The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:47 am

Granna wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am
Judymac: As it has been said via an YT lawyer, JD does not have to be present. There is strong speculation that Ben Chew has options for todays' proceeding, all with JD's blessing. It will be Chew's call, after he hears the defendants intentions.
Tomorrow 11am EST

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:51 pm

Here is a video I posted a few weeks ago. It is an in-depth explanation about how the appeal process works. This is a lawyer and also very active on twitter with the JD fans. She was one of the visiting lawyers on the live stream channel I was watching the trial on.

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

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:02 pm

I just saw this article. It contains a really great testimonial from Courtney Love. JD saves another life.


User avatar
fireflydances
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
Location: under a pile of books
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by fireflydances » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:21 pm

Inquiring Minds wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:02 pm
I just saw this article. It contains a really great testimonial from Courtney Love. JD saves another life.

Good piece. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the media. How sadly true. Thank you.
"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
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:00 pm

JD would not be able to come to court anyway. I just read the Jeff Beck concert in Norway for 6/24 is cancelled because someone in the band has covid, which usually means they all have to quarantine for at least 5 days now.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:05 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:00 pm
JD would not be able to come to court anyway. I just read the Jeff Beck concert in Norway for 6/24 is cancelled because someone in the band has covid, which usually means they all have to quarantine for at least 5 days now.
I hope that everyone is OK.

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:58 am

fireflydances wrote:
Good piece. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the media. How sadly true. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it also 😊 In a similar vein, I love his recent “This is a Song for Hedy Lamar” (she has been a fav of mine for many years).

[Topic change]

Whilst the MSM is overwhelmingly in denial and damage control, a frequent claim I read is that the one defamation count found against Mr Depp was because it used the word “hoax”. Some basic fact checking disproves this misconception, and provides a more plausible, and much less interesting reason the jury may have arrived at their verdict (on the AH counterclaim).

Statement 1

"Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield depending on their needs."
"They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr Depp."


Not defamatory


Statement 2

"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt did not do the trick."
"The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property."
"So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."


Defamatory


Statement 3

"We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp."

Not defamatory


I want to break down the 2nd, defamatory statement:

Quite simply this was an ambush – Rocky’s miraculous appearance and Amber’s surprise when the bodyguards burst in would suggest this it was an ambush. Io could maybe be considered an unwitting participant (believing he was hearing an assault in progress). Calling it an ambush was a reasonable inference given the known facts (and therefor not knowingly untrue).

a hoax – the term “hoax” has been deemed true and not defamatory by the jury (statements 1 and 3).

They set Mr Depp up – not proven, but supported by the “ambush” context reasoned above.

by calling the copsTrue. The call was placed by Io (to the NYPD)

but the first attempt did not do the trickTrue. Assumes that the “trick” was to have the police register a DV incident, but without charges being laid. Note: if charges were laid, the subsequent extortion letter would lose most of its power. As we have seen, once the allegations became public and involve the police and courts, withdrawing the allegations does not make them go away in the public’s perception, potentially fueling them. The use of the word “first” however, whilst technically accurate, also infers that there is a “second”, and that the existence of this “second” was known at the time the word “first” was used.

The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or propertyTrue. Supported by LAPD testimony.

So Amber and her friends spilled a little wineTrue (a reasonable conclusion). No damage or evidence of an assault was reported by the first police in attendance.

and roughed the place upTrue (a reasonable conclusion). Photos were taken before the 2nd police visit and the mess was cleaned up before the second police visit.

got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicistTrue (a reasonable conclusion). She made calls to both her lawyer and publicist (but not the police, that was Io). The actual discussion however is unknown (once any hearsay is dismissed).

and then placed a second call to 911False. No second call was placed. In VA it was revealed that the “second call” was a re-issue of the first, original call to the NYPD, dispatched from the NYPD to the LAPD at the time, then again later, administratively and without another, 2nd phone call being placed. Although untrue, the second police visit could have been reasonably seen, from the outside (ie Adam), as having been invoked by a phone call, not an administrative glitch. I’m not sure Mr Waldman could have known this to be untrue (or had any reason at the time to believe it wasn’t true).

As it can be reasonably assumed that all statements were malicious in nature, that means that statements 1 and 3 must be considered true to be judged not defamatory. Statement 3 explicitly calls out “Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp”. This was a hoax, Hoax, HOAX. Calling this hoax a hoax is not defamatory.

If Adam’s statement that “We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp” is true, then it follows that at the beginning, middle and end of the beginning it was an abuse hoax against Johnny. It was also an abuse hoax at every stage between the beginning of the beginning and the end of the end (the end maybe comes after the appeal is rejected - and AH is struck mute by a freak lightning bolt, inside, whilst lying during a studio interview).

User avatar
Theresa
JDZ Webmaster
Posts: 27535
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 1:21 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Theresa » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:16 pm


User avatar
Theresa
JDZ Webmaster
Posts: 27535
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 1:21 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Theresa » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:17 pm

Heard’s representative shares statement
The Independent


A spokesperson for Amber Heard tells The Independent: “As stated in yesterday’s congressional hearings, you don't ask for a pardon if you are innocent. And, you don't decline to appeal if you know you are right.”

Clemence Michallon24 June 2022 16:58

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:22 pm

Theresa wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:17 pm
Heard’s representative shares statement
The Independent


A spokesperson for Amber Heard tells The Independent: “As stated in yesterday’s congressional hearings, you don't ask for a pardon if you are innocent. And, you don't decline to appeal if you know you are right.”

Clemence Michallon24 June 2022 16:58
Where are these people getting their info? :spin: :spin: :spin: You're right, its a JUDGMENT, not a settlement and the case doesn't get "moved" anywhere. It only winds up in the court of appeals IF she decides to appeal it because that is where she would have to begin the process but Judge A would be copied on the papers.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:06 pm

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

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:14 pm

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

User avatar
myfave
Posts: 6259
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: South
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by myfave » Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:52 pm

So, she absolutely has to pay him what was settled?
"Hello South Carolina" ...............*swoon*

Granna
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:59 pm

Myfave: Not a settlement. JUDGEMENT is FINAL. Signed by Judge Penny.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:18 pm

myfave wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:52 pm
So, she absolutely has to pay him what was settled?
Nothing was "settled." The judgement that the jury handed down became official today and the judge signed and filed the Order, which I posted above. Just click on the link and you will see the amounts. Whether he puts a lien on her future earnings (such as the sale of a "tell all" book (cough...cough...) or makes some kind of other arrangement about payments is something the judge does not decide. Her job is done at this point.

If she does decide to appeal, she has to do it in the appeals court and would need to put up a bond for the total amount of the judgement (not minus what he owes her), plus 6% interest. Same with JD.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."