The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:21 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:48 pm
I don't know what "evidence" the judge saw about her supposed charity donations but this is what he put in is decision when discussing the "hoax" allegation by JD's team.

He says he has evidence as to what Amber received in the divorce settlement and an no expert evidence to compare those figures with what she was entitled to under CA law. Then he goes into the charity.

"The principal elelment of that settlement was payment to her by Mr Depp of US $7 million. Ms Heard's evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memornaum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78). I recognize that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger."
OK, Here is what the Judge was told regarding "proof of donations". Notice how Wass pulled the wool over the judges eyes - there's the report, but don't look, I'll tell you what it says.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:25 pm

Inquiring Minds wrote:
Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:53 pm
ForeverYoung posted:
her donation of the $7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger.
Poking around the net I found Amber's name on The CHLA honor roll for donors contributing $1m-5m.



(Bottom of page 2, last entry in column 3)

Of course, this could be (probably is) a pledge only and the money was never actually received. Otherwise why is she holding out on the receipts rather than screaming about her beneficence from the tallest building?

Maybe it was from the payment Johnny made directly in her name, but not actually sent herself? I suspect she would have had trouble getting that donation refunded ;)
Here is my breakdown of her donations/pledges.
For the 2017 fiscal report she had not received enough of the settlement to donate 3.5M
for 2018 she was again recognized for (donation/life estate/pldge) and $100K-499K in a separate column - why twice? Pledge and actual cash (remember Johnny donated $100K which I don't think was recognized in the 2017 report).
for 2019 - If you donate $1M ore more, you are recognized for life - she was dropped in 2019
https://www.chla.org/donor-honor-roll

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:27 pm

Here is some more excerpts of the Judges ruling on CHLA subpoena

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:28 pm

Another excerpt about the Jennifer Howell subpoena

justintime
Posts: 1873
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:53 pm

Proof, perhaps, that AH did not donate half of the $7million dollars to The CHLA as she claims. May take a moment to fully load:



A bit difficult to follow. AH’s name appears on 2017’s and 2018’s planned donations lists. Explanation follows:





Thanks to Rubiks Glass @RubiksGlass on Twitter.
"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

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:21 am

I posted a bit above on this, with arrows showing she is mentioned twice in the 2018 report. Once under Donations/Life Estate Planning/Pledges and again for actual cash donations. That is what gave her away. Why would they recognize two cash donations. Nope. And again in 2019 she is no where to be mentioned, so she is not recognized in the $1M club for lifelong recognition.

justintime
Posts: 1873
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:41 am

Lbock: So sorry for posting what is really just another version of what you’d so patiently and clearly already explained. I was off, stunned by what I was reading and went ahead and posted! Guess this is getting well-deserved attention.

QC Wass really did a number on Nicol - but the fact is, it’s really just another very clear indication of how little he cared: about this case, about his responsibility to be thorough and fair throughout the entire hearing for BOTH sides, and about his willingness to cut corners for his own convenience whenever possible.

Nicol made a huge mistake. His own arrogance and inability to read people left him foolishly dependent on the lying, sociopathic twit’s testimony.

How ironic these rulings we’re reading about today, made by a US judge on two AH petitions to quash motions in Johnny’s VA defamation suit, should turn out to be primarily in Johnny’s favor, AND could figure prominently in ripping apart a critical portion of the UK’s High Court Justice Nicol’s careless, smug, unforgivably biased decision against Johnny in his libel suit in London. A decision Johnny has vowed to appeal. Amazing!!!
"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

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:32 am

I think the most plausible explanation is that Judge Nicol was biased to the idea that newspapers should have free speech and not be subject to libel especially from public figures. If this is the true, then he had made up his mind to support NGN long ago. Depp and Heard were the way for Nicol to set an example telling people never to sue. It didn't matter who the defence barrister was or the evidence presented.
Tweets from Greef like the following lead me to this thinking.

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:27 am

Many thanks for the outstanding responses RumLover and Lbock. I sought clarity and it is now crystal clear.
RumLover - these will be added to my archives. thanks :)
Lbock:
Here is my breakdown of her donations/pledges.
For the 2017 fiscal report she had not received enough of the settlement to donate 3.5M
for 2018 she was again recognized for (donation/life estate/pldge) and $100K-499K in a separate column - why twice? Pledge and actual cash (remember Johnny donated $100K which I don't think was recognized in the 2017 report).
for 2019 - If you donate $1M ore more, you are recognized for life - she was dropped in 2019
https://www.chla.org/donor-honor-roll
and:
OK, Here is what the Judge was told regarding "proof of donations". Notice how Wass pulled the wool over the judges eyes - there's the report, but don't look, I'll tell you what it says.
[Since I started writing this, justintime, Laura and Rubik have added even more damning evidence. Apologies if I missed anyone. How many slam-dunks does Johnny need to win?]

Despicable. The QC has misled the judge and did so from a position of trust extended to her because she is a QC. I guess she no longer deserves that title. Wass concealed the full truth thereby she became an accessory to that lie. I smell perjury here (is that the correct term when applied to the lawyers?). Wass has implicitly vouched for the validity of the claim that Amber made the donation, perjuring herself, then (by the same misdirection) tried to conceal the perjury by dismissing the judge's need to examine the evidence - trust me, I'm a QC and I say it 's OK.

Knowing this was a lie Wass must have also known that very little (if any) money was donated and that her witness was a fraud. Team Heard then became complicit in this fraud, in this lie. She also knew that Heard not only did not donate the money, but had used the empty pledge to build her charitable facade and pocket $3.5m - $7m. Sweet. This is the second storey in their house of cards.

Having passed the fraud past Nicol, Wass then shot down all the proof of the hoax with a clip full of blanks and built another storey from the dead.

Then the professional level above - the police, Australian courts and Customs, audio and video evidence and medical professionals were all evicted so charlatans and grifters could move in (free of rent, it must be the penthouse level). The judge was allowed to fill in any blank bits in the metaphorical decor for himself. He used his imagination to wallpaper whole rooms on this storey.

This house of cards uses lies for mortar and is supported on two pillars - Amber's honesty and her altruistic acts. On examination, her charitable nature is just a lie too. And as a lie it swings from charity to theft. Both of these pillars crumbled away long ago, yet the whole ugly mess still just hangs there in the air, like flatulence in a closed room.

Team Heard have not convinced a judge of the validity of their defense, even by unscrupulously pandering to any of his known weaknesses and biases. Instead, they have actively and knowingly subverted the judicial process (imo), They have used privilege and the indulgence of the court to pervert the course of justice by presenting the fraud of Amber's charity as fact.

And Amber pledged the same money not once but twice, claimed the accolades, spent the money, then got double duty having Johnny falsely convicted of being a wife-beater on the one scam. The judge inferred Johnny was also probably a violent rapist, but the lies were a bit too much even for the judge to try to explain away. When Amber palmed the money, she was essentially stealing from sick children. Sleight of hand. Taking candy from babies.

The criminal implications should be a concern for all of Team Heard, before we even look at the behind the scenes activity prior to, and during, the trial. Clearly something is also amiss there - you just had to see them scurrying through their online accounts (like cockroaches exposed to the light) to know they were trying to hide many things. What haven't we figured out yet?

And how much more will be revealed when this viper is finally de-fanged?

AdeleAgain
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:08 am

Before we all get ahead of ourselves, she has only committed perjury in the UK (relating to this I mean) if she said in court or in her witness statement that she donated the money. And it will be pertinent in how she described that.

Did she get questioned on it - I just cannot bear to go back and check?

Did she put it into her statement?

Wass has done nothing wrong if she relied on what AH told her and something that was in the public domain. Sorry that's not what you want to hear but I doubt she has done anything wrong.

Whether or not AH has committed perjury over this matter will depend entirely on whether she said in court/witness statement she had donated the money. She is wily about things like this.

At the appeal I don't think they can introduce new evidence BUT perjury is so serious that an exception may be made ie that the entire judgement was based on the truthfulness of AH who in fact lied under oath. This is why when the judgement came out I opined as to whether JD's lawyers might do something imaginative around her perjury vulnerabilities.

Can anyone find anywhere her saying anything about the charitable donations in court? Press statements don't matter I am afraid.

And I so want her nailed on this!

Also Inquiring Minds - Johnny has been convicted of nothing! Just to be clear - he lost a libel case that is not a conviction.

AdeleAgain
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:15 am

To clarify this is from Gre3f the lawyer on twitter:

As I understand it, Johnny Depp's lawyers can file a committal order with the Court of Appeal (CPR 81.3(5)(a)) in relation to a deficient affidavit under CPR 32. This depends, however, if they can gain evidence Heard lied in her e-i-c (an offence: Perjury Act 1911, s1(1). Gosh.

(e-i-c is Evidence in Chief).

AdeleAgain
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:24 am

So sorry I just haven't got time to research this properly at the moment but someone else on twitter says she put in one of her witness statements:

"I remained financially independent from him the whole time we were together and the entire amount of my
divorce settlement was donated to charity".

If that's correct she'll argue legal semantics to get off a perjury charge and with her luck she'll succeed but if this news can get a wider audience (once CHLA have confirmed) then it will be yet another big PR blow to her. Notice she does not say that she donated the entire amount of the divorce settlement.

So I guess this comes down to an argument of the meaning - the judge clearly accepted the meaning that she had no financial motivation.

Come on clever British barristers - time to earn those massive fees. Wonder who will be writing the brief - it will be an expert on appeals so not necessarily David Sherborne.
Last edited by Joni on Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited for "chatspeak" abbreviation

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:02 am

AdeleAgain:
Johnny has been convicted of nothing! Just to be clear - he lost a libel case that is not a conviction.
You are completely correct. Sloppy language on my part. Apologies to yourself and others :)

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3450
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:26 am

AdeleAgain wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:24 am
"I remained financially independent from him the whole time we were together and the entire amount of my divorce settlement was donated to charity".

If that's correct she'll argue legal semantics to get off a perjury charge and with her luck she'll succeed but if this news can get a wider audience (once CHLA have confirmed) then it will be yet another big PR blow to her. Notice she does not say that she donated the entire amount of the divorce settlement.
Sorry if I am being dense, but didn't she actually say, or write that she donated the entire amount here?

AdeleAgain
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:22 am

Ok I am having an argument with myself and coming back the other way. I have re read and it seems Wass used the donations to dismiss the claim that it was a hoax for financial gain. Therefore if the donations did not happen a key argument upon which the judge relied is undermined. My fret now is on the introduction of new evidence. But if she did refer to the donation in her witness statement and a reasonable inference from what she said is that the money was donated it should help.

I just worry that she has cleverly not committed perjury. And that would have been so neat. If she had been asked this on the stand she would have been forced to lie or word salad it. I rarely criticise Johnny’s UK defence team as they were very very good but this may have been an omission. Unless they did get it out of her. Can anyone bear to go back through her testimony?

Meeps to answer your question yes and no. A common sense and reasonable meaning would be that means she donated. But look at the sentence construction. The entire amount was donated. But doesn’t say she donated it. An equivalent sum may have been donated for her.

InquiringMinds no worries!
Last edited by Joni on Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited for chatspeak abbreviations.