The Lawsuits Thread

[myfave]

Is this the correct twitter account for LBock

https://twitter.com/TheRealLauraB1

I think so. That’s the one I just started following..

[Granna]

This is the correct one.

[Lbock]

Is this the correct twitter account for LBock

https://twitter.com/TheRealLauraB1

I think so. That’s the one I just started following..

That’s me

[Inquiring Minds]

Theresa wrote:

Usually I just throw the name in Google and are able to get to the twitter account that way.

A twitter search would go straight to their member list, google's search bots generally take a couple of days to index new info before it shows in their searches. Hopefully Laura will start appearing in the next couple of days.

Is it possible to see who requested the accounts be suspended? This is obviously coordinated.

[Lbock]

Just an FYI - My twitter account has been suspended. I've had that account since 2013. I only post JD stuff as it is a fan account. I have never engaged in any hate or attackes against other accounts. I tweet truth, court info, articles, photos, memorabilia, etc all available in the public domain.

What it means here is any of my tweets I posted here in order to share photos or images, will no longer exist. Sorry guys

My new account is @TheRealLauraB1 if you were following me.

Wow, that really stinks, Lbock. I tried to do a search on your new username and nothing came up.

@TheRealLauraB1

[Judymac]

I'm also glad that the Fairfax County VA Court won't allow the blurting out of new allegations during testimony, a la the Kate Moss rumor by Heard.

The US case will be a jury trial, though; therefore it's possible for someone to say something out of line and then have the judge strike it from the record and/or penalize the party who said it. The jury would have heard it, though, and been asked to disregard that errant testimony - what jury member can force themselves to forget something? Sneaky way of influencing the jury.

Looking back at Ben Chew's original defamation filing in VA, I see that I missed one of the justifications for filing the case in VA:

Further, Defendant published the fake and defamatory op-ed to promote her new movie which was in Virginia theatres for viewing by Virginia audiences.

Aquaman

A judge will admonish a witness not to blurt out new allegations. If she continues to do it she can be charged with contempt of court. The judge will also warn the attorneys to keep their client under control. They might do it in a short private meeting called a sidebar or they might do it publicly. Judges expect attorneys to be able to keep their clients under control.

[RumLover]

I guess this is why she has been so quiet. Her mom passed away

Whitney said in her testimony that their mother passed away on April 1 this year. (Day 14 page 2282 line 8).
I am not suggesting any misleading on part of the Heards. A death in the family has many matters to be completed and a public statement is not a priority.
I have noticed a couple of news reports said she died in May. This implies the writer(s) did not read the transcripts but used Instagram.

[AdeleAgain]

Thanks everyone for the explanations on US cases and witnesses not being allowed to blurt stuff out - when I said she'll play dirty I actually meant in the media even though they are both still bound by the confidentiality agreement (JD has never discussed anything outside court - although I really think it must have been Adam who leaked the tapes and I am not sorry, not going to apologise to him because it was the deciding factor in getting people on side).

Since there is a lockdown and she must also have got the message that if she turns up anywhere to speak publicly she'll be booed, I think she will still speak for victims - there is a hardcore of people who still support her and will enable - but in more closed settings. She surely cannot turn up at any women's marches anymore.

Does anyone know if Dr Kipper and Nurse Debbie might testify in Virgina? There must be strict ethnical rules governing what medical professionals can do in these types of cases.

[Snowcat]

Just my opinion, AH is not brave, but more arrogant, stubborn and self-absorbed. With that I thought she would show up, especially to show up Johnny. I'm glad she did, because she didn't really help herself with All her crazy lies! I'll be on pins and needles til we get the result of this trial. I'll keep prayers and positive thoughts directed to JD and his team!
I'm taking time off to cool off and stop worrying! Have a great week/weekend!

Yes, very arrogant, stubborn and self-absorbed! However, she definitely wants real victims of domestic violence to perceive her as a brave "example" that they should all follow. It's what she wants the public to see (those naive folks who still support her). It is all part of the hoax. Yeah, many crazy lies!!

[meeps]

I'm also glad that the Fairfax County VA Court won't allow the blurting out of new allegations during testimony, a la the Kate Moss rumor by Heard.

The US case will be a jury trial, though; therefore it's possible for someone to say something out of line and then have the judge strike it from the record and/or penalize the party who said it. The jury would have heard it, though, and been asked to disregard that errant testimony - what jury member can force themselves to forget something? Sneaky way of influencing the jury.

Looking back at Ben Chew's original defamation filing in VA, I see that I missed one of the justifications for filing the case in VA:

Further, Defendant published the fake and defamatory op-ed to promote her new movie which was in Virginia theatres for viewing by Virginia audiences.

Aquaman

A judge will admonish a witness not to blurt out new allegations. If she continues to do it she can be charged with contempt of court. The judge will also warn the attorneys to keep their client under control. They might do it in a short private meeting called a sidebar or they might do it publicly. Judges expect attorneys to be able to keep their clients under control.

Oh boy, AH's will really have earned their pay if they manage to keep the mean teen queen under control ... He
As for AH holding that speech before the judge dismissed the court - I think she had to, or her whole audience would have moved over to wait for Johnny coming out

[RumLover]

YES! I could open your link!! Thank you! Can you link me to at least the 4 days of Johnnys testimony? I’d like to start there if possible.

It would be better if you could configure your browser to allow popups from nickwallis.com
Try googling how to configure popups from <your browser software> to get instructions.
It seems that it is not the actual document that is causing the problem.
D4
D3
D2
D1

[Stellastar]

Does anyone have the text to today's Financial Times piece about Johnny?

[In-too-Depp]

The importance of the Johnny Depp libel trial

stewartslaw.com
17th July 2020

Johnny Depp’s libel trial against News Group Newspapers, the publishers of The Sun, and its executive editor, Dan Wootton, has made front page news every day since it kicked off on 7 July 2020 in the Media and Communications List of the High Court. Some of the sensitive testimony, documents and information shared so far have made audiences question why Mr Depp has brought this claim and whether it has been worth it. Emily Cox, a partner in our Media Disputes department, considers these questions.

Recap of the Claim

It will not have escaped anyone’s attention that Johnny Depp is in the midst of a libel trial; the most Hollywood of hearings that the Royal Courts of Justice in London have seen in some time. Mr Depp is suing News Group Newspapers and Dan Wootton in relation to an article published by The Sun, which originally bore the headline “Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?”.

Mr Depp contends that the meaning of the defendants’ publications is that he:

“… was guilty, on overwhelming evidence, of serious domestic violence against his then wife [Amber Heard], causing significant injury and leading to her fearing for her life, for which the claimant was constrained to pay no less than £5m to compensate her, and which resulted in him being subjected to a continuing court restraining order; and for that reason is not fit to work in the film industry.”

He asserts that the publications are false and caused serious harm to his reputation. The defendants are relying on a truth defence to the claim, as per section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013. The burden of proof is on them, and not on Mr Depp, to prove the substantial truth of the publications on the balance of probabilities.

Why

After a tough first week, with Mr Depp being cross-examined about many unsavoury aspects of his personal life and relationship with Ms Heard, much commentary in the press and on social media has asked why Mr Depp has brought the claim and why he would be prepared to air his dirty laundry in this way. There are three reasons.

First, in the internet age, allegations have a permanence to them that they did not have when newspapers were in print-only form and ended up as fish and chip wrappers within days. The allegations about Mr Depp remain on the internet for all to read and so are unlikely to be forgotten. There is, therefore, an impetus to resolve the issue as Mr Depp will not want it to remain on the record for posterity that he is involved in domestic violence.

Secondly, Mr Depp is likely to have seen this as the most effective means of clearing his name. Ms Heard made an allegation of domestic violence, but there were no criminal charges or trial in the US and so no opportunity to determine the issue one way or the other. The allegation has been left hanging and repeated in the press, on social media and on the internet in general. As a result, Mr Depp says he has lost out on work. This is not surprising in a #MeToo world. Hollywood will almost certainly be reluctant to cast actors who have unresolved allegations of domestic violence over their heads.

Thirdly, Mr Depp will no doubt see this trial as the lesser of two evils. Airing details about his substance abuse and other aspects about his private life, though undesirable, will likely be less career-ending than a suspicion of domestic violence. He also has his personal life to think about, and what those close to him will think about the allegations published in The Sun.

A desire for vindication is typically the primary motivation for those who pursue a libel claim to trial. Very much secondary will be any potential financial reward by way of damages. This is because the damages awarded are usually dwarfed by the legal costs of pursuing the claim. Damages are rarely into six figures, while costs often hit the seven figures, and sometimes multiples of seven figures, with perhaps 70% of those costs recoverable in the event of a successful outcome at trial.

Claimant-friendly

London’s Media and Communications Court is an attractive forum for high-profile individuals such as Mr Depp to seek to clear their names because England still has defamation laws that are ‘claimant friendly’, in many respects much more so than US courts. One of the key reasons for this is the burden of proof. In essence, when an argument about truth is a central feature of a defamation case, there is a legal presumption that a defamatory statement is false unless the defendants can prove otherwise. To win their defence, NGN and Mr Wootton will need to prove, not that Mr Depp’s marriage or private life left a lot to be desired or that some of his behaviour should expose him to criticism, but that their specific statement about Mr Depp published in The Sun was in itself substantially factually true.

Mr Depp will be hoping NGN has not done enough and that he will secure a stridently worded judgment exonerating him and dismissing the allegations against him. As well as doing away with any lingering doubts in audiences’ minds about there being ‘no smoke without fire’, this may carry some hearsay weight in the libel proceedings afoot in the US against Ms Heard herself.

All of which may go to explain the recent increase in defamation claims in England and Wales. The number of defamation claims in 2019 was the highest in the last decade. If we compare 2019 to previous years, there is a 22% increase in issued defamation claims compared to 2018. These statistics follow a 70% surge in defamation claims in 2018 and a 39% rise in 2017. A person’s reputation has always been critical, both personally and professionally. But the internet age has perhaps made it more important to take active steps to protect this.

Conclusion

It is valid to ask why Mr Depp is pursuing his claim through a highly public trial. But, while much of what has been aired so far has been damaging and embarrassing to Mr Depp, the answer has to be that he has brought it out of necessity. If Mr Depp had left an allegation of serious domestic violence against his former wife unchallenged, this would be attached to his name for the rest of his life. Without question, this would impact his career more significantly than the details about his life that the public is seeing now. Unlike in the film and celebrity world of the past, reputational attacks of this magnitude now have a permanent impact unless they are legally challenged. Mr Depp is looking for vindication, and he needs to win this trial to get it.

[Lbock]

Excellent. Someone got it

If Mr Depp had left an allegation of serious domestic violence against his former wife unchallenged, this would be attached to his name for the rest of his life. Without question, this would impact his career more significantly than the details about his life that the public is seeing now. Unlike in the film and celebrity world of the past, reputational attacks of this magnitude now have a permanent impact unless they are legally challenged. Mr Depp is looking for vindication, and he needs to win this trial to get it.

[Judymac]

Yes! Amber Heard was the one who started this She violated the terms of the divorce decree by making these allegations against him. If she wasn't such an attention hog and would have kept her big mouth shut, she would not be in the current situation. It is time for Johnny to be vindicated and for Amber to reap the consequences of her actions.