The Lawsuits Thread
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:57 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Not sure if these can be viewed in this forum. These articles were related to the photograph took at Raffles Hotel Singapore and Amber Heard's lawyer was saying the photograph was photoshopped. Johnny's lawyer found the person who posted this photo in Instragram and that's how it ended up in Court, nearer the end, as evidence. It's definitely not edited. Yesterday they found the person who took that picture too. She has the original photo. I wish they had found her earlier and the original photo could have been presented in court. It's definitely consoling to see how people from all over the world are helping him out. Cheers.
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/enter ... -and-heard
https://www.asiaone.com/entertainment/f ... ussel-wong
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/enter ... -and-heard
https://www.asiaone.com/entertainment/f ... ussel-wong
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:01 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Heck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible.
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Each side has three defamation statements. Johnny can win if the jury agrees she defamed him in one statement only. He doesn't have to win on all three. And, reminder, the Jury has to be unanimous. All 7 have to agree. Same holds for Amber's claims.
And the wording in these statements are a tough call. 1) The Title should go Johnny's way if they believe she "owned" the title by adding content and tweeting it. 2) Did she become a DV representative after her TRO?-She did, but if the jury wants to say she falsely gained that position they could say Yes to defamation. 3) Did society protect men accused? Depp team could only present lost work after the OpEd and Before the UK verdict. But the MSM media crucified him every chance they got from 2016. So this question could go either way for the jury.
No one seems to feel she won on the counterclaim and that her biggest mistake was bringing it.
And the wording in these statements are a tough call. 1) The Title should go Johnny's way if they believe she "owned" the title by adding content and tweeting it. 2) Did she become a DV representative after her TRO?-She did, but if the jury wants to say she falsely gained that position they could say Yes to defamation. 3) Did society protect men accused? Depp team could only present lost work after the OpEd and Before the UK verdict. But the MSM media crucified him every chance they got from 2016. So this question could go either way for the jury.
No one seems to feel she won on the counterclaim and that her biggest mistake was bringing it.
-
- ONBC Moderator
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
- Location: under a pile of books
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
ACLU attempting to charge JD for the costs they had related to providing the information needed to prove the corrupt activity going on at ACLU. Also, there is a petition to sign. I am thoroughly fed up with ACLU.
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
I should have posted this here. I have the documents and that triggered people to finally report
-
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:50 pm
- Location: Iowa
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Emily D Baker is on live verdict watch !! All the lawyers and Judge are in the courthouse and the jury had a question about the statement about the title of the op Ed !!! So it we might be close
"This is the one I'll be remembered for"
Edward D. Wood, Jr.
Edward D. Wood, Jr.
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
bringmethathorizon wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 1:51 pmEmily D Baker is on live verdict watch !! All the lawyers and Judge are in the courthouse and the jury had a question about the statement about the title of the op Ed !!! So it we might be close
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
It seems to lawtubers, that if they are asking this question, then they have gotten past the issue of republication.
-
- Posts: 57386
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
- Location: Tashmore Lake
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Thank you, LBock, for your continuous updates/education/thoughts/etc. on all of this.
I really appreciate it. What you've done to explain, clarify, and inform has been outstanding!
I really appreciate it. What you've done to explain, clarify, and inform has been outstanding!
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Thank you guys. For what its worth, I created a thread in my opinion on the defamation statements and her counterclaim.
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:10 pm
- Location: New York City
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
I too want to offer my humble thanks to LBock. I have been listening since the beginning. You're awesome.
-
- Posts: 2017
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
On first glance, allowing a non-party to the proceedings to seek reimbursement for the cost of submitting information requested by a party to the proceedings would seem reasonable. HOWEVER, when that nonparty ignores the request, leaving the party to the proceeding to seek a subpoena to force the non-party’s compliance with a reasonable - yet critical - request, the nonparty has crossed the line and is, obviously, squandering valuable time. No one is playing nice anymore.
Indeed, once times and dates are factored in, it would seem some self-serving malicious intent might be imputed to the uncooperative non-party, and consequently the cost, preparation, labor, stress and time incurred and/or expended by the party in going the last-minute subpoena route should be deducted from the $86+ grand the once noble ACLU - supposed watchdog for preventing precisely such shenanigans being visited upon rights-seeking Americans - should be protecting!
"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
"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
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:57 am
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
She's really terrible. Here's the link to the original photohollyberry wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 3:29 amHeck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible.
-
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
- Status: Offline
Re: The Lawsuits Thread
Johnny should tell them that he pledges to pay it.justintime wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 8:53 pmOn first glance, allowing a non-party to the proceedings to seek reimbursement for the cost of submitting information requested by a party to the proceedings would seem reasonable. HOWEVER, when that nonparty ignores the request, leaving the party to the proceeding to seek a subpoena to force the non-party’s compliance with a reasonable - yet critical - request, the nonparty has crossed the line and is, obviously, squandering valuable time. No one is playing nice anymore.
Indeed, once times and dates are factored in, it would seem some self-serving malicious intent might be imputed to the uncooperative non-party, and consequently the cost, preparation, labor, stress and time incurred and/or expended by the party in going the last-minute subpoena route should be deducted from the $86+ grand the once noble ACLU - supposed watchdog for preventing precisely such shenanigans being visited upon rights-seeking Americans - should be protecting!