The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1178
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:14 am

Great posts. Wish I had a thumbs up option 👍🏼

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:16 pm

That picture she used of old self inflicted wounds as evidence from Australia is pathetic. First of all, glass wouldn't cut you like that in straight lines and secondly, there is no way Jerry, the doctor and/or nurse would not have treated her because she would have been bleeding all over the place and especially her feet would have needed treatment also. I can't wait for her to get up on the stand and lie about this.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:37 pm

So many terrific posts, ladies. Thank you!

I have some thoughts and questions:

1. Re: AH’s claims to having her feet shredded by broken glass the weekend she mutilated Johnny’s finger.
Two licensed medical professionals, fully aware of AH’s presence as she clomped around in her heels (the only shoe noises heard on the audio tape and the volume of those noises increases and diminishes as her voice moves closer to or away from the recording device), did not notice any physical injury to AH. Her emotional hysteria (drug-driven? guilt-driven? both?) was their only concern, and they apparently decided to simply give her an increased dose of a current prescription to calm her down. Ignoring glaring physical injuries or recklessly over prescribing anything would be inviting charges of malpractice and/or loss of their medical licenses.

2. I seem to remember a tabloid(?) photo - single shot - showing AH watching from a distance as Johnny gets into the car to go to a hospital/medical facility. I don’t think he was put on a gurney until they arrived at the facility. AH was fully clothed in some sort of dress and was wearing a pair of shoes! No bandages or injuries are apparent. I wonder if this was the point where she was trying to insist on going with him, was blaming him for once-again leaving her, and demanding to know if this was how it was going to end. I’ve been trying to find that pic but to no avail. Maybe it’s just a conflation of images in my head, but just thought I’d mention it in case someone else might have something more concrete to add.

3. Re: A “three day ordeal”.
I am not convinced this was a weekend Johnny was truly looking forward to. Yes, he loved her in every sense of the phrase and was as devoted to her as any husband could be - later, even to the point of covering for her when asked how he’d gotten the finger injury. They’d only been married barely a month and hadn’t seen each other for a bit, BUT, Johnny had already been on the receiving end of at least two of her crazed episodes BEFORE they’d tied the knot: May, 2014, the plane incident, and August, 2014, the island incident when AH really started to show her true colors by withholding his meds during detoxing. The drugs procured for the March 8th weekend were those AH preferred “poppin’”.

I think, perhaps, Johnny was nervous yet hopeful. He was going to bring up what he probably knew - or at least suspected - might be a very risky topic: the post-nup suggestion. Sounds like his legal team had been suggesting this for a while. Certainly the continuation of her abusive behavior lent credence to the idea. I don’t think he indulged in any drugs earlier that weekend, if at all, knowing how easily things could go very south, very quickly, on her part. I believe he wanted to be calm and capable of discussing this proposal as tactfully as possible. Of course, any hope for a rational conversation dissolved into the ether as soon as “post-nup” was voiced.
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:20 pm

All good thoughts and questions. Here is what I think, for whatever it is worth.

1. I agree. If she was that cut up on her feet she wouldn't be able to stomp around and she would have showed her injuries to the people there to put it on record. I mean..why not? Setting him up is what she has been doing all along.

2. I have never seen this pic so I cannot comment. Brian McPherson did a visual of the scene so maybe that is what you were thinking?

3. Johnny said he knew the fights were not going to stop when they got married but he hoped it would slow them down a little. As for the drugs, I'm not really sure what to think. It saddens me to think he had to self medicate just to be able to tolerate her and the relationship but she also did drugs too and it seems she was the one that turned violent because of them, or lack of them, maybe.

As for the post nup, he should have done all this before they were married, imo but on the otherhand if she really loved him she would not have freaked out like she did.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:08 am

One more thing about AH being injured or not. If she had been she would have sold or given the medical records proving that to the gossip media long ago. At around the divorce at the latest. She couldn't. And that must vex her a great deal.

justintime
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:22 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:20 pm
....As for the drugs, ... it seems she was the one that turned violent because of them, or lack of them, maybe.

As for the post nup, he should have done all this before they were married, imo but on the otherhand if she really loved him she would not have freaked out like she did.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my ramblings, ForeverYoung.

Yes, I’ve thought about that post-nup document over and over - why DIDN’T he push for a pre-nup? He had to know that waiting till after the wedding was leaving the door wide open to exactly what happened: lethal tantrums and a horror show of repercussions. Lives - his own in particular - literally destroyed in the mayhem she set in motion.

We’ve all read the jaw-dropping accounts of how AH and her entourage literally turned the wedding into an unimaginable fiasco. She must have threatened him with “revelations” of all sorts of concocted fraudulent scenarios if he didn’t follow through as planned. I know Johnny said he’d hoped things would get better after they’d married, but I think that was only because he needed to believe the marriage - and its inherent security and promise of fame and fortune for her - was what she wanted.

Trouble was, she wanted the “marriage” but she didn’t want him. There was absolutely zero chance of her signing a post-nup. It was all downhill from there. Ironically, though, Johnny truly had no way out, either before or after the marriage . . . Until, miracle of miracles, all that “lost/hidden” evidence of AH’s lie-infused hoax started to appear, presenting Johnny with a new kind of hope.
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:48 am

So Johnny (and the rest of us) doesn't know if it's go on or get out ...





UK judge rules against Johnny Depp over ‘drugs texts’ in libel case

Actor failed to disclose messages but high court declines to throw out case against the Sun immediately

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent
The Guardian

@owenbowcott
Mon 29 Jun 2020 06.28 EDTLast modified on Mon 29 Jun 2020 13.16 EDT


Johnny Depp has breached an order in a libel case by failing to disclose texts that apparently show him trying to obtain drugs, the high court has ruled.

The decision by Mr Justice Nicol comes shortly before the scheduled trial of the Hollywood actor’s defamation claim against News Group Newspapers (NGN) and its executive editor, Dan Wootton, over an April 2018 article in the Sun that referred to Depp as a “wife beater”.

The article related to allegations made against Depp by his ex-wife Amber Heard that he was violent towards her during their marriage – claims he strenuously denies.

Last Thursday NGN’s legal team asked Nicol to strike out Depp’s claim on the grounds that he had not given them what were referred to as the “Australia drugs texts”.


Sign up to the Media Briefing: news for the news-makers
Read more
It was said that these involved exchanges between Depp and his assistant, Nathan Holmes. The messages were sent in early 2015, shortly before an alleged incident in Australia between Depp and Heard that she claims was “a three-day ordeal of physical assaults”.

Adam Wolanski QC, representing NGN, said the texts demonstrated that the Pirates of the Caribbean star was trying to get drugs during the visit to Australia. The court was told that references to “happy pills” and “whitey stuff” showed Depp was trying to obtain MDMA and cocaine, which Wolanski argued was “profoundly damaging to his case”.

Wolanski asked the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of Depp’s failure to comply with the judge’s disclosure order.

Delivering judgment on Monday morning, Nicol said he agreed with the defendants’ claim that Depp had “failed to comply fully with [his] obligation” to disclose documents. However, he declined to strike out the case immediately and he is hearing further applications in the case.

The judgment contained some of Depp’s alleged texts from 2015. On one occasion, he is said to have sent a message to Holmes declaring: “We should have more happy pills!!!?? Can you???”

Holmes, according to the judgment, replied: “Yes we can !! I’m giving them to Stephen to give you. Yay xx”

In a subsequent text, Depp was reported to have sent Holmes the message: “Need more whitey stuff ASAP brotherman ... and the e-business!!! Please I’m in a bad bad shape. Say NOTHING to NOBODY!!!!”

Depp was among those listed as watching the online proceedings remotely on Monday.

David Sherborne, the barrister representing Depp, told the court during the remote hearing that the impact on the case of the missing material would have been very limited. It was vital, he added, that the hearing should take place next week so that his client could vindicate his reputation. “To punish [Depp] by taking the draconian step of striking out [the case] would be utterly disproportionate,” he said. “This was no deliberate breach.”

The defendants, he said, were “deliberately conducting these proceedings by airing the allegations in open court at interim hearings in a way which we have said was gratuitous and deliberately intended to inflame the publicity surrounding them to damage the claimant and to put him in the worst possible light.”

But Wolanski said Depp had “misled” the court over an important matter. The texts, he added, “demonstrated that he is not telling the truth in relation to these events in Australia”.

The disclosure exercise carried out by representatives for Depp “was conducted at the very least totally incompetently and quite possibly with a view to the deliberate withholding of damaging documents”. NGN would not consequently be able to have a fair trial, he added. “If this case goes ahead it will absorb vast resources: five courtrooms have been made available, all of this largely at public expense.”

The hearing continues.

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:56 am

This is confusing, weren't the texts disclosed? Did his attorney decide not to do so?

AdeleAgain
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:48 am

As I understand they were disclosed to the US lawyers in the Virginia case which the UK/Sun lawyers had access to - but they were not directly disclosed to the Sun lawyers, therefore there is a technical breach of a court order. It will be absolutely awful for JD if this get dismissed on a technicality but it is always a possibility in litigation no matter how good the lawyers are. In my opinion it is why he didn't rely on this case to get the truth out and doubled down on going directly after AH in the US.

And the awfulness will be the reporting of it which will make him look guilty - never mind the overwhelming evidence which has come out, relevant to the actual matter of domestic abuse.

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:56 am

Yeah, that's my understanding. We'll have to make sure to point out that the texts WERE disclosed in the US. I can't imagine the UK legal team thought that it'd be enough and felt it wasn't necessary to disclose them directly here? But as The Guardian says, the judge is not throwing out the case.

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:09 am

The "Australian drug" texts were disclosed to Heard's attorneys in the VA case as part of the extraction report of texts from JD's phone over a certain time period.

In response to The Sun's UK attorneys claiming they weren't being supplied all required documents, on March 10th Justice Nicol ordered: "Rule 31.6 states that standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –
The documents on which he relies; and the documents which adversely affect his own case;
adversely affect another party’s case; or support another party’s case; and the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

Johnny's team did not supply the "Australian drug" texts to The Sun's attorneys because Johnny's attorneys hold that Johnny's asking for drugs is immaterial to The Sun's statement that Johnny beat his wife and caused her to fear for her life. Johnny's team also said last week that those texts were provided to Heard's attorneys in the VA case and that they had told The Sun's UK attorneys that.

Justice Nicol disagreed with Johnny's barrister, Sherbourne, that the drug texts are immaterial. He ruled today that Johnny's side did not comply with his earlier order to produce required disclosure under "documents which adversely affect his own case."

On the plus side, Justice Nicol is providing extra time, if needed, today for Depp's team to apply for sanctions. If the sanctions application is unsuccessful, the Justice will likely dismiss the case.

Justice Nicol also said they'd be discussing other pretrial matters today, which sounded to me like the window is open for trial to begin on the 7th. Haven't gotten to the news articles or any Sherbourne/Waldman comments yet for analysis of the sanctions aspect/consequences.

The Guardian link didn't work for me, Meeps, but I surprisingly did get an emailed copy of Justice Nicol's decision from the clerk, but the email warns not to reproduce it. See Lbock's post above to email the clerk if you'd like to ask for a copy.
Last edited by Ruby Begonia on Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:21 am

Thanks for the explanation. At this point, they should just comply, the texts are already out there.

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:34 am

Here comes Variety with the article about the legal setback over the texts, I'm not giving them my click but be sure to comment on the Twitter timeline in case some haters show up.

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:55 am

Newt wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:21 am
Thanks for the explanation. At this point, they should just comply, the texts are already out there.
So, since the texts were out there, was not providing the texts an error or strategy? :perplexed3:

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:06 pm

I thought about the strategy angle but considering it might cost them the case, heh, I have no idea why that would be?