The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu May 27, 2021 2:40 pm

They are a huge civil rights/free speech organization. Of course they will try to quash this.
I don't see how they have any culpability in this at all. They needed her "hollywood scandal" to help with their "violence against women" platform. Unless something comes up in their deposition/documents that they questioned if she was telling the truth and went ahead anyway. If they believed she was telling the TRUTH, than too bad the truth is damaging to anyone (irregardless if it is Johnny). "Truth Hurts"

" Virginia's anti-SLAPP law applies to speech “(i) regarding matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment”

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu May 27, 2021 3:18 pm

Lbock wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:40 pm
ForeverYoung wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:38 pm
Lbock wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:09 pm


I honestly don't see what ACLU did wrong. She claimed abuse by a huge Hollywood Icon. ACLU asked her to become involved and help them get their position known to congress and write an OpEd to help them push the Violence Against Women Act, which was about to expire. As far as I can tell, they believed her. Granted they didn't really care about AH, it was Johnny's name that was gonna garner the attention they needed. They ask for the OpEd by mid November.

What they didn't know is that earlier, AH had tried to sue Johnny (arbitration) over the GQUK article and the judge denied her. So she was ripe for revenge, and ACLU gave her the platform she needed. After much delay, it was released with her Aquaman premier, and got a bigger exposure because of it.

It is clear in the writing, Heard wants mention of her personal experience - including getting a TRO against Johnny. It is her attorney that tried to do his job to protect her.

For the record, it appears, neither her attorney nor ACLU did any research to see if she was telling the truth.

But it seems to me, ACLU has the best argument for Anti-SLAPP. They only accepted her statements and the issuance of a TRO as her telling the truth. Their article was outlined for the good of the public. They even listed causes they wanted her to mention (and of course they wrote it).

I wish Johnny's team could somehow flip ACLU to show how they were duped and used as the patsy. After the audios are out and now that she didn't donate and has implicated ACLU in a possible IRS issue with the Vanguard donations (that can't be in her name per their letters)--They should pull a mea culpa and turn on her. IMHO
Sorry to disagree but the ACLU knew this would be damaging to JD no matter how many lawyers they used or told her to use to cover their own :censored: . They are refusing to produce documents which tells me they knew all along what they were doing.
They are a huge civil rights/free speech organization. Of course they will try to quash this.
I don't see how they have any culpability in this at all. They needed her "hollywood scandal" to help with their "violence against women" platform. Unless something comes up in their deposition/documents that they questioned if she was telling the truth and went ahead anyway. If they believed she was telling the TRUTH, than too bad the truth is damaging to anyone (irregardless if it is Johnny). "Truth Hurts"

" Virginia's anti-SLAPP law applies to speech “(i) regarding matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment”
I could be wrong but my understanding is that the production is court ordered and therefore they cannot quash it. They can, however, refuse to comply and be sanctioned. Also, we all know a certain space man who is a very big supporter of the ACLU.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu May 27, 2021 3:39 pm

ACLU has filed a quash which Depp opposed and filed a compel in NYC. It’s not done yet. AH was ordered to produce documents by May 28. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webciv ... vGmw%3D%3D

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Thu May 27, 2021 6:21 pm

I think ACLU crossed a line when they made Heard an ambassador without doing a background check.
It is one thing to believe the victim when it supported their cause and to write the op-ed.
It is another thing to make her a representative of the organisation without due diligence of her and her story. AH's ambassador title was at top of the op-ed. This should open the ACLU to criticism of it's methods and processes.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu May 27, 2021 6:25 pm

The FACT she was arrested for DV witnesses by police irregardless of the outcome should have been a deal breaker

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu May 27, 2021 8:13 pm

Lbock wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 3:39 pm
ACLU has filed a quash which Depp opposed and filed a compel in NYC. It’s not done yet. AH was ordered to produce documents by May 28. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webciv ... vGmw%3D%3D
Ok, thanks. For whatever reason the ACLU doesn't want to hand over their documents and I don't think they will even if there is a court order issued but we shall see. Didn't she say that she had a friend in the ACLU whom she called to help her contact the Washington Post for the op-ed?
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
fireflydances
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 3390
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
Location: under a pile of books
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by fireflydances » Thu May 27, 2021 8:13 pm

I personally believe that the ACLU took on AH simply because of the connection to JD. He was the draw, the name that would attract attention -- a supposed 'good guy' who they could paint as not so good -- but unfortunately for the ACLU, they didn't do their due diligence and got caught in a big mess I am sure they wish they had avoided.
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu May 27, 2021 8:58 pm

fireflydances wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 8:13 pm
I personally believe that the ACLU took on AH simply because of the connection to JD. He was the draw, the name that would attract attention -- a supposed 'good guy' who they could paint as not so good -- but unfortunately for the ACLU, they didn't do their due diligence and got caught in a big mess I am sure they wish they had avoided.
Agree with the first half. But they didn’t have to paint him as bad. She already publicly did that and with a legal piece of paper. Her “story” played into exactly what they needed to get a big public response

Scout
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:10 pm
Location: New York City
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Scout » Thu May 27, 2021 11:32 pm

I am just catching up to these events and court activity. I am sort of shocked at this peak into the ACLU's behavior. The ends should never justify the means and their means here were exploitative and sc*m had no problem with that. I have a question though, what was the GQUK article that sc*m wanted to sue over? I missed that along the way somehow.

Thank you to all who keep us informed here. I am very grateful.

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 53779
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Online

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Fri May 28, 2021 12:04 am

Scout wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 11:32 pm
I am just catching up to these events and court activity. I am sort of shocked at this peak into the ACLU's behavior. The ends should never justify the means and their means here were exploitative and sc*m had no problem with that. I have a question though, what was the GQUK article that sc*m wanted to sue over? I missed that along the way somehow.

Thank you to all who keep us informed here. I am very grateful.
You can find the article on page 2 of the News forum

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Fri May 28, 2021 6:00 pm

From today’s hearing. Amber was granted permission to amend with a big caveat


The judge said during Friday morning's hearing that the third attempt at dismissal will likely prove "futile."

Azcarate warned that if Heard is found to have wasted the court's time, there will be legal repercussions for her in the form of sanctions.

Neither Heard nor Depp were present for the hearing, but Friday was considered a win for Johnny and his team.
https://radaronline.com/p/judge-scolds- ... exclusive/

Also from Courthouse News
More bland lol
https://www.courthousenews.com/heard-as ... ssion=true

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri May 28, 2021 6:35 pm

This judge isn't going to put up with any of her or her lawyer's BS.

"Azcarate warned that if Heard is found to have wasted the court's time, there will be legal repercussions for her in the form of sanctions." :biggrin:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Granna
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Fri May 28, 2021 6:37 pm

What could they change this time? Another stalling tactic?

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sat May 29, 2021 7:00 am

TUG from Twitter and YouTube put the Eric George deposition in a Dropbox link. I think the link will excite in 24 hours so download it if you want it

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sat May 29, 2021 8:32 am

I've only got as far as them having a lunch break but it is diamond. Ben Chew kept asking what due diligence he had done on whether AH had been abused by JD, I love the increasingly panicky objections of AH's and Eric George's own lawyers. Truth is of course a defence against defamation if Mr George knew she was being truthful, no need to worry about a defamation case.

Elaine appears to have similar traits to her client. "Don't interrupt me" whilst she interrupts plenty. She continually sounds as if she is doing all she can to stop the truth emerging.

I'll read more this evening absolutely fascinating.