The Lawsuits Thread

[ForeverYoung]

justintime - I don't know but it seems to me that the judge had to decide not on whether AH was an abuser, but rather a liar. He used Johnny's dependencies as a reason/excuse to base his decisions that she was telling the truth even when she had no proof which is absolutely absurd, imo.

The fact that a person in the UK who lost a case has to ask permission to appeal before the judge who made the initial decision is really ridiculous and makes no sense to me at all.

[Lbock]

Another lawyer who thinks Nicol's decision is BS

This was great. I finally got to watch it this morning. Their explanation is spot on why UK single judge trial was so risky and the explanation of “motivational reasoning”. Basically in this #metoo era, judge personally couldn’t find for an older male who uses drugs and abused alcohol against a young popular female actress. Johnny never had a chance with this judge. They also talk as much as they agree he has stand for an appeal, in UK he has to receive permission to proceed which is different then in USA

[Lbock]

Johnny has filed his appeal to Court of Appeal

[ForeverYoung]

It seems to me that getting permission to file an appeal in the UK is really hard because you have to prove the judge misapplied the law when he made his final decision. Sure, he dismissed doctor reports, police reports, hospital reports and JD's witnesses but JD's team can't use any of that to file permission to file an appeal because those were just bad decisions, not a misapplication of the law. In otherwords, JD's team would have to prove cases Nicol referred to were not correctly applied in this case. If JD gets the request to appeal granted, then maybe JD's team can go into all that other stuff. That's the way, I see it, anyway.

Nicol said that the recordings where AH admitted to abuse were not done under oath and so they carried no weight yet he used JD's texts against JD heavily.
Go figure.

[Lbock]

My emotions are all over the place.

[justintime]

A little incident that encapsulates AH’s flagrant and prolific “testimony-flipping” tendencies from the ridiculous to the sublime. Seems she’d tried everything out herself first - or stole other people’s life stories - to brazenly create her “victim” tales.

Here, remember her claim that Johnny had endangered her dog’s life by holding it out of a speeding car’s window?



See the link below for entire article, including Johnny’s vehement denial of the accusation.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amber-heard-hum ... eo-3097026

[justintime]

I am probably off base here, BUT wasn’t AH asked at some point, during a deposition perhaps, to identify the voices she had been asked to listen to on an audio tape being played for her? And she clearly identified one as “Johnny” and the other as herself? Weren’t those audio tapes the ones determined inadmissible as testimony for not being made under oath? Are depositions made under oath?

[Moonbeam]

I am probably off base here, BUT wasn’t AH asked at some point, during a deposition perhaps, to identify the voices she had been asked to listen to on an audio tape being played for her? And she clearly identified one as “Johnny” and the other as herself? Weren’t those audio tapes the ones determined inadmissible as testimony for not being made under oath? Are depositions made under oath?

Hi justintime. I know that you were probably just being facetious, but I am a legal dummy, so I looked it up. I thought that it was true that you were under oath. Yes. So, perjury is also a factor, as I thought I remembered.

(Link just for dummies, like me...)

I feel that no matter how long the decision in the UK took to be delved into by the judge, or how long it took him to write his judgement, he threw out factual information, mostly all of Johnny's evidence, for no reason. It was also information that was referred to and discussed under oath, as you mentioned. I feel wrong to say it, but I also feel that the judge would have taken her side no matter how much evidence that Johnny had, which was a lot! I truly think he doesn't believe that men get abused, like when he mentioned that he gave no credence to the fact that she hit Johnny in the back with a can of Red Bull. He said something like it must not have hurt him that much. Ouch! See, in my eyes, even that is Inexcusable! I mean who does she think she is to think she can haul off and lay hands on or throw things at others?! Puleeeeeze! She needs to seriously get a clue, grow up, and get her Anger Issues under control! I really hope that hard evidence holds more weight in a court of jurors in the US. I am also hoping that Johnny's appeal in the UK goes through.

[Someareborn]

Thank you Llbock for answering my question about Kaplan. So, she defended Weinstein - but not for the sexual assault charges - like some tweets suggests.
I try to be objective and ask myself if there is any way that Ambers allegations could be true - if I have missed a point. But I cannot make her words work.
Newest addition to this ongoing thought-process:
Her wild response "I am defending myself" on one of the tapes when JD confronts her about the public allegations. She never used these words when he said that she had thrown things at him. If wrongfully accused, she would have said its untrue, or, it was self defense. But she does neither of it.

I am glad Johnny filed the appeal and I am curious to find out how the Appeal Court will react to Nicols different approaches concerning JD and AH on the stand. Bring on the Skeleton.

[ForeverYoung]

As to the recording and being under oath. She was under oath when she did the deposition but that was not in a court of law so he dismissed it all.

[ForeverYoung]

Ok, so I looked it up to be sure.

"What is an appeal in legal terms in the UK?
The aim of an appeal is to correct a wrong decision and so avoid a miscarriage of justice. An appeal must be allowed by a court. It is therefore necessary to prove that there was some kind of misunderstanding of the law, evidence or facts."

I don't believe Nicol misunderstood any of the evidence or facts, he just chose to ignore them. I think he threw JD a bone twice when he said he could not make a decision either way. Big man...

[ForeverYoung]

[Lbock]

There is a massive, massive hit piece on Johnny for The Hollywood Reporter and he’s on their cover (using court references in the article). I swear AH PR has their hand all over this. They won’t be happy unless he never works again and I bet they’ve started his “in memoriam” terrible loss to Hollywood piece.

If you use this link to read it (paste in the article webpage) I guess they don’t get credited for clicks

http://archive.today/

It’s gut wrenching with supposedly inside info over some years

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu ... -implosion

[Granna]

LBock: As we all know, THR, AH & her PR team go hand and hand. If I remember correctly, during the UK trial, AH mentioned "she was just beginning to scratch the surface," on details on JD. AH will keep this up, until she destroys him. She is this generations - Delilah. (As in Delilah and Samson.) She's not going to stop today, tomorrow or next year. The poison that she is exerting from herself, is only damaging herself as well as decent people in Hollywood, not just JD. She does not understand that she will never work in Hollywood again from this action.

[Lbock]

LBock: As we all know, THR, AH & her PR team go hand and hand. If I remember correctly, during the UK trial, AH mentioned "she was just beginning to scratch the surface," on details on JD.

I get that. But they’re very clear new strategy is she left marriage behind and all this public fighting is him still abusing her. She is still the victim. Don’t hate her. Don’t blame her. It’s all Johnny wanting revenge and never moving on. It’s a terrible article taking him down but lifting her up with no quotes from her. Just Kaplan basically calling us all with Depp insane and vengeful