The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

She is stil after Twitter.

My Twitter posts include her filing, Twitter answers and then her answers again. So you'll have to read down my Twitter thread to see all the documents. These are from California filings.

Granted the communication between her and Twitter were from November 2020 prior to the Fairfax Judge's opinion. BUT, her filing today was a status update. She includes a copy of her counterclaim as an exhibit to Twitter, but does not (in today's filing) include the update of the Opinion Letter denying her claim of the VA Computer Crimes Act.

[Newt]

How dumb does she have to be to put a target on her back vis a vis Twitter, Disney and the LAPD? It's delightful to see the house of cards crumble a little more every day, your posts Lbock give us LIFE ^^

[Someareborn]

The VA trial might be postponed due to older cases - update from the Fairfaxcounty website.

This would be so frustrating if happening to JD's trial. Seriously! How long does he have to wait to make his case? Its nearly impossible to strategize things!
I am sure his team leaked the tapes 6-8 weeks prior to the supposed UK trial date to get maximum coverage. I expected the same strategy for the VA trial. Nothing is certain with the pandemic... Stay safe everyone.

[ForeverYoung]

Whoever is paying Amber Heard's legal bills is wasting a of a lot of money. She knows how big JD's fan base is and how much he is loved. She admitted that she was told by friends and advisrors back in 2016 not to do what she she did. Now that things are not going her way and she is being exposed she wants people to think that those fans who are showing their support through social media are bots or paid for help.

[Lbock]

Looks like the Fairfax Trial will likely be rescheduled again. Wait and see...
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/coronavirus

[Granna]

Though this is sad to be delayed again. This has got to be hard on Johnny. However, let us stay positive. If it is again delayed, how much more "truth" will come out and how much stupid will she go? This delay will just cause her to dig a deeper hole for her to get out of. Let's try to find the silver lining gang.

[Inquiring Minds]

Man, I hope the trial has a live video feed or nic (preferably both). And thanks Granna - first drink is on me

After the UK trial I am however concerned. VA seems to be proceeding better re subpoena denials etc, but sitting on the sidelines can be agonising LOL. I am hoping that a jury will make a major difference. Disinformation peddled by her paid trolls (eg W1ldflower and their gang of 9 or 10) shows how low they are sinking. These are clearly well versed in the hoax and are tailoring their lies very precisely. Any thought that this is not a paid smear campaign must be thrown out.

Re the quiet: Adam has been silent for a few weeks, so now we just have documents we have found ourselves (thanks to Laura, ForeverYoung and others). And these cost money. But still we bots (just call me "Dimitri"), (without Adam, our bot overlord) keep going over what we have, tweaking more and more contradictions out of her lies. For every one of us that may fall in battle, others step into the breach.

[Inquiring Minds]

To hopefully bring levity to the situation and as this is the lawsuits thread:

With the paid twitter trolls spreading their carefully constructed lies so vigorously at present, I thought I might try to inject a little reason to debunk one aspect of their slurs. In particular a private, jocular and non-threatening text exchange as Johnny was expressing his despair and powerlessness to a close friend.

It's regarding the Bettany texts; All I got was that they were discussing legal options. They had both come to the not unreasonable conclusion that Amber was a witch and were considering ways to approach the problem. The very first course they considered was a time-proven and trusted method, a legally sanctioned (albeit traditional) witch trial. Whilst they referred to the legal system as from the UK, it was widespread throughout western civilisation at the time. Good citizens knew their civic duty: Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

They discussed collecting evidence at trial (a witch can't be drowned), assumed she would be found guilty and that the standard sentence would be carried out (burned at the stake). It was common at the time to be thorough too, including ensuring they wouldn't rise from the dead and wreak havoc. Archaeologists have exhumed the corpses of suspected/convicted vampires and found their heads missing, replaced by a large stone. Just to be sure. I think of the two friends' (joking) suggestion of desecrating the corpse less as vengence and more a diligent attempt (indeed, responsibility) to provide a safer world for us all.

Anyway, if they hadn't figured it out for themselves, Depp's lawyers at the time would have surely pointed out that standards of evidence and legal philosophy have changed since those days And whilst this exchange was entirely private and ended with Johnny saying he could never hurt her, Amber's on-again-off-again richer, white, man-"upgrade" thought he could play medieval white knight. So much so that only last year, astroboy publicly challenged Johnny to "trial-by-combat", as Amber's champion, in a bare-knuckle cage fight. Mickey Rouke quickly stepped up to wear Johnny's colour's. Issues looked destined to be settled the old way (and probably more reliably than the UK High Court) when Amber's champion went silent and slinked away.

From the legal perspective of days-of-yore (when the champion forfeits) Amber is clearly guilty of all charges.

[Granna]

Thank you - needed that well thought out stress relieved thesis. Nothing like finding a nice silver lining in a very bad situation. Job well done.

[ForeverYoung]

Amber Heard and her lawyer have a lot of nerve calling us bots when it's certain that there is a person who posts on a certain UK tabloid site under at least 25 different names. I know it's the same person because it posts the exact same thing word for word under different names on different articles prasing that witch saying things like "The best lady in hollywood." Sometimes it changes it's name at least three times, sometimes more, in the same article. I have offten spent 1/2 the night reporting this person for saying the same bad things about JD over and over which are deformation of character, slander and false accusations. Once the comments get removed it goes back under a different and it starts all over again. It's really pathetic.

[Lbock]

Here is a few updates

1) Twitter response (they still don't seem to know about the demurrer sustained ruling on this subject)


2) They were trying to use the CA court to further compel Stephen Deuters, Sean Bett & Ed White and his company. They, as usual, filed partial truths. Depp has answered

[Lbock]

And it could soon all be over (except her counterclaim would stand). Depp was the one who filed to get her anti-SLAPP off the table (before she actually filed for it)

Heard Turns to Virginia Anti-SLAPP Law to Beat Depp Defamation Case

JOAN HENNESSYJanuary 29, 2021

A Virginia judge is weighing whether actress Amber Heard can rely on a law aimed at deterring speech-chilling litigation to fend off defamation claims brought by her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.


Actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard arrive for the London premiere of their film “The Rum Diary” in 2011 (AP Photo/Joel Ryan, File)
FAIRFAX, Va. (CN) — In Virginia, an anti-SLAPP law allows immunity from civil liability for statements about matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment. But when an actress pens a muscular editorial on the impact of domestic violence, does the law cover her?

At issue is whether Amber Heard, 34, star of “Aquaman,” is entitled to use an anti-SLAPP defense in the nearly two-year-old lawsuit filed by her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, 57.

Depp charges Heard defamed him when she wrote an op-ed piece describing the backlash she faced after coming out as a survivor of domestic abuse. The article, published in The Washington Post in December 2018, never mentioned Depp by name, but the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star contends it was obviously about him. He sued Heard for $50 million in Virginia, where the Post is printed.

That lawsuit, along with other high-profile cases, prompted the Virginia General Assembly last year to consider strengthening anti-SLAPP legislation. The term SLAPP – strategic lawsuits against public participation – was coined to describe lawsuits that aim to silence or short-circuit free speech.

Existing Virginia law allows a person to be immune from civil liability “based solely on statements regarding matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” That immunity doesn’t apply “to any statements made with actual or constructive knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard for whether they are false.”

Depp’s attorney argued that Heard is not entitled to an anti-SLAPP defense. During a hearing Friday in Fairfax County Circuit Court, Ben Chew of Brown Rudnick characterized Heard’s article as a matter of “private and not public concern.”

But Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Charlson Bredehoft of Charlson Bredehoft Cohen, countered that the editorial was written at the height of the #MeToo movement and called for public action.

In the editorial, Heard wrote: “We are in a transformative political moment …More women were elected to Congress than ever in our history, with a mandate to take women’s issues seriously. Women’s rage and determination to end sexual violence are turning into a political force. We have an opening now to bolster and build institutions protective of women.”

If that is not an issue of public concern, Bredehoft concluded, “what would be considered public concern?”

Chief Circuit Court Judge Bruce White took the matter under advisement. It is unclear when he will issue a ruling.

Heard filed a counterclaim in the case contending that Depp had defamed her and asking for $100 million in damages. Earlier this month, White pared down her case. But the judge also ruled that Depp, who has accused Heard of lying about domestic abuse, could not use Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law to claim immunity.

“Here,” White wrote, “the court finds no support for the notion that Mr. Depp’s statements are on matters of public concern.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/heard-tu ... tion-case/

[Granna]

LBock: could you please put your post in simple layman terms. Thank you.

[Lbock]

LBock: could you please put your post in simple layman terms. Thank you.

VA passed a new anti-SLAPP law which for her claim basically says her expression of what she went through (and other women go through) after claiming abuse-her opinion was during the height of the #metoo movement and, therefore, should be excused or accepted (immune) as public interest. But the statute also says knowingly making false claims are not covered—keeping in mind she never named him.

Depp team claimed anti-SLAPP on the comments he made in GQ and I guess the ones Adam said. The judge denied that what he said was “not in the public interest”. Was said in spite. So judge denied him. Now Depp wants judge to remove her Anti-SLAPP possible claim from the table. Depp brought this motion, pre-emptively

If judge ruled in Amber’s favor, she can file to have the case dismissed and Johnny will have to pay all her legal fees and damages. Her counterclaim can continue.

Judge ruled from last year’s demurrer that three statements could be defamatory and that will be up to jury. So let’s see if he sticks with that one year later.

[Someareborn]

Wait...what?
His whole case could be dismissed based on this SLAPP ruling? AND her counterclaim might go through??
Boy, this cannot happen!!!