The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm

I didn't say that, sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes the statute of limitations is up for DV but not for purjery as it starts at the time you are aware of the purjery.

My post was about claiming the 5th amendment. If she answers a question which she knowingly proves she lied on the TRO (For example she is asked a question in VA and gives a different answer that refutes what she claimed in CA), that could be incriminating herself for a purjery charge in California.

So she could claim the 5th and avoid answering a question in a civil suit in VA to avoid incriminating herself for a purjery charge in CA.

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Thu May 07, 2020 7:02 pm

Judymac, how can someone make a *mistake* of a fact of *no* physical abuse.
Heard has detailed episodes that even she can't turn around and say that oh, I *thought* that happened.

Maybe I am reading it wrong.

Hell yeah, she has * perjured * herself in court documents.
What other intent is there other than to deceive?
How can anyone see it any other way?

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Thu May 07, 2020 9:01 pm

MaryS, you are definitely misunderstanding what I am saying. I am *not* saying that there was a mistake in fact in this case. I was trying to explain perjury in a general matter not specifically in this case. I know that there are people from other countries and I was trying to be helpful and explain perjury. Perjury is knowingly lying when under oath. There is intent to deceive. That is different than a mistake of fact. Again not saying that it happened in this case. An example of a mistake in fact is if I saw a bank robbers escape in a blue car and I told the police it was a green car. Even though I am not telling the truth if I testified that it was a green car I would not be committing perjury. I am stating fact as I know it. If I thought I saw a blue car and told the police it was a red car in order to throw them off that would be perjury. I guess I over explain things because people always seem to misunderstand me. Again, I am just trying to explain that perjury involves intent.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Thu May 07, 2020 10:09 pm

Lbock wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
I didn't say that, sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes the statute of limitations is up for DV but not for purjery as it starts at the time you are aware of the purjery.

My post was about claiming the 5th amendment. If she answers a question which she knowingly proves she lied on the TRO (For example she is asked a question in VA and gives a different answer that refutes what she claimed in CA), that could be incriminating herself for a purjery charge in California.

So she could claim the 5th and avoid answering a question in a civil suit in VA to avoid incriminating herself for a purjery charge in CA.
I do not think that she would plead the fifth. No matter what Amber Heard does, she will be in a bad situation. Taking the fifth is something that mostly happens in criminal cases. She would be alerting the court to the fact that she might have committed a crime. The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime. But, she would definitely be drawing attention to her perjury and I don't think that she would want to bring that much attention to her perjury. She would be taking a huge risk if she did this. She has given many different stories. If she testifies the attorney's will be able to expose her lies. If she does not testify she is alerting the courts to the fact that she "might" have committed a crime. No matter what she does she will be exposed as a liar. Another possibility is that she will testify and the attorneys can object to questions that they do not want her to answer. Both attorneys will explain to the judge why they thing she should or should not answer the question. The judge will decide and either overrule the objection and make her answer the question or sustain the objection which means that she does not have to answer the question.

I do not know what she will do. I think Amber is arrogant and thinks that she can get away with her lies. I also think Kaplan is arrogant and thinks she will win this case. The truth is that the judge is the one that decides the case. This judge has made many rulings in favor of Johnny. I think he is a good judge.

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Thu May 07, 2020 10:28 pm

Kaplan filling Heard's head with the possibility of a win is insane.

I wonder where Kaplan gets this idea from.
Unlike Kaplan's other cases, Johnny has evidence.
She can't use her usual playbook as has been demonstrated thus far.

I will be shocked if they go to trial especially once the depositions are complete. I think that Heard will make a confession somewhat.

We will see.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Thu May 07, 2020 10:45 pm

Thanks for info and reminders about perjury.

I don't think Amber really wants to testify for the Sun.
I foresee a repeat of 2016 when she said she was going to give a deposition and then repeatedly avoided it until court ordered. Her lawyer said she would make a police report but LAPD said she did not.
In the UK 2018, Heard hired human rights Jennifer Robinson (team Julian Assange) from Doughty St chambers (also Amal Clooney's firm [not implying anything other than small world]) to argue that the divorce agreement prevented AH from giving evidence.
The Judge did not agree.
The Sun and News have made a truth defence so they have to prove Depp was a "wife beater". So far, there has no been evidence that Heard directly supplied the Sun with information. If Heard doesn't attend court, then the Sun have to say why they printed unverified second-hand information.

We (the public) don't know if Amber has threatened to lie about others including Musk. We know about Depp because he did not agree to her demands. We know she snoops at phones and sets up secret recordings. A privacy breach for the CEO of a tech company would seem more damaging - even if nothing illegal is revealed, it would be embarrassing.

The Australian incident was 5 years ago, not reported at the time and seems more reckless than intentional injury. I doubt that the Queensland police or public prosecutor would want to pursue something similar for locals and even less likely for foreign visitors.
There was also assault in the Bahamas but that also seems unlikely to be prosecuted.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1117
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu May 07, 2020 11:09 pm

Amber wants to testify for The Sun. She has wanted to testify from the very beginning but there was an issue with the NDA. Still trying desperately to save her "reputation" which went down the toilet four years ago.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Thu May 07, 2020 11:57 pm

I agree with Rumlover, Heard doesn't want to testify for The Sun but she is left with little choice.

The NDA was used by The Sun's lawyers to file the *stay* motion.
I think I got my legalese right.

That was dismissed by the UK Judge which has left The Sun with little choice but to call on their primary witness.
It would look bad if they don't.

If you want to know Heard's defence, it's laid out in the comment sections of THR, Deadline & Variety.
All pro-Heard comments are from her team and yeah, they don't have much of a defence.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Fri May 08, 2020 12:57 am

I think the NDA was just the best excuse Heard's lawyers could come up with to avoid testifying. It's not like she could say that she really didn't want to testify as she would incriminate herself.
The NDA was not written to prevent her testifying in court. As Depp's lawyers said, Depp was not opposing Heard testifying in court. If Heard wanted the NDA altered, she could have applied in California. Instead she tried to stay the case in UK.

We still have the question of whether Heard communicated with the Sun at the time of the "wife-beater" article. If Heard spoke with or gave evidence to the Sun or if she gave evidence to a third-party who passed it to the Sun, then Heard was in violation of the confidentiality agreement. If Heard did not have any communication with the Sun, then why did Wootten not write "alleged", not seek comment from Depp's representatives and file a "truth" defence.

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Fri May 08, 2020 1:40 am

The Sun like every outlet wanted to jump on the bandwagon to destroy Johnny and make him go away.
That's why they didn't include the word *alleged*.
The reason being that all are somehow implicated in this hoax maybe not directly but indirectly.
In The Sun's case, the owner of News Corp's son sits on the board of Tesla.
But interesting question Rumlover, did The Sun corroborate with Heard for the article?

And Heard's running to really low level magazines such play game crazy now.
They name says it all.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Fri May 08, 2020 3:18 am

JUDYMAC: The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime.

ME: OK, I only know about "taking the fifth" from movies, but there they usually say something like "I decline to answer because it could incriminate myself"
Is that a movie invention?
Because if it isn't I would say that it is sort of admission of guilt. Or what :love: ?

AdeleAgain
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Fri May 08, 2020 7:56 am

I am sorry I keep on saying this but there is no way Amber wants to testify in the Sun case.

She said she was keen to do her 2016 deposition but did everything to drag her heels. She said she would file a police report yet didn't. Like many narcissists she says things with authority and confidence and many times gets away with it because most people tend to believe authoritative, confident statements.

If she had wanted to testify for the Sun she would have been in London on that Friday. Her plane ticket would have been long since booked (we had loads of notice it was due to be heard 23 March so the people involved definitely did). She would have turned up to court on that Friday in a dramatic - here I am, I am ready - especially as Johnny had already appeared in court. She would also have spent that previous week with the Sun's lawyers - in the UK you are not allowed to do the same amount of witness 'coaching' as you are in the US, but they would have met, ensured the Sun's barrister had the right questions to ask her etc. For something so important surely you would want to be well rested and ready.

Isn't it remarkable the lengths her side is going to just to avoid being questioned. It seems to me, Johnny has easily been able to gather people together to make witness statements. There is simply no explanation for iO and Raquel, along with Amanda de Cadet and whoever else claims to have relevant testimony -not to have already made witness statements for the VA case unless there is something to hide. Take for example the present and former employees of JD or Samantha McMillen. No need to speak to the press - sit down - give your testimony, that gets filed and if the press wants to pick it up they can. So COME ON. If iO were to do the same - all of the media would pick it up and report it.

The fact is - iO was happy to speak to the media where there are no legal consequences but doesn't seem to want to commit to court. Well that is plain crazy if he was telling the truth. So much more powerful and legally proper to say what he has to say through a court process.

I think the Sun (1) desperately needs a dramatic, front page story (2) will claim that they relied on her testimony - whether or not she spoke to them directly. Their defence will be that they believed she was a victim. It won't help but they will have to put up a defence and that's what it will be I guess.

(And please don't forget that article was not just a swipe at Johnny - they were going for JK Rowling - darling of the UK liberal establishment and hated by the right wing press. They could have just written that JD was a 'wife beater' they didn't have to bring her into it. At the time, the UK was deeply mired in Brexit recriminations and JK Rowling was a bit proponent of Remain - so a real target for the right.)

AH"s entire strategy from day one has been to put pressure on Johnny knowing how much he hates publicity. I think her miscalculation was that she took his 'splitting' to thinking he would also run away from this fight. But over the divorce he didn't back down and she got the minimum settlement she was entitled to. And then when she made her speeches etc, he didn't react so she became emboldened. And then she went to far - forgetting that fundamentally he is a person of principle.

I feel that court is the thing she really fears - on that recording of the two of them it was remarkable how her tone completely changed and she became desperate at the point he said 'fine I'll see you in court'.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Fri May 08, 2020 10:51 am

meeps wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 3:18 am
JUDYMAC: The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime.

ME: OK, I only know about "taking the fifth" from movies, but there they usually say something like "I decline to answer because it could incriminate myself"
Is that a movie invention?
Because if it isn't I would say that it is sort of admission of guilt. Or what :love: ?
No, it is not a movie invention, it is true. It's hard to explain but I will try. In American criminal law, a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Just because a person takes the fifth does not automatically make them guilty. The judge will actually tell jurors that just because someone refused to testify that it is not an admission of guilt. A judge tells a jury to weigh all of the facts before deciding if a defendant is guilty. It is supposed to be a protection against innocent people being convicted of a crime. I do not know of any innocent person who would take the fifth. I am sure it sounds strange but it is the way American law works.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Fri May 08, 2020 3:16 pm

Yes, it does sound complicated, but thanks a billion for explaining :airkiss2:

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Fri May 08, 2020 5:31 pm

Well there may not be too much movement on the lawsuit front.
But there are reports that Heard has been fired from Aquaman.
And this time for real.
We will see.

Heard's flying monkeys are out in full force.
So there might be some truth.