The Lawsuits Thread

[meeps]

Johnny's former lawyers get the case postponed again ... Maybe they hope, he will really go broke before it is done. Or at least give up and throw in the towel.

[Ruby Begonia]

Johnny's former lawyers get the case postponed again ... Maybe they hope, he will really go broke before it is done. Or at least give up and throw in the towel.

Well, fortunately not as long as these guys wanted, though I think JD will win. It is sadly more time that Johnny has these clouds over his reputation, which of course causes him to lose film opportunities and the $ from those opportunities, which makes it hard to pay attorneys fees and his usual expenses. Can't imagine the stress. If I won the lottery, I'd give him some.

I think he will win the defamation suit vs The Sun & Dan Wooten. Anyone know the status of that? Fee2fee2fee on Twitter heard The Sun was trying to track down AH on Cannes to get her "evidence" but she seemed to be hiding from them. If she doesn't provide proof and The Sun loses, can they sue her?

Would be great if he won vs The Sun and AH in Virginia so that he'd get $$ to help with those high-end atty fees.

Noticing the specific mentions of People Magazine and Refinery 29 in Johnny's Opposition to AH's Motion to Dismiss, seems reasonable that if he wins the defamation suit vs AH, Waldman is planning to go after them. Scott Weinberg also tweeted " Wife Beater" when JD as Grindelwald stepped on stage at ComicCon that day. Haven't checked if he's deleted it, but he isn't the only bluecheck to attack JD. I'm also through with Forbes Scott Mendelson, who went out of his way to bring up the allegations or make snarky statements in every article related to JD.

BUT Johnny DEPP WILL NOT BE BURIED!!!!

[Sweeney Todd]

Johnny's former lawyers get the case postponed again ... Maybe they hope, he will really go broke before it is done. Or at least give up and throw in the towel.

Scott Weinberg also tweeted " Wife Beater" when JD as Grindelwald stepped on stage at ComicCon that day. Haven't checked if he's deleted it, but he isn't the only bluecheck to attack JD. I'm also through with Forbes Scott Mendelson, who went out of his way to bring up the allegations or make snarky statements in every article related to JD.

And then they’ve got the nerve to accuse him of not moving on or ‘physiologically abusing’ Heard by suing her after she opened her mouth for the millionth time despite signing a NDA.

[Quin55]

She has no regard for the truth or the law. Sneaking her dogs into Australia meant dragging Johnny's name through the tabloids. (No one knew or cared who she was - and we all wish we didn't know who she is, don't we?) She showed herself to be a brat from the very beginning. They should have her take a lie detector test. Of course the machine would explode...

[justintime]

Johnny's former lawyers get the case postponed again ... Maybe they hope, he will really go broke before it is done. Or at least give up and throw in the towel.

Well, fortunately not as long as these guys wanted, though I think JD will win. It is sadly more time that Johnny has these clouds over his reputation, which of course causes him to lose film opportunities and the $ from those opportunities, which makes it hard to pay attorneys fees and his usual expenses. Can't imagine the stress. If I won the lottery, I'd give him some.

I think he will win the defamation suit vs The Sun & Dan Wooten. Anyone know the status of that? Fee2fee2fee on Twitter heard The Sun was trying to track down AH on Cannes to get her "evidence" but she seemed to be hiding from them. If she doesn't provide proof and The Sun loses, can they sue her?

Would be great if he won vs The Sun and AH in Virginia so that he'd get $$ to help with those high-end atty fees.

Noticing the specific mentions of People Magazine and Refinery 29 in Johnny's Opposition to AH's Motion to Dismiss, seems reasonable that if he wins the defamation suit vs AH, Waldman is planning to go after them. Scott Weinberg also tweeted " Wife Beater" when JD as Grindelwald stepped on stage at ComicCon that day. Haven't checked if he's deleted it, but he isn't the only bluecheck to attack JD. I'm also through with Forbes Scott Mendelson, who went out of his way to bring up the allegations or make snarky statements in every article related to JD.

So well said, Ruby Begonia - thank you! You’ve touched on so many unresolved but critical specifics in such a concise manner it just made me think, “YES!”, “YES!” until I was actually cheering you on out loud!

The seemingly uncontrollable, continually elapsing time element (with the TMG settlement the only major resolution to show for it to date) as well as the dearth of income opportunities is a huge concern, as you’ve noted, especially in terms of the mounting stress JD must be experiencing. It’s been years now of unrelenting pressure, definitely an escalating concern.

But, supposing JD does emerge personally vindicated and financially victorious vs both AH and the SUN, I am glad to see you mention the possibility of hauling some of the most offensive media rags, publications, and commentators (I refuse to dignify the likes of Weinberg and Mendelson with the “journalist” description) into court as well. They’ve all played fast and loose with the “condemn now, verify later” mantra, virtually dehumanizing Johnny in the process. The time will have come for the lot of them to choke on their own venom.

I believe it’s vitally important for Johnny to slam these greedy, soulless vipers down hard while the tide is in his favor if he is ever to reclaim some semblance of his former reputation and command the respect of those with whom he hopes to do business in the future. So much is at stake, and opportunity and momentum are too often short lived.

[reindeermoon]

It seems that Waldman is very good. He knows Johnnys situation and his finances I suppose.
He is dropping evidence bits by bits and some of the papers start to post it.
I wonder how he was able to find all the videos and I hope he really finds other victims who will
speak out.
She who should not be named seems to drag her lawyers into the story by saying they had advised her to do this or to say that. I do not think that they will be very happy about that.

[ForeverYoung]

All of a sudden now she has a "neighbor" who says they saw a red mark and guess where the article comes from? Yep, People magazine. The same mag she asked the front desk at apartment building to talk to because she has a friend there. She asked them to say that they never spoke about seeing her without bruises but they said no because they had seen her and none of them saw any injuries to her face. This one never learns.
https://people.com/celebrity/amber-hear ... re-article

[Chocolat]

All of a sudden now she has a "neighbor" who says they saw a red mark and guess where the article comes from? Yep, People magazine. The same mag she asked the front desk at apartment building to talk to because she has a friend there. She asked them to say that they never spoke about seeing her without bruises but they said no because they had seen her and none of them saw any injuries to her face. This one never learns.
https://people.com/celebrity/amber-hear ... re-article

The article is from June, 2016. Something is off. This neighbor isn't on her witness list if he really exists.

[meeps]

The neighbour was a friend of Amber's, but had never seen Johnny in the building? And, although the big bad man had abused poor little Amber for three to four years (sorry about the sarcasm there) it was only recently Amber had started to look sombre? It sounds like she hadn't fully invented her story there yet

[Chocolat]

The neighbour was a friend of Amber's, but had never seen Johnny in the building? And, although the big bad man had abused poor little Amber for three to four years (sorry about the sarcasm there) it was only recently Amber had started to look sombre? It sounds like she hadn't fully invented her story there yet

[justintime]

Does anyone know if this means a decision has been rendered re: the change of venue and/or the dismissal request? Seems like those issues would have to be addressed before a trial date could be set, no?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D70yFEZW4AA ... name=large

[Judymac]

The neighbour was a friend of Amber's, but had never seen Johnny in the building? And, although the big bad man had abused poor little Amber for three to four years (sorry about the sarcasm there) it was only recently Amber had started to look sombre? It sounds like she hadn't fully invented her story there yet

Amber had to protect her poor helpless "baby sister" from that monster Johnny Depp. (sarcasm)

[Lauraftsk]

Does anyone know if this means a decision has been rendered re: the change of venue and/or the dismissal request? Seems like those issues would have to be addressed before a trial date could be set, no?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D70yFEZW4AA ... name=large

I work at a matrimonial law firm. This doesn’t mean anything. The courts issue these notices despite other things happening in the case. Probably this date will be adjourned because there are motions pending.

[Quin55]

Glad we have some people here who can help us grasp all the legal-ese, and guide us through these stages of court cases. As for the lying liar "finding" a witness, we all know she pays her people to lie.

[justintime]

Does anyone know if this means a decision has been rendered re: the change of venue and/or the dismissal request? Seems like those issues would have to be addressed before a trial date could be set, no?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D70yFEZW4AA ... name=large

I work at a matrimonial law firm. This doesn’t mean anything. The courts issue these notices despite other things happening in the case. Probably this date will be adjourned because there are motions pending.

Thank you, Lauraftsk. I knew it was too good to be true for this case to actually be moving forward!