The Lawsuits Thread

[thiefcat]

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

[hollyberry]

Heck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible.

[Lbock]

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.

[fireflydances]

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.

[Lbock]

[Lbock]

I should have posted this here. I have the documents and that triggered people to finally report

[bringmethathorizon]

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

[Lbock]

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

[Lbock]

It seems to lawtubers, that if they are asking this question, then they have gotten past the issue of republication.

[SnoopyDances]

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!

[Lbock]

Thank you guys. For what its worth, I created a thread in my opinion on the defamation statements and her counterclaim.

[Scout]

I too want to offer my humble thanks to LBock. I have been listening since the beginning. You're awesome.

[justintime]

I should have posted this here. I have the documents and that triggered people to finally report

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!

[thiefcat]

Heck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible.

She's really terrible. Here's the link to the original photo

[Judymac]

I should have posted this here. I have the documents and that triggered people to finally report

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!

Johnny should tell them that he pledges to pay it.