The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
AdeleAgain
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:51 pm

PS just noticed Adam has called AH's words - "false under oath".

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:03 pm

On December 15, 2020, Depp requested an emergency hearing to declassify certain documents (ones AH marked confidential). I don't know why he needed these. I can only assume they want to use these for depositions.

This has been granted with the order ENTERED January 4. I'm not sure when the order actually happened as that might explain why Adam suddenly started tweeting and releasing documents.

Maybe they wanted to use the charity donation documents to question Jennifer Howell, or her compatriots, "Did you believe or know she actually donated?" "Did you get any money from her?" "How do you feel that she DID NOT donate?" etc.


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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:34 pm

Adam Waldman is on fire! Amber Heard testfied in court that Johnny would take her mustang and leave her with no car but Adam says she rented a $60K SUV and Johnny also bought her a $100K Range Rover. She was also in some accidents.

https://twitter.com/adam_waldman
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Jan 07, 2021 3:05 am

To be precise- Johnny rented her a Range Rover 2013 to 2016, and then bought one for her 2015. Because - you know - of her insistence on being financially independent.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:13 pm

Greg Ellis will be live today with a lawyer discussing the VA case.

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Thu Jan 07, 2021 3:50 pm

:flower2:
"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

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:21 pm

Daily Mail reporting and seemingly confirming Amber did not donate the settlement. I link the article because it has the letter from CHLA from 2019 confirming they only received $100k and was she still going to honor her pledge?

Her Attorney Elaine's quotes:


Heard's attorney, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, would not specify how much her client had given to either charity to date, saying only that she intended to fulfill the $7m pledge 'eventually'.

She blamed Depp for the delay, saying Heard has been forced to spend millions defending herself against 'false accusations' made against her in the ongoing defamation case.


Heard's attorney said she has 'already been responsible for seven figures in donations to charitable causes and intends to continue to contribute and eventually fulfil her pledge'


She was asked about the divorce money during an October 2018 appearance on a current affairs show for Dutch broadcaster RTL.

'Seven million dollars in total was donated, I split it between the ACLU and Children's Hospital Los Angeles,' she replied. 'I wanted nothing.'

Bredehoft told DailyMail.com in a statement: 'Ms. Depp's effort to plant stories in the media criticizing Amber for not yet fulfilling all the donations she pledged to charity is yet another desperate attempt to divert attention from the UK Court's findings relating to allegations of Mr. Depp committing domestic abuse.

'Amber has already been responsible for seven figures in donations to charitable causes and intends to continue to contribute and eventually fulfil her pledge.

'However, Amber has been delayed in that goal because Mr. Depp filed a lawsuit against her, and consequently, she has been forced to spend millions of dollars defending Mr. Depp's false accusations against her.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... arity.html

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:27 pm

As expected - Daily Mail. They might not have done this under their old editor but say what you like about them (and yes they are awful) they did go large on the tapes.

And even the Daily Mail can see the discrepancy - Johnny didn't launch a lawsuit against AH until AFTER she claimed to have given the money. And she had the chance to correct herself in court - indeed she could even have made something of it, saying because of the VA lawsuit, he was depriving sick children etc - but no she had already lied and so she hunkered down and lied some more.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:52 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Thu Jan 07, 2021 5:27 pm
As expected - Daily Mail. They might not have done this under their old editor but say what you like about them (and yes they are awful) they did go large on the tapes.

And even the Daily Mail can see the discrepancy - Johnny didn't launch a lawsuit against AH until AFTER she claimed to have given the money. And she had the chance to correct herself in court - indeed she could even have made something of it, saying because of the VA lawsuit, he was depriving sick children etc - but no she had already lied and so she hunkered down and lied some more.
The comments are pretty good. It's obvious people are sick of her and her lies and these lawyers she gets who defend her actions but I think we all knew they were going to blame JD for AH's lies. His lawsuit against her was filed TWO YEARS after the divorce. At least he can submit to the UK court now that she lied and Nicol made a poor decision based on his assumptions that she told the truth.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Granna
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:06 pm

ForeverYoung:

This is such an unholy cluster, it's hard to keep things straight. Enlighten if you can --

1) AH stated $7 mil was going to charity - fine. Was there a timeline agreement in the divorce settlement for payment to be made?

2) Did she or did she NOT state during the UK trial - the funded were already dispersed?

3) Does anyone know what time frame that interview overseas was taken? Did she say at the time of the interview that the money had already been disbursed?

4) It is my understanding that the ACLU has not cooperated with the subpoenas- interference Elon Musk?

How can the attorney state that the funds were not distributed because of JD as you stated he did not file until two years after the divorce was final.

Is all of this bologna in connection with her counterclaim for 100 million dollars? Or are they just blowing stuff out of their skirt?

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:12 pm

Granna my understanding of the time line is this:

The money wasn't paid all upfront but she started getting publicity for the donations in 2017, and the interview on Dutch TV was October 2018. By this time she had emphatically said she had (past tense) donated. She wrote her op ed in I think November 2018 (FB2 was out) and JD didn't sue until March 2019.

Granna
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:19 pm

AdeleAgain:

How in the name of the heavens can AH's lawyers B.S. all of this and STILL be called a lawyer? I thought lawyers took an oath, or something. This is downright disgusting.

This just as gut wrenching as what happened at the Capital in Washington, yesterday. Total flippin' chaos.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:42 pm

According to this tweet Amber should have been able to pay the last money to the charities after February 1st, 2018. Well before JD sued her, I believe.
So the excuse that she needed the money for lawyers' fees because Johnny had sued her is nonsense!

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:02 pm

Amber filled a motion to compel Adam sling with listing the Twitter accounts. This was filled the same day as the Demurrer opinion dropped. So not sure what still stands

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:57 pm

From Nicol's Desision:

" I had evidence as to what Ms Heard had received as a result of the divorce settlement. I have explained that there was no expert evidence to compare those figures with what she would otherwise have been entitled to under Californian divorce law. The principal element of that settlement was payment to her by Mr Depp of US $ 7 million. Ms Heard’s evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memorandum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78). I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger. 578. As Ms Wass said in her closing submissions, if Ms Heard had been constructing a hoax there are various measures which she might have taken, but which she did not (see paragraph 91 of the Defendants’ closing submissions). I agree that those points add further force to the conclusion I would anyway have reached, which is to reject the ‘hoax’ or ‘insurance policy’ thesis."

In otherwords, Nicol was either supplied false evidence or he failed to acknowledge only $1 million out of the $7 million settlment had been given to charities on her behalf from someone else, imo.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."