The Lawsuits Thread

[Judymac]

Barnaby Joyce is suggesting an investigation into her. I wonder if he will get one.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/enter ... 30978be45b

I couldn't read the story because it wants me to subscribe to the paper. I think it would be wonderful if they opened an investigation. It's funny how many people want Amber Heard to get what is coming to her.

[Chocolat]

It was my understanding from the mechanic's statement that the car was there because she wanted the audio system changed.

As for today..wow..just wow...now she's saying she punched Johnny at the top of the stairs because she knew of an incident with Kate Moss where he allegedly pushed her down a flight of stairs. There is no end to her story telling as she goes along.

That part of her testimony just had me shaking my head. She said she heard a rumor that Kate Moss was pushed down the stairs.
So in her anticipation based on a rumor, she hit Johnny. Up until today, she claimed she hit him defending her "baby sister".
She's a sneaky one, adding unexpected lies today to her Witness Statement to throw everyone off while painting a picture of Johnny being abusive to his former girlfriend, knowing that Johnny can't address them. I think because Winona and Vanessa supplied their statements supporting Johnny, she couldn't go after them but since Kate (a woman who she's envied) did not, AH used her as another weapon against Johnny.

[RumLover]

Mechanic said Overhaulin was filmed 20 December 2014. That was just after Depp returned from island detox.

[Chocolat]

And it is not for me to be insulted but I'd be less incensed if she wasn't so appalling about other people - I am particularly furious today (as you'll see as it is the second time I've come on here to vent, apologies) but the claim he doesn't like strong, independent women. Winona Ryder, Kate Moss, Vanessa Paradis I would say are all a great deal more strong and independent than she has been and more successful. He seemed fine with their careers.

I totally agree, adding too, that Winona, Kate and Vanessa all have a tremendous amount of class.

[RumLover]

Barnaby Joyce is suggesting an investigation into her. I wonder if he will get one.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/enter ... 30978be45b

Barnaby does not have the power he had years ago. He is not the leader of the National Party or deputy prime minister or minister for a government department. He is a local member.
His local area, the country (and world) has bigger issues so I really don't think this will go anywhere.

[myfave]

So what appeared to be a slam dunk for Johnny is turning out to be shaky. My heart breaks for him.

[Granna]

Myfave:

Don't underestimate EL. I truly believe there will be a deluge of Slam Dunks coming. EL will make sure Wass can NOT spin anything in AH's favor.

Keep the faith!

[myfave]

Why does she hate him so much?

[Granna]

Myfave:

JD stood up to her. She truly believed John Q Public, would love her as much as everyone loves him because she was "Mrs.".

JD earned it. 30+ years in his profession
Nothing was "given" to him.

AH thought she could ride on his coat tails, and be an "A-list" actor because of JD. NOT earning anything from fans, producers, etc.

[Inquiring Minds]

I haven't read any of the transcripts from yesterday (last night my time) yet, but caught some of the Sky live coverage - a pale comparison to Nic's coverage imo. The few stories I have read today are woefully biased and seem to give credit to her lies.

Ms Laws is going great though, I believe. She sets Amber up hours beforehand when she is revealing another lie, Amber agrees to something (eg McMillan is her assistant), then hours later when she is denying it and wriggled a bit, she comes back to what she had said in the morning. EL is giving her rope that Amber later uses to hang herself. Amber will also be back in the chair following xe of her other witnesses.

I think Amber's credibility is really being questioned (and shown to be terrible).

I believe Amber (under instruction from NGN's lawyers) is performing a "procedural/protocol" hack that amounts to an attack on the court and the whole underlying legal system. And this is not the only ploy. I am referring to the "I don't want to call anyone a liar" statement followed by a denial/rejection of their total sworn witness statement. She doesn't accuse them of committing perjury. She just says they are not telling the truth (for some reason she can't fathom). When she is asked if she threw something at Johnny she says "yes, I did throw things at Johnny", then says but she isn't admitting to throwing things at Johnny (WT !!!???), the Judge asks her directly - "Did you throw things at Johnny", she responds "Yes", QC - "so you threw something at him", "No. I threw things at him, but I wasn't throwing things at him". Maybe not an accurate blow by blow description, but her responses often follow this pattern. She isn't actually perjuring herself, admits to doing whatever, denies that it was violent but instead is an almost unexpected by-product of his actions.

She hit him, but only because she was trying to rouse him to stop him from vomiting and suffocating. Slamming the door into his head was because she was stopping him from falling and injuring himself. It's Bizarro World. The focus on drug use earlier was all so she could say "anyone that has an addict in their lives will understand what I went through". Even throwing things was just some sort of distractionary flack she was throwing into the air to escape his attack, and he (in his blind rage) ran into them mid-flight.

Of major interest to me was that the NGN lawyers, when she was sworn in, specifically took her to the breakfast table staged and photoshopped pic and asked her to confirm it.......

[justintime]

I don't fully understand the defamaiton law in the UK. So both sides are asking the Judge to rule on a difference in how the law is applied also. Since calling some a "wife-beater" suggests a criminal offence, it is different than the basic level of libel. But what I got from the skeleton argument is this:

NGN:
They are basically saying if the judge finds it is more probably than not that Johnny committed abuse for even one incidence, then they have met their burden of proof

It is to be noted that (contrary to the suggestion advanced by C’s counsel at the PTR2), it is not case that the article alleged that he was violent towards Ms Heard on a large number of occasions. If Ds can prove C committed just one such act of violence, this would be sufficient for the purpose of proving substantialtruth

Depp:

Because the Defendants are seeking to prove true an allegation of guilt of criminal conduct, thestandardof proofand the evidence capable of proving the allegation take on particular importance. This is because they are seeking to prove true a very serious allegation and a finding to that effect is one with potentially serious consequences. The evidence requiredtherefore to prove their case needs tobe compelling

Further imbeded quote: “Although there is a single civilstandardof proof on the balance of probabilities, it is flexible in itsapplication. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. Thus the flexibility of bthe standard lies not in any adjustment to the degree of probability required for an allegation to be proved (such that a more serious allegation has to be proved to a high degree of probability), but in the strength or quality of the
20evidence that will in practice be required for an allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities.”

The ‘antecedent improbability of guilt’ is, as the Judge recognised (at [360]), the operation of the principle of the presumption of innocence: “I must, therefore,startwith the usual presumption of innocence (which applies in defamation as it does in crime). I must consider each of the children and the evidence that is specific to him or her. Because of the gravity of the allegations, I should look for cogent evidence to overcome that presumption.”

Thank you so much, Lbock, for the above explanation, especially spelling out the difference in the way the parties are asking the law be applied. Regardless of how Mr. Justice Nicol rules on that application, AH’s arrogant, flip, almost dismissive responses to Ms. Laws’ inquiries have certainly not polished the Defendants’ argument, thus far, on any level (imho).

I am beyond worried, however, that this multilayered case is strategically being denied the respectful, incisive scrutiny it deserves. AH’s clever, whining doubletalk is accomplishing its objective: running the clock and ultimately obscuring Johnny’s truth beneath mounds of barely exposed intimidating evidence, once again being buried before exposing AH for the scheming, relentless liar and abuser she always has been.

[Ruby Begonia]

...
I believe Amber (under instruction from NGN's lawyers) is performing a "procedural/protocol" hack that amounts to an attack on the court and the whole underlying legal system. And this is not the only ploy. I am referring to the "I don't want to call anyone a liar" statement followed by a denial/rejection of their total sworn witness statement. She doesn't accuse them of committing perjury. She just says they are not telling the truth (for some reason she can't fathom). When she is asked if she threw something at Johnny she says "yes, I did throw things at Johnny", then says but she isn't admitting to throwing things at Johnny (WT !!!???), the Judge asks her directly - "Did you throw things at Johnny", she responds "Yes", QC - "so you threw something at him", "No. I threw things at him, but I wasn't throwing things at him". Maybe not an accurate blow by blow description, but her responses often follow this pattern. She isn't actually perjuring herself, admits to doing whatever, denies that it was violent but instead is an almost unexpected by-product of his actions.

She hit him, but only because she was trying to rouse him to stop him from vomiting and suffocating. Slamming the door into his head was because she was stopping him from falling and
injuring himself. It's Bizarro World. The focus on drug use earlier was all so she could say "anyone that has an addict in their lives will understand what I went through". Even throwing things was just some sort of distractionary flack she was throwing into the air to escape his attack, and he (in his blind rage) ran into them mid-flight.

Of major interest to me was that the NGN lawyers, when she was sworn in, specifically took her to the breakfast table staged and photoshopped pic and asked her to confirm it.......

Interesting, Inquiring Minds! Why do you think NGN made a point of having her confirm the breakfast table pic? And, while I understand what you wrote about her actions being in effect self-defense, what good is that if witnesses and evidence contradict her? Then again, if she's wiling to say the contradictory witness statements weren't based on lies but on misunderstandings of what happened, does that set up her sister & friends to be able to testify that after hearing AH's explanation, they just misunderstood and wish to retract those parts that contradict AH? Or something like that run-on sentence ?

[AdeleAgain]

Please all remember that the entire point of the hearing is to help the judge decide on the written submissions.

That is why every so often he will move the barristers on by saying "this isn't helping me decide".

They have written their arguments and submitted evidence, at the end of the witness part of the hearings each side will present their round up in which they will logically present and add to their case from what we have heard.

So just remember, AH ranting and confusing in the witness box is not helping the judge. Or may be it is.

A court is a procedural system. Witness give their best recollection and there is an expectation that they will get things wrong or misremember. What they are expected to do is be respectful of the system. So when JD apologised to the court for not recalling things accurately that's fine; AH"s 'educational rants' as JD once called them, do not help her I believe.

Of course we are all biased and I am not sure any of us can be objective any longer. And I know a lot of you have been with JD with many years - but this fandom grew in a different direction after 2016 with people like me who simply could not fathom what was happening and looked into it. What convinced me was the police officers.

What has convinced many more have been the tapes especially the first one (most people don't need anything further) and her 'munching cookies' deposition.

Anyone sensible looking at her deposition could see she was not being truthful. I've said this so many times before but if she had stuck with the phone hitting her we might not be here now. The over the top claims have sunk her because the devil is always in the detail. If we can see it surely a judge who will have had far more complex cases than this will see it.

And it all comes together in the summing up and written submissions. Keep onto that thought.

[ForeverYoung]

Myfave:

Don't underestimate EL. I truly believe there will be a deluge of Slam Dunks coming. EL will make sure Wass can NOT spin anything in AH's favor.

Keep the faith!

[AdeleAgain]

I don't understand the timing of the telephone call which was recorded - before the TRO they are saying but when was it made known about her arrest records?

I heard the tape and assumed it was after the DV arrest was known (although I am not sure when that was).

But may be she knew that it would be coming "what's next in the media ... my arrest records? Rumours I as a stripper".

We all assumed his anger at having 'never told anyone that' was to do with her being a stripper but maybe she was just saying that as if - oh yes and the next thing I know, they'll say I was a stripper. Maybe his anger was that he had never told anyone about the DV arrest. Colour me confused!

I know Ryan Leone said she had been a stripper but I haven't found his tweets to be the most reliable.