings (or perhaps David Sherborne himself) see the writing on the wall and warn Johnny well before he was officially told?
"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: 913
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:59 am

Justintime - I genuinely, genuinely believe JD's side thought they would win - and I get this because I work with a number of lawyers all of whom said very clearly that they could see nothing in NGN's case which met the test for libel - ie they had to prove their allegations. All they had was an unreliable main witness, supported by other witnesses who either didn't meet the burden of having witnessed things themselves or simply contradicted one another and changed their stories.

There are several problems as I understand - firstly the judge has not applied the law correctly; secondly there is strong evidence of witness coaching (that is hard to prove) and collaboration over evidence; thirdly there are mistakes of overreach on the part of the judge; and fourthly the judge relied on someone who has committed perjury we believe.

It was not Schillings so much as the two very experienced barristers who carried the case in court - and the sentiment in legal circles afterwards is that they had done a superb job. Ms Wass also BTW did a superb job but the word was that she was "just brought in the hammer Depp for four days about drugs because that's all they had".

The judgement is shocking to UK legal circles seriously. This is not stuff you'll read about in newspapers but people are shocked.

The difficulty and unfairness is once you have a judgement it is a higher hurdle to overturn it. But on facts and fairness - JD should have won. And that is not me saying it as someone who has supported him.

This type of case is literally why many sensible people will tell you not to recourse to legal means to fight your battles because even slam dunk cases can turn out badly.