The Lawsuits Thread

[Lbock]

As far as I know Johnny was told his request was too broad and had to narrow his scope regarding docs from Amber in Fairfax

Iv agree with you Adele. I’ll add on Rocky that I believe the lawyer took this case on contingency (paid a percent on award) so I imagine they are encouraging him to settle for a large amount or carry on. I think Johnny would throw him some money off he told the truth that Johnny didn’t harm him. I don’t think they will incur much more in legal fees so Rocky lawyers have nothing to lose at this point. Imho

[AdeleAgain]

Yes agree - I don't think JD minds being generous to make it go away but no way will he allow Rocky to stick with the lie - why should he?

The continuity lady who gave a statement and had the photos; plus the log of what was going on (which JD read during his deposition a clip of which was released) - all clearly indicate Rocky was under pressure and flipped out.

Separately on iO please let us not forget this little nugget - please pass around.



Johnny's lawyers are never going to ask you to testify iO. Really? Because I think they'd like to get a deposition. We think you may have an inkling of where the charity money is.

Lbock - I think you may have found some info a while ago about the ownership of his house in Joshua Tree (am I remembering this correctly) - is it the address the subpoena went to or another?

[Lbock]

I found ownership of Amber's parent's house up in Yucca Valley near Joshua Tree.

The address they have on the subpeona seems to be correct from what I can find online

[ForeverYoung]

I found ownership of Amber's parent's house up in Yucca Valley near Joshua Tree.

The address they have on the subpeona seems to be correct from what I can find online

iO lived in a house that she vacated after the divorce and went to Joshua Tree but I don't know what the address was. I can only assume the ex had JD paying for it because I don't think it was a coincidence. She also owned a house with a former partner.

[ForeverYoung]

New subpoenas issued by JD's team

Whitney - for documents and some are specific dates for communications with Amber regarding the dates she brought up in the UK trial which the judge unfairly decided against JD.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 8-2021.pdf

American Civil Liberties Union - for deposition and documents

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 8-2021.pdf
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 8-2021.pdf

Also, JD is asking for testimony to be done by means of audio

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2021.pdf

[justintime]

Is this new? Not sure I’ve seen the “Johnny Depp has obtained a court order...” part with respect to EM’s deposition.

[Judymac]

It's a new subpoena.

[AdeleAgain]

I go around and around in my head about EM. On the one hand I think - why does JD's side so badly want to depose him - surely he's going to say AH told him that JD hurt her and he doesn't know anything else. But then, why has he so decidedly avoided being deposed - he presumably doesn't want to answer questions like "are you paying AH's legal fees and if so why", "why did you satisfy some of her donation pledges and not say anything when she lied to the media and court", "what conversations did you have with any party related to NGN about the London law suit", "has AH ever been violent to you or in your presence" etc etc.

I'd really love to know the taxation context around those donations - did one or both of them get incorrect tax breaks?

I think AH's strategy is to try and run the clock out for as long as she can. The more I think about it the more I think that WB might have fired her after the tapes came out if there hadn't been court cases going on - ie they decided not to make a public announcement until a court ruling - and everyone expected JD to win (because he should have!) I cannot imagine WB want to keep her - she is possibly the most loathed celebrity on the internet.

It is a moot point of course because what everyone who criticises the legal strategy forgets is that if there hadn't been these intense court battles, the tapes would never have come to light, nor would the charity donations.

So if she can push the VA trial until after Aquaman 2 starts filming she maybe hopes WB has to include her. That's just my theory. So all the more important that we please pray and keep everything crossed that in March the CoA allows the new evidence. Surely that will have to be reported in the media and maybe that will be a sufficient trigger.

It makes me physically sick that allegations of misconduct, and abhorrent political views can get you fired - but admitting beating your spouse and proof of stealing money from sick children results doesn't.

Apologies for the Friday rant.

[ForeverYoung]

Elon Musk would have seen her alleged injuries. His PR said that he hooked up with the ex only after the divorce so now he would have to admit the PR lied.

The money to the charities did not come from him. They came from fund companies that Musk gives big contributions to. These people who give contributions to the funding companies do not control who gets money goes to but, on the other hand, they do have a big influence on who gets some of the checks.

There are rumors that her role is getting significantly reduced in Aquaman 2 and she is not happy about it.

[Inquiring Minds]

ForeverYoung wrote:

The money to the charities did not come from him. They came from fund companies that Musk gives big contributions to. These people who give contributions to the funding companies do not control who gets money goes to but, on the other hand, they do have a big influence on who gets some of the checks.

Whilst I do not have any real knowledge legally or in a business sense, I respectfully disagree (and will gladly be corrected). My understanding (limited) is that the "charity" companies Elon is using are 100% owned and controlled by him - as a separate business entity from Tesla, The Boring Company, SpaceX or any of his other business interests. He is the sole contributor to these charity vehicles, he has the power to direct donations and to who the donation will be attributed (eg in the name of ....). I'm guessing a lot of the donations are determined by a board within parameters Elon has set, but he can intervene directly at any time. I seem to recall (fuzzy) that his brother may be the one managing Elon's charitable enterprises.

He will also get all the tax credits (including I would imagine any donations made in Amber's name).

[Judymac]

I go around and around in my head about EM. On the one hand I think - why does JD's side so badly want to depose him - surely he's going to say AH told him that JD hurt her and he doesn't know anything else. But then, why has he so decidedly avoided being deposed - he presumably doesn't want to answer questions like "are you paying AH's legal fees and if so why", "why did you satisfy some of her donation pledges and not say anything when she lied to the media and court", "what conversations did you have with any party related to NGN about the London law suit", "has AH ever been violent to you or in your presence" etc etc.

I'd really love to know the taxation context around those donations - did one or both of them get incorrect tax breaks?

I think AH's strategy is to try and run the clock out for as long as she can. The more I think about it the more I think that WB might have fired her after the tapes came out if there hadn't been court cases going on - ie they decided not to make a public announcement until a court ruling - and everyone expected JD to win (because he should have!) I cannot imagine WB want to keep her - she is possibly the most loathed celebrity on the internet.

It is a moot point of course because what everyone who criticises the legal strategy forgets is that if there hadn't been these intense court battles, the tapes would never have come to light, nor would the charity donations.

So if she can push the VA trial until after Aquaman 2 starts filming she maybe hopes WB has to include her. That's just my theory. So all the more important that we please pray and keep everything crossed that in March the CoA allows the new evidence. Surely that will have to be reported in the media and maybe that will be a sufficient trigger.

It makes me physically sick that allegations of misconduct, and abhorrent political views can get you fired - but admitting beating your spouse and proof of stealing money from sick children results doesn't.

Apologies for the Friday rant.

Delays are not unusual for U.S, trials. Delays happen in U.S trials because the judge wants to make sure that both sides have everything that they need to go forward with the trial. Right now the judge is granting her delays but she will not be able to delay the trial endlessly. The judge is the only person who can grant delays, she does not have the power to bring about delays. Eventually the judge will decide that both sides have had long enough to prepare their case and he will not grant anymore delays. She does not have any power to change anything.

[RumLover]

This 2016 article https://www.wealthmanagement.com/high-n ... settlement said there would not be a tax deduction because
"for a payment to a charity to be tax-deductible, it must be given with what tax professionals call “detached and disinterested generosity.” Here, Depp's payment probably wouldn’t have been made but for whatever the requirements are under the marital settlement agreement, so it’s unlikely that he’d be entitled to a tax deduction or that his intention was to seek such a tax deduction."

[AdeleAgain]

Thanks for finding that article Rum Lover I remember reading it in 2016 and being frustrated that most media were reporting AH's claims that JD was just trying to get the tax benefits when actually would have made little difference to him whether he paid it to charity or to her - I was new to this, I'm now used to the media reporting whatever her PR has briefed (even if most of their readers can see right through it).

I meant that I wonder whether AH or EM got any tax benefits - whether they sought any tax relief from their generosity. I cannot believe AH would have been so blatant and bold as to claim tax relief on something she didn't donate.

[Granna]

AdeleAgain: As we know, AH will do "whatever it takes" to stay relevant in the media (legal, questionable or otherwise).

AH has had no problem being bold and blatant on her accusations about JD - look at what she claimed. I think if she could get away with it she would do just about anything. And that is one of the reasons she is a little nervous. I wonder if she has done something that is illegal with the IRS.

If she lied about the donations - what else is she lied about? Tax returns?

[ForeverYoung]

ForeverYoung wrote:

The money to the charities did not come from him. They came from fund companies that Musk gives big contributions to. These people who give contributions to the funding companies do not control who gets money goes to but, on the other hand, they do have a big influence on who gets some of the checks.

Whilst I do not have any real knowledge legally or in a business sense, I respectfully disagree (and will gladly be corrected). My understanding (limited) is that the "charity" companies Elon is using are 100% owned and controlled by him - as a separate business entity from Tesla, The Boring Company, SpaceX or any of his other business interests. He is the sole contributor to these charity vehicles, he has the power to direct donations and to who the donation will be attributed (eg in the name of ....). I'm guessing a lot of the donations are determined by a board within parameters Elon has set, but he can intervene directly at any time. I seem to recall (fuzzy) that his brother may be the one managing Elon's charitable enterprises.

He will also get all the tax credits (including I would imagine any donations made in Amber's name).

It is true that Musk has a foundation (Musk Foundation) which his brother is (or was) treasurer but that foundation, also gives contributions to doner advised fund charities. One of the checks is signed by Jane Greenfield, who is president of Vanguard Charitable. Musk's foundation gave a lot of money to them in 2016 but you could be right. It might be possible that Musk also owns Vanguard.

https://qz.com/1911485/elon-musks-chari ... tax-haven/