The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by **Theresa** » Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:06 pm

Very interesting video, Lbock.
Thanks for all the work you do to find and share these documents!

Lbock · Unread post by **Lbock** » Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:20 pm

You made my day

SnoopyDances · Unread post by **SnoopyDances** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:26 am

Thanks Lbock!

Lbock · Unread post by **Lbock** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 10:26 am

Theresa wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:06 pm
Very interesting video, Lbock.
Thanks for all the work you do to find and share these documents!

I just realized, I attached a very good video, lol. But the wrong one.

Here is the proper link, and I have added timestamps and document links to help. I hope you find this one interesting:
"Just completed a Youtube Live Stream about Amber Heard's two insurance companies suing each other. Travelers Agent, Pamela Johnson, is trying to take credit for disqualifying Gina Deuters.
The video is up for replay and I have added timestamps for various documents, video, etc."

Yaya · Unread post by **Yaya** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:21 pm

Thanks Laura, I always look forward to watching your videos

AdeleAgain · Unread post by **AdeleAgain** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:55 pm

Watching it now Laura - really thorough - once again thank you so much. I like your sighs of frustration.

Inquiring Minds · Unread post by **Inquiring Minds** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:58 pm

Thanks Lbock for the great video [and I’m referring to the original, unintended link LOL, not the insurance video, that’s next]. I’m still catching up and its going slowly. I can only watch these videos with headphones or captions to avoid disturbing others, but I can’t wear headphones comfortably atm. One interesting by-product of captioning was frequent mentions of “lemony” and at one point “mixing it together with culinary expert witness”.

I know this case has been settled, but before I look at those details, I want to see how we got there. Thanks for providing this invaluable background.

Regarding the material, I note TeamDepp opposing Brooks’ therapist as an expert witness (or indeed any type of witness). In the text quoted by TeamBrooks (12:30 in your video, first word on the second line), it is talking about inclusion of “evidence”. Granted this is not VA, but Azcarate was quite clear that this type of material is hearsay, not evidence.

I fully agree with your/TeamDepp’s arguments regarding her exclusion as an expert. I guess it is all moot now, but interesting to see what TeamBrooks had intended. Anything she can provide must, by necessity, be based on hearsay statements provided directly by Brooks. To me, this has the same weight as an “email to self” or a diary entry scribbled on a loose leaf of paper. Brooks is attempting to put an authoritative rubber stamp on his own, self-diagnosed mental distress (and doing so long after the alleged incident).

There is of course a possibility that she was being brought in as a surprise fact witness regarding Brooks’ marriage or his progress with art therapy…….

Judymac · Unread post by **Judymac** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:00 pm

Inquiring Minds wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:58 pm
Thanks Lbock for the great video [and I’m referring to the original, unintended link LOL, not the insurance video, that’s next]. I’m still catching up and its going slowly. I can only watch these videos with headphones or captions to avoid disturbing others, but I can’t wear headphones comfortably atm. One interesting by-product of captioning was frequent mentions of “lemony” and at one point “mixing it together with culinary expert witness”.

I know this case has been settled, but before I look at those details, I want to see how we got there. Thanks for providing this invaluable background.

Regarding the material, I note TeamDepp opposing Brooks’ therapist as an expert witness (or indeed any type of witness). In the text quoted by TeamBrooks (12:30 in your video, first word on the second line), it is talking about inclusion of “evidence”. Granted this is not VA, but Azcarate was quite clear that this type of material is hearsay, not evidence.

I fully agree with your/TeamDepp’s arguments regarding her exclusion as an expert. I guess it is all moot now, but interesting to see what TeamBrooks had intended. Anything she can provide must, by necessity, be based on hearsay statements provided directly by Brooks. To me, this has the same weight as an “email to self” or a diary entry scribbled on a loose leaf of paper. Brooks is attempting to put an authoritative rubber stamp on his own, self-diagnosed mental distress (and doing so long after the alleged incident).

There is of course a possibility that she was being brought in as a surprise fact witness regarding Brooks’ marriage or his progress with art therapy…….

I think that you mean a motion in limine. In the United States, a motion in limine is Latin for a “motion at the start.” Essentially, this is a request that is sent to a judge and can be used in either civil or criminal proceedings. Motion in limines are used on both the state and federal levels in all types of cases. Sometimes, at a pre-trial hearing, an attorney will request that the judge rule that a certain testimony be included or excluded in the case.

The last line really explains it.

Inquiring Minds · Unread post by **Inquiring Minds** » Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:54 pm

Judymac wrote:

I think that you mean a motion in limine.

Thanks for the clarification

I had actually figured that, but was commenting on the poor auto-generated captions. I thought it interesting they mis-translated limine as "lemony" then they followed with the "culinary expert". Maybe the AI was hungry LOL.

Someone commenting on Lbock's video over on YT noted that the plural of "motion in limine" is "motions in limine" - one I wouldn't have intuitively made myself, but it makes sense now that I see it. But then most of the legal stuff is new to me.....

I noted through the VA trial that most of the feeds had captioning on. I found it quite error prone and distracting. Depp became deaf, deep and dead (amongst others). I couldn't help wondering if someone hadn't tweaked the software to make it do that. AH got mis-heard a lot, but little else.

I've been looking through the Fairfax site and can't find any transcripts of the trial (except for a few of the various motions). Does anyone know if I am looking in the wrong place or are they on another site altogether?

SnoopyDances · Unread post by **SnoopyDances** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:56 am

Within hours, she had enough money donated to buy the documents! There is a link to them in this thread.
She also had plenty of money left over, which she donated to the Children's Hospital of LA!

More to come!

SnoopyDances · Unread post by **SnoopyDances** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:10 am

Lbock · Unread post by **Lbock** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:27 pm

I am glad you like the Brooks v Depp series. I wanted us to have the information incase they settled and MSM twisted it.

Yea, I don't think the therapist shoudl be an expert witness (California Courts ruled Dr. Kipper could not be an expert but could be a fact witness). I feel its the same thing.

Lbock · Unread post by **Lbock** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:28 pm

SnoopyDances wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:56 am
Within hours, she had enough money donated to buy the documents! There is a link to them in this thread.
She also had plenty of money left over, which she donated to the Children's Hospital of LA!

More to come!

Andy, Tug, Andrea and Myself organized to get these. They were more expensive than we anticipated - 6,600+ pages. But thanks to our generous community, we will be reporting on them.

AdeleAgain · Unread post by **AdeleAgain** » Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:26 pm

Cannot wait Lbock - this evening's entertainment is Brian and Jax on the first part of AH's 7 hours of 2016 deposition. OMG how he managed to stay with this woman for so long ..... how her lawyers can cope ........ unbelievable.

Lbock · Unread post by **Lbock** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:24 am

Amber filed her appeal today