The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:37 pm

Here are two tweets (but click on them for the full thread) and their opinions




User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:10 pm

I hope this is true

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:18 pm

Count I of the ex-s counterclaim was payment for attorney fees and costs and it got dismissed. For all we know she might not be paying the legal bills herself anyway and probably would kept that money, if she was awarded it, for herself.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 0-2020.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:00 am

As I read it, Count 1 was her attempt to dismiss it again saying her op-ed was a matter of public concern and she should be immune from civil litigation. DENUED. “ Declaratory Judgement is Dismissed ”

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Kathelyndecoke » Tue Jan 05, 2021 4:16 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:31 pm
Kathelyndecoke wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 5:16 pm
I am wrong to think that Mollusk had not given anything on her behalf? Seems that he tried to associate her to HIS "ANONYMOUS" donations . One by a recommendation from her and the other one in the Designation: Donation from AH (ridiculous...as they specify: from a donator who wishes to remain anonymous)... they tried a concept here: donation by association.
Musk gave to "donor advised funds" that gave money to the charties on her behalf. One of the names on the checks is Jane Greenfield, who is president of Vanguard Charitable. Musk gave them a ton of money in 2016.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/elon-mus ... ised-fund/
OH thanks for the clarification! I really thought it took more than a designation to give "on behalf of " . And yes funny how they broke right after this compelling grant term. :lol:

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Kathelyndecoke » Tue Jan 05, 2021 4:50 am

Thank you for the links!!!!

I can also see the thread made by Andrea under Laura's post:
""

So now she has to prove that it was not a hoax and that leads to more discovery on her side. Great!

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:47 am

An interesting discussion going on on twitter about whether AH did in fact commit perjury in the UK case or whether she is 'just' guilty of contempt of court (this is over the donations). Contempt of court can still carry a prison sentence BTW.



Be fascinated to know what you super analysts think.

I think it is right that she wasn't asked if she had donated the money? But she did write it in one of her many witness statements and as someone in the thread above says, she did confirm her WS.

User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:00 am

Here is a Court News article.



As far as the perjury/ contempt of Court issue, I truly believe that a lie is a lie. I feel like they are just mincing words, or rather, AH is continuing to play games, "Oh, No, I didn't actually LIE Under Oath". COME ON! We all know that she intended to lie to the world to claw to fame and destroy Johnny, since he didn't give her exactly what she wanted. That is, the $50,000/ month alimony, and anything else that she could steal.
"Music touches us emotionally, where words alone can't."-- "The truth will come out...and I will be standing on the other side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will too." --Johnny Depp #justiceforjohnnydepp

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:14 pm

What am I seeing? A Murdoch newspaper headline which actually says something truthful?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ambe ... -cq2sb25bn

I was convinced the entire press core would claim this as a great victory for her since the judge used the words "malice".

Well. Colour me shocked.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:21 pm

"So JD won all but 2 points and it is positive for him. The decision to allow her to proceed with her defamation claim isn’t necessarily bad as it means she has to actively prove her claim... prove her lies essentially."

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:19 pm

Interestingly the Telegraph has also described the VA opinion letter as a setback for AH. But she mustn't fret - Eriq Gardiner has done his usual at THR.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:50 pm

One of the three statements now included from Adam, is about her sexual harassment claims. He made the statment to the Daily Mail from a ruling for the UK trial. Based on Judge White's ruling, these claims will now come into the Fairfax trial. But she will have to PROVE them. Sadly, get ready for media to run with these.

User avatar
Moonbeam
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Neverland
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Moonbeam » Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:13 am

Nick Wallis has tweeted the response from NGN/Dan Wooton to the permission for appeal in the UK.

"Music touches us emotionally, where words alone can't."-- "The truth will come out...and I will be standing on the other side of the roaring rapids. I hope other people will too." --Johnny Depp #justiceforjohnnydepp

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:48 am

Moonbeam wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:13 am
Nick Wallis has tweeted the response from NGN/Dan Wooton to the permission for appeal in the UK.
"solely against the judge’s findings of fact." This is what Greef pointed out allot. The judge is the sole fact finder and you can't really appeal against that. All we can do is hope for the best. Nick thought an answer in January, someone else's experience is "10-12 weeks " from? Not sure from now or when Johnny first filed?

In a nutshell, their argument is "because the judge said so"

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:49 pm

Yes unfortunately they weren't the correct facts!

So this is actually just so interesting - what will/can happen I wonder? I desperately wish Gre3f would return to us and help us understand English law on appeals. Adam has posted this - Sacha Wass' summing up in which she dismisses the gold digger argument for the hoax because AH donated the money and cited the report by CHLA with AH's name on the pledge list as evidence.

I do firmly believe Ms Wass is in the clear - I cannot imagine a world in which AH would confess to NGN's (not her) lawyers that she had not donated the money. Now - they haven't exactly gone overboard on the due diligence. If I was trying to make a watertight case I would have asked for a letter from each of the charities. But I am sure the NGN lawyers knew exactly what they were dealing with and didn't ask any follow up questions. Lawyers always say to witness "always just answer the question you are asked. Do not give extra details."

But now it is out in the open, and that is very different. A lawyer can argue a client's case they cannot perpetuate a lie.

So when did dear Jennifer know this? Did she also not bother asking the follow up question? In which case she hasn't exactly executed her professional responsibility thoroughly; or did she know and allow this lie to fester or even advise how to just avoid committing perjury - which bring seriously into question her professional integrity.

We all knew Roberta Kaplan got out because AH was too damaging to her image - she failed to get the VA case dismissed, the tapes came out and I suspect she knew that this charities donation matter was going to come out - and she is already in enough repetitional difficulty over the Times Up defence fund.

Oh what a pickle!