The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:57 pm

Thanks again Lbock - for all of your hard work on this. Slow, steady progress I hope.

User avatar
Newt
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:22 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Newt » Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:28 am

Soooooo, if (or rather when) the ACLU still cannot provide proof, what’s going to happen?

I don’t see how documents could be falsified at that point, so……

Kathelyndecoke
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:45 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Kathelyndecoke » Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:02 am

“Mr. Depp is most gratified by the Court’s decision," Depp's attorney Benjamin Chew said in a statement to USA TODAY.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertain ... 438287001/

Hope we'll finally get some answers regarding the unsigned form with the centennial logo...

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:58 pm

I think the decision is great but EM is one of the ACLU's biggest donors and if he tells them not to produce they won't, imo, because he will pay their sanctions.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Granna
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Granna » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:05 am

ForeverYoung: Do honestly think Rocketman would go up against the NYSC? Very Risky. I hope he hasn't fallen for Loreal's motto about "fishy." She's not worth it.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:25 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:58 pm
I think the decision is great but EM is one of the ACLU's biggest donors and if he tells them not to produce they won't, imo, because he will pay their sanctions.
Even if they were sanctioned, it does not make the original court order go away. They still have to provide the documents. I expect that the ACLU will try to find a legal means to get out of it. It would be counterproductive to ignore a court order, when they would have to provide the documents anyway. Also, the judge is in charge of this case NOT Elon Musk.

Kathelyndecoke
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:45 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Kathelyndecoke » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:07 pm

Ben Wizner and Jen Robinson have known each other since at least 2013 (according to their twitter post). Maybe Aclu is the one paying her legal fees after all? Going to the powerful (and expensive) R.K to secure a dismissal but once rejected picking a more affordable one...this is of course pure speculation.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:22 pm

This case is moving in such an interesting direction. Seems likely that the ACLU wrote the article which smeared JD, and lied about the donations to protect AH's reputation. So:

- Will JD sue ACLU? He really should. Interesting that one of the questions Ben Chew has been persistently pursuing is what due diligence was done by various people about AH's DV allegations. Suspect none and they will fall back on "but she had a TRO" - but everyone knows that you can (for good reason) get a TRO very easily. A proper due diligence would only be able to rely on a PRO which would have withstood an evidential barrier;

- Tax implications of all this fibbing and obscuring for AH, EM and ACLU? I don't know if there are any but there may be?

- I understand it is an offence in the US to promise a charitable donation and not fulfil - ACLU probably had eyes wide open but CHLA? Seems like they were actually expecting some money.

- Hope AH is thanking the AQ2 producer for his recent comments - not only have they unleashed further fan fury but also undermine any counter claim she may have.

If the ACLU stonewall between now and the trial - how will that look to a jury? We already have enough damning evidence from emails showing they wrote the article with AH's connivance and it was all about JD. We are already pretty clear she didn't donate the money. If they have nothing to hide they should be rushing forward to clear up these misconceptions.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:55 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:22 pm
This case is moving in such an interesting direction. Seems likely that the ACLU wrote the article which smeared JD, and lied about the donations to protect AH's reputation. So:

- Will JD sue ACLU? He really should. Interesting that one of the questions Ben Chew has been persistently pursuing is what due diligence was done by various people about AH's DV allegations. Suspect none and they will fall back on "but she had a TRO" - but everyone knows that you can (for good reason) get a TRO very easily. A proper due diligence would only be able to rely on a PRO which would have withstood an evidential barrier;

- Tax implications of all this fibbing and obscuring for AH, EM and ACLU? I don't know if there are any but there may be?

- I understand it is an offence in the US to promise a charitable donation and not fulfil - ACLU probably had eyes wide open but CHLA? Seems like they were actually expecting some money.

- Hope AH is thanking the AQ2 producer for his recent comments - not only have they unleashed further fan fury but also undermine any counter claim she may have.

If the ACLU stonewall between now and the trial - how will that look to a jury? We already have enough damning evidence from emails showing they wrote the article with AH's connivance and it was all about JD. We are already pretty clear she didn't donate the money. If they have nothing to hide they should be rushing forward to clear up these misconceptions.
In the end she put her name to it and promoted it in Twitter as her OpEd that she wrote. Kaplan argued it was about men in general. Elaine reversed course on that in the plea in bar that it was about Johnny suggesting it was ErIC or ACLU who were responsible, thus if she defamed him it was without malice. But only she knows her claims are false, thus the malice is hers alone (unless Eric or ACKU knew she was lying).

Ben Chew does not want to sue ACLU. Although she’s throwing them under the bus, he wants her solely held responsible

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:30 pm

Ok interesting thanks Lbock. I thought he was gearing up to bringing the ACLU and their deep pockets into this. They could at least cover the costs!

Wow I am still trying to get my had around the volte face of Kaplan's incredibly patronising statement that anyone with a grasp of English could understand that this wasn't about JD, to Elaine's admission it was about him. I'd like to say I cannot wait to see her squirm in the witness chair when she has to explain her lawyers contradicting one another but in London she seemed to have no shame in changing any number of stories when confronted by facts and evidence.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:47 pm

Sorry but even though there is a court order I won't be surprised if the ACLU doesn't produce. I mean let's face it...bottom line worst that will happen if they don't comply will be a sanction. I really don't think they care about their reputation if they are supporting an admitted and proven lying abuser.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:47 pm

This is an amazing research article (Amber Heard not credible)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... ccess=true

Assessment of Credibility of Testimony in Alleged Intimate Partner Violence: A Case Report
Teresa C. Silva,
To cite this article: Teresa C. Silva, (2021): Assessment of Credibility of Testimony in Alleged Intimate Partner Violence: A Case Report, Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/24732850.2021.1945836
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.1945836

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:31 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:47 pm
Sorry but even though there is a court order I won't be surprised if the ACLU doesn't produce. I mean let's face it...bottom line worst that will happen if they don't comply will be a sanction. I really don't think they care about their reputation if they are supporting an admitted and proven lying abuser.
You are oversimplifying a complex situation. Sanctions are punishment they don't make the court order go away. I expect them to try to use some legal means to avoid providing the documents. The ACLU is made up of attorneys. Attorney's take an oath to follow the law. They must obey the judges orders. I highly doubt that they would just ignore a court order. Blatantly disobeying a court order by refusing to turn over documents is disrespectful to the judge and to the court system. It is a serious offense. It's NOT the same as turning over documents late. Refusing to obey a judicial order is challenging a judges authority, and no judge is going to put up with having their authority challenged, especially in such a high profile case. There can also be severe punishment for attorney's who blatantly disobeys a court order. I am not talking about monetary sanctions. The judge is in charge of this case not Elon Musk and the ACLU. This judge is not intimidated by Eln Musk and the ACLU.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:04 am

I am not criticizing anyone. I do not expect everyone to understand the US Justice system. Many Americans don't even understand the Justice System. I think it would be even harder for people in other countries to completely understand the complexities of the Justice System. I am trying to be helpful.

User avatar
nebraska
Posts: 31158
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: near Omaha
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by nebraska » Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:52 pm

Judymac wrote:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:04 am
I am not criticizing anyone. I do not expect everyone to understand the US Justice system. Many Americans don't even understand the Justice System. I think it would be even harder for people in other countries to completely understand the complexities of the Justice System. I am trying to be helpful.
What worries me is how unethical some of their behavior has been so far. They either did not vet her story or they intentionally targeted Johnny. Either way, it was not honorable. They have an agenda and I don't believe they are to be trusted.