The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
thiefcat
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:57 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by thiefcat » Mon May 30, 2022 11:16 pm

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
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:01 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by hollyberry » Tue May 31, 2022 3:29 am

Heck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible. :tear: :no2: :mad:

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 11:14 am

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.

User avatar
fireflydances
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:15 pm
Location: under a pile of books
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by fireflydances » Tue May 31, 2022 12:52 pm

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.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 1:05 pm


User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 1:07 pm

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

User avatar
bringmethathorizon
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by bringmethathorizon » Tue May 31, 2022 1:51 pm

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 😱
"This is the one I'll be remembered for"
Edward D. Wood, Jr.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 1:58 pm

bringmethathorizon wrote:
Tue May 31, 2022 1:51 pm
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 😱

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 3:06 pm

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

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 55341
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Tue May 31, 2022 6:34 pm

:bouquet: 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! :airkiss:

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue May 31, 2022 6:45 pm

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

Scout
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:10 pm
Location: New York City
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Scout » Tue May 31, 2022 7:40 pm

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

justintime
Posts: 1992
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue May 31, 2022 8:53 pm

Lbock wrote:
Tue May 31, 2022 1:07 pm
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!
"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

thiefcat
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:57 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by thiefcat » Tue May 31, 2022 9:51 pm

hollyberry wrote:
Tue May 31, 2022 3:29 am
Heck, what has she been doing to him? And these are just the marks that are visible. :tear: :no2: :mad:
She's really terrible. Here's the link to the original photo


User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:26 am

justintime wrote:
Tue May 31, 2022 8:53 pm
Lbock wrote:
Tue May 31, 2022 1:07 pm
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. :biglaugh: