The Lawsuits Thread
-
- ONBC Moderator
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
- Location: under a pile of books
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Yes, Forever Young, a great article. It is still hard to understand the mainstream media's take on Johnny. AH's PR firm, but there were a lot of articles written by people who should have done their research. Shameful.
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
I have not watched this yet, but it is a documentary about the trial.
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/Johnny-depp ... th-3304531
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/Johnny-depp ... th-3304531
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
So Fairfax has sent the full record over to the appeals court. So now the dates for deadlines get plugged in. Per a VA Lawyer:
Flowchart:
I pulled together what I think the dates mean (they are right now, the same for both of them)
For Johnny:
Johnny Depp Filed Notice: CAV: 1072-22-4 107222
Filed: 7/22/22
Posted: $500 bond
- [x] Circuit Court File due: The parties get notice when the record is filed with CoA and the clock begins to run for filing of briefs. 9/23/22
- [x] 60-days from date of judgment (6/24/22) to supplement the record with transcripts. Completed: 9/23/22
- [ ] non-filing party (AH) has 15-days from filing of any transcripts to object (e.g., transcript contains an error) 10/10/22 (Monday)
- [ ] Appellant (JD) brief is due 40-days after record is filed. 11/2/22
- [ ] Appellee (AH) brief is due 30-days after Appellant (JD) brief is filed. 12/2/22
- [ ] Appellant (JD) reply brief is due 14-days after Appellee (JD) responsive brief is filed. 12/16/22
For Amber:
Amber Heard Filed Notice: CAV: 1062-22-4 106222
Filed: 7/21/22
Posted $500 Bond
- [x] Circuit Court File due: The parties get notice when the record is filed with CoA and the clock begins to run for filing of briefs. 9/23/22
- [x] 60-days from date of judgment (6/24/22) to supplement the record with transcripts (9/23/22)
- [ ] non-filing party (JD) has 15-days from filing of any transcripts to object (e.g., transcript contains an error) 10/10/22 (Monday)
- [ ] Appellant (AH) brief is due 40-days after record is filed. 11/2/22
- [ ] Appellee (JD) brief is due 30-days after Appellant (AH) brief is filed. 12/2/22
- [ ] Appellant (AH) reply brief is due 14-days after Appellee (JD) responsive brief is filed. 12/16/22
Law & Lumber also included these notes:
NOTES:
(1) the parties agree on scope of appendix and file a joint appendix designation; or
(2) the parties don't agree on scope of appendix
If parties don't agree on appendix, then appellant (AH) files designation w/in 15-days of record being filed, along with "assignments of error" (what the trial court got wrong). The appellee (JD) then has 10 days to file designation along with any additional assignments of error
Law & Lumber:
@LumberLaw (Twitter)
ALSO - major caveat - ALLLL of these dates and deadlines are the default deadlines and can be changed by the Court of Appeals on motion by either or both parties (yes, we sometimes file joint motions to extend deadlines or increase page limits)
Flowchart:
I pulled together what I think the dates mean (they are right now, the same for both of them)
For Johnny:
Johnny Depp Filed Notice: CAV: 1072-22-4 107222
Filed: 7/22/22
Posted: $500 bond
- [x] Circuit Court File due: The parties get notice when the record is filed with CoA and the clock begins to run for filing of briefs. 9/23/22
- [x] 60-days from date of judgment (6/24/22) to supplement the record with transcripts. Completed: 9/23/22
- [ ] non-filing party (AH) has 15-days from filing of any transcripts to object (e.g., transcript contains an error) 10/10/22 (Monday)
- [ ] Appellant (JD) brief is due 40-days after record is filed. 11/2/22
- [ ] Appellee (AH) brief is due 30-days after Appellant (JD) brief is filed. 12/2/22
- [ ] Appellant (JD) reply brief is due 14-days after Appellee (JD) responsive brief is filed. 12/16/22
For Amber:
Amber Heard Filed Notice: CAV: 1062-22-4 106222
Filed: 7/21/22
Posted $500 Bond
- [x] Circuit Court File due: The parties get notice when the record is filed with CoA and the clock begins to run for filing of briefs. 9/23/22
- [x] 60-days from date of judgment (6/24/22) to supplement the record with transcripts (9/23/22)
- [ ] non-filing party (JD) has 15-days from filing of any transcripts to object (e.g., transcript contains an error) 10/10/22 (Monday)
- [ ] Appellant (AH) brief is due 40-days after record is filed. 11/2/22
- [ ] Appellee (JD) brief is due 30-days after Appellant (AH) brief is filed. 12/2/22
- [ ] Appellant (AH) reply brief is due 14-days after Appellee (JD) responsive brief is filed. 12/16/22
Law & Lumber also included these notes:
NOTES:
(1) the parties agree on scope of appendix and file a joint appendix designation; or
(2) the parties don't agree on scope of appendix
If parties don't agree on appendix, then appellant (AH) files designation w/in 15-days of record being filed, along with "assignments of error" (what the trial court got wrong). The appellee (JD) then has 10 days to file designation along with any additional assignments of error
Law & Lumber:
@LumberLaw (Twitter)
ALSO - major caveat - ALLLL of these dates and deadlines are the default deadlines and can be changed by the Court of Appeals on motion by either or both parties (yes, we sometimes file joint motions to extend deadlines or increase page limits)
-
- Posts: 57272
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
- Location: Tashmore Lake
- Status: Offline
-
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
- Location: Sydney, AUS
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
I watched the Discovery show Johnny V Amber US Trial. If anyone else watched, I would be happy to talk about it.
I saw one Youtube video talk about what was missing and I think the youtuber missed the big items.
Not mentioned in show included charity donations/pledges, Dr Kipper & nurses & detox, metadata & edited photos, poo, TMZ tip & copyright, testimonies re damages, medical records & AH lack of.
There were segments showing Depp lawyers preparing for trial in hotel war room. Heard lawyers were only in trial segments.
The "experts" talking in Amber's Story, were so pro-Amber or anti-Johnny that I wonder if that was their instruction. For example ET journalist said Dr Blaustein (Depp psychologist) testimony was quite damning for Depp; not how I would describe Dr's testimony.
Kate Moss was presented as if her testimony was very important but only a short segment of police testimony which I think is more important. Morgan Night had a few minutes with visit to Hicksville which might be interesting but less important than some missing topics.
Parts of kitchen video were shown a few times but nothing about Morgan Tremaine testimony.
Anyone watching both parts who was unfamiliar with the trial would likely have been surprised to learn Depp won and was awarded $10.35m.
Anyone who only saw part 2 Amber's story would likely be shocked at the result.
I saw one Youtube video talk about what was missing and I think the youtuber missed the big items.
Not mentioned in show included charity donations/pledges, Dr Kipper & nurses & detox, metadata & edited photos, poo, TMZ tip & copyright, testimonies re damages, medical records & AH lack of.
There were segments showing Depp lawyers preparing for trial in hotel war room. Heard lawyers were only in trial segments.
The "experts" talking in Amber's Story, were so pro-Amber or anti-Johnny that I wonder if that was their instruction. For example ET journalist said Dr Blaustein (Depp psychologist) testimony was quite damning for Depp; not how I would describe Dr's testimony.
Kate Moss was presented as if her testimony was very important but only a short segment of police testimony which I think is more important. Morgan Night had a few minutes with visit to Hicksville which might be interesting but less important than some missing topics.
Parts of kitchen video were shown a few times but nothing about Morgan Tremaine testimony.
Anyone watching both parts who was unfamiliar with the trial would likely have been surprised to learn Depp won and was awarded $10.35m.
Anyone who only saw part 2 Amber's story would likely be shocked at the result.
-
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Thanks for the review RumLover.
I really had no desire to watch that Discovery hit-piece, but like so much of AH's lies, I guess I should. These sort of pieces are going to keep coming out for years and need to be debunked at the time.
I really had no desire to watch that Discovery hit-piece, but like so much of AH's lies, I guess I should. These sort of pieces are going to keep coming out for years and need to be debunked at the time.
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Oh Geez...it's only been a few months since the trial and a movie (not the documentary) is coming out.
https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/h ... 235386770/
https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/h ... 235386770/
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
ForeverYoung: AH's PR team is striking while the kettle is hot. Trying to beat the additional lawsuit she is now facing. Once that lawsuit comes to light, her PR team wouldn't be able to spin it. The plaintiff has ALL the receipts. She is trying to grab on to anything, taking people down with her. She is sinking very quickly.
-
- ONBC Moderator
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
- Location: under a pile of books
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Well, nothing says any of us actually have to see these films. I know I won't. I saw the trial. Enuf said!
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Yep and her lawyers sent a letter to her ins. co. that is suing her asking them to back off because it's too much stress for with the appeal going. Well I say, tough noogies...JD tried every which way on the audio tapes to get her to peacefully and quietly end the divorce but she flat out refused. He WARNED her that thing were going to end very badly for her but she still wouldn't listen. I don't care how stressed out she is. She gets no pity from me. She was stubborn and insisted on going forward with her pictures, which were later confirmed by JD's expert on the stand that they were run through an editing software.Granna wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:19 pmForeverYoung: AH's PR team is striking while the kettle is hot. Trying to beat the additional lawsuit she is now facing. Once that lawsuit comes to light, her PR team wouldn't be able to spin it. The plaintiff has ALL the receipts. She is trying to grab on to anything, taking people down with her. She is sinking very quickly.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:44 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Forever Young: please remember also, Nate the lawyer, a YouTuber, has filed suit against AH & Bouzy.
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
This new film looks pretty bad, imo. Don't know where they got that pic from of JD drawing some kind of clown or something in the courtroom, but it is NOT his hands and it looks like they had to blur out the rings. Besides, JD doesn't draw amateur things like that. The actor playing JD does look a little bit like him but the one playing her looks a lot older. Don't know why those actors who look absolutely nothing like the lawyers (except maybe CV a little bit) and a lot of the lawyers aren't even there in the trailer.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
Wow...just wow. The ex's psychotic fans are stooping to new lows now by falling false complaints against JD, Adam Waldman and Paul Barresi but the Sherrif's Office found no merit to the claim.
These people just can't handle the fact that JD won his case against her. What a bunch of sore losers. They aren't doing her any favors either. If anything, it only makes people hate Amber Heard even more.
These people just can't handle the fact that JD won his case against her. What a bunch of sore losers. They aren't doing her any favors either. If anything, it only makes people hate Amber Heard even more.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."
-
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
- Status: Offline
The Lawsuits Thread
They are also sending cops to That Umbrella Guy's house with false accusations and harassing his little kids. Her fans are a very sick group of immature people.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."