The Lawsuits Thread

[Inquiring Minds]

The ACLU pledge form has been submitted via Pierce O'Donnell of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger. He joined them on April Fool's Day in 2014. Two years before (in 2012) he managed to hold on to his California law license despite serving almost 60 days in prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations. His hiring was announced in The Hollywood Reporter by (wait for it) Enriq Gardner. Pierce was 67 at the time which makes him about 74 now.
- https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almI ... -Boutique/

He seems to have been lying for her since 2016:

On Monday, the actress' lawyer Pierce O'Donnell released a statement to explain why the payment has not been made, revealing the divorce papers are yet to be signed.
- https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebriti ... e-money/1/

From the Greenberg Glusker website :

(non-random selection of legal areas covered, lots more detail on the page. Comments and annotations are mine)

Bankruptcy, Reorganization and Capital Recovery
Cannabis Industry Group
Climate Change & Sustainability
Digital Media & Technology
Employment (including Employment Litigation and (what is) Preventative Counseling?)
Entertainment
Film Financing
International (a snippet from the linked page:

Our International Law Group handles complex inbound and outbound transactions for business entities, entertainment companies and high net worth individuals.

We counsel U.S. companies conducting business overseas, or producing movies in foreign locations. We also represent foreign companies investing in U.S. media, real estate or business assets. In these areas, our firm attorneys advise on all business and tax structuring. In the case of film production, our attorneys are able to counsel on all work relating to foreign government subsidies and tax credits. Greenberg Glusker's international counsel extends to litigation as we have worked on many cross-border lawsuits and arbitrations.

Litigation
Private Client Services (this included charities & non-profits, high net worth families, trusts (planning, administration, controversy and litigation))
Real Estate (covering a wide range of services - probate, estates, buy, sell, lease, litigation, big, small, projects)

I don't know how much work she feeds through them these days, but O'Donnell was active at the time such a pledge is claimed to have been set up in 2016. He is currently listed as a partner in the law firm.

But as for the pledge, this is not the one that was made at the time - at least publicly and confirmed multiple times through press statements. She pledged $3.5m from her divorce settlement to the ACLU. But she has already spent that. She can't donate the proceeds of the divorce because they no longer exist. Further, according to this new pledge document, the money already donated ($450K) from the divorce has been stripped from the original pledge and transferred to this one. It should also be noted that her initial payment to the ACLU of $350K came prior to the divorce and her pledge so, imo, she hasn't even donated that - just the $100K Johnny donated in her name.

According to this new document, clearly drafted recently, she has now pledged $3.5m anew, to be sourced from anywhere but done in her name, by 2026. This is on top of the pledge she made in 2016 to donate (another) $3.5m to the ACLU from her divorce settlement. That's $7m in total, but she has already defaulted on the pledge made under the Deal Point Memorandum, having stripped it of past donations she has retrospectively donated nothing from the divorce. And while the original donation would not have had any effect on JD and AH's tax position (from previous discussion), this may not be the case with any future funds credited to this new pledge (note the tax deductible box has been checked). I'm not an accountant, so like so much of what I post, I am probably talking through my .

[ForeverYoung]

Now we know why she moved out of LA to the desert a week before the hearing. I doubt there are paparazzi hanging around Yucca Valley.

[Inquiring Minds]

The point I should have made on my previous post was that it looks like AH is putting any assets she has into things like family trusts so she can use bankruptcy to evade any major penalties. I suspect Arrow has actually been gifted, not just moved, to be looked after and re-gifted back once she is in the clear. She shouldn't need that for the UK, because she was not the one being sued. This is for VA, although it is possible NGN could sue her for lying to them and leaving them vulnerable to being sued by JD (I doubt it would fly, but who knows?).

This means she will be leaving The Washington Post to carry any damages that come from being sued in VA (although I guess the court may determine relative liability of the parties). In Australia, courts can go back through transactions conducted prior to filing for bankruptcy that indicate an attempt to strip assests. They rarely go back more than 6 months, but can actually go back much further. Then they can reverse those transactions. With the delays to VA, if the rules are the same in the USA, enough time may have passed that she may even get away with it.

If going through Greenberg Glusker, looking at their services, I am guessing she is positioning herself for an immediate comeback - spin control, then secure more film work through them. Although it may involve roles outside Hollywood (Bollywood maybe? ).

And Greenberg Glusker with O'Donnell keeps reminding me of Better Call Saul. After the Hollywood money laundering scandal (1MDB), this company has intersectional business that makes it look very shady imo. I do not doubt that they would retrospectively write up the new pledge and try to infer that it was done in 2016, if given sufficient incentive (and they didn't sign or date it).

I don't know if Greenberg Glusker played any role in the divorce proceedings (I'm guessing they were the PR she called after the penthouse set-up), but they could also have been implicated in the hoax from the start - more than enough reason for them to try to prevent it being proven in court (and dragging them down too). The recent de-friending by Kaplan, to me, looks like distancing herself from any legal fallout. I doubt AH will go down without kicking and screaming - and dragging everyone involved down with her (either, they made me do it or they failed me and deserve to suffer too).

[SnoopyDances]

The Washington Post is not being sued, only Amber.
Her article was a freelance opinion piece; she does not work for nor represent the paper.

The Post published the opinion piece but is not being held liable for its content. Nor will the Post be held liable for any legal fees, damages, or awards.

The only reasons the Post matters is the depth of its circulation (online and in print) and that it is published in Virginia, where the suit was filed.

[Inquiring Minds]

SnoopyDances wrote:

The Washington Post is not being sued, only Amber.
Her article was a freelance opinion piece; she does not work for or represent the paper.

The Post published the opinion piece but is not being held liable for its content. Nor will the Post be held liable for any legal fees, damages, or awards.

The only reasons the Post matters is the depth of its circulation (online and in print) and that it is published in Virginia, where the suit was filed.

My bad, and many thanks for the clarification. That makes a big difference and explains her panic even better. Its all on her LOL

[SnoopyDances]

SnoopyDances wrote:

The Washington Post is not being sued, only Amber.
Her article was a freelance opinion piece; she does not work for or represent the paper.

The Post published the opinion piece but is not being held liable for its content. Nor will the Post be held liable for any legal fees, damages, or awards.

The only reasons the Post matters is the depth of its circulation (online and in print) and that it is published in Virginia, where the suit was filed.

My bad, and many thanks for the clarification. That makes a big difference and explains her panic even better. Its all on her LOL

It’s confusing.

NGN was the paper sued because its editor/ reporter wrote that article claiming it to be true.

But Amber was sued all on her onsies for the WaPo opinion piece.
I think the paper was initially included in the suit, but responsibility was dropped early on.

[Inquiring Minds]

SnoopyDances wrote:

But Amber was sued all on her onsies for the WaPo opinion piece.
I think the paper was initially included in the suit, but responsibility was dropped early on.

I bow to your far better knowledge I had read the initial claim filed in VA, but missed that WaPo was dropped.

Early on, the amicus thing with ACLU was objected to because TeamDepp indicated that they could be called in as participants. I've read that they helped AH prepare the article and brokered the publication with WaPo (have I got this right?). With the recent pledge document being trotted out, this certainly looks to me like the ACLU are complicit.

If WaPo have been dropped, does anyone know if the ACLU have been added (please say yes LOL)?

[RumLover]

The Washington Post was never a defendant in the Virginia case.
A check of the first document on Fairfax will confirm the only defendant was Amber Heard.
An op-ed is different to an article written by a staff writer.

In her April 2019 VA statement, Amber wrote
53. In early December 2018, while working with the American Civil Liberties Union as the ACLU Ambassador for Women’s Rights, I leamed of an opportunity to write an Op-Ed about women’s rights issues. 1 agreed to do so.
54, I wrote the Op-Ed in Los Angeles, California, and submitted it to the Washington Post through my contact at the ACLU, who was based in New York. The Op-Ed was published on December 18, 2018.


In a January 2021 filing "Defendant's opposition.." it implies that ACLU were more involved in writing the article.
Mr. Depp has brought a defamation claim based on Ms. Heard's Op-Ed article she drafted, at the request of and with the assistance of the ACLU, on topics addressing the ability to speak out, be heard, receive proper investigation, and not be retaliated against, respecting
domestic abuse and violence, sexual harassment and assault, the #MeToo movement, Violence Against Women Act, and Title IX rules. Mr. Depp was not named in the article.

[SnoopyDances]

Thanks Rumlover!

[Inquiring Minds]

SnoopyDances wrote:

Thanks Rumlover!

I must also echo those sentiments. Many thanks RumLover for the corrected details

[AdeleAgain]

I have to say I find it amazing that The Washington Post does get off totally free on this. They allowed her/the ACLU to use their platform and their name. They lent the entire thing their credibility.

[Inquiring Minds]

AdeleAgain wrote:

I have to say I find it amazing that The Washington Post does get off totally free on this. They allowed her/the ACLU to use their platform and their name. They lent the entire thing their credibility.

I'm guessing it's some form of safe harbour protection - something that is probably better kept imo. But I'm betting WaPo ran it by their lawyers first, directly advocating or inciting a crime, act of terror etc - even if by an independent, non-staff writer probably wouldn't be immune. Regardless, I think they were probably walking a very fine line. Anything to sell papers, get clicks etc.

[Granna]

Morning everyone:

Questionable donations from AH particularly from the ACLU (10 yr span - amazing how JD stepped up -- she didn't).

FYI: Stevie J Raw (YouTube)
Charity Stream
Saturday -- 4/17/21

www.justgiving.com/fundraiser
(for the kids at CHLA -- to make up for the funds AH did NOT donate)

Donation page open now. Please click on his video -- help if you can. This is for #Justicefor Johnny. Thanks

[AdeleAgain]

I love the idea that JD's fans are stepping up where she let down poorly children. Thanks Granna.

[Judymac]

AdeleAgain wrote:

I have to say I find it amazing that The Washington Post does get off totally free on this. They allowed her/the ACLU to use their platform and their name. They lent the entire thing their credibility.

I'm guessing it's some form of safe harbour protection - something that is probably better kept imo. But I'm betting WaPo ran it by their lawyers first, directly advocating or inciting a crime, act of terror etc - even if by an independent, non-staff writer probably wouldn't be immune. Regardless, I think they were probably walking a very fine line. Anything to sell papers, get clicks etc.