The Lawsuits Thread

[Newt]

Oh yes she did

[meeps]

Oh, I understand now - thanks a lot for explaining, Adele

[Lbock]

Meeps to answer your question yes and no. A common sense and reasonable meaning would be that means she donated. But look at the sentence construction. The entire amount was donated. But doesn’t say she donated it. An equivalent sum may have been donated for her.

Yes, I have watched her sentence structure alot on this subject. She also stated in the Dutch tv video that the entire amount was donated...but she also says, I split it between, suggesting she took the action. But she has been careful to say something that could equate, a matching amount to my settlement was donated in my name. In that way she could avoid perjury.

Here is what Wass said in her closing

Again, I leave my Lord just with the reference, rather
18 than asking you to look it up now. File 5.1, tab 206A,
19 page F1334 shows a list of donors to the children's hospital
20 of Los Angeles, making donations between $1 million and just
21 shy of $5 million, so in that bracket, and it includes the
22 name of Amber Heard. The relevance is that when your Lordship
23 comes to consider the hoax defence, the question must be
24 asked, well, what is the purpose of this hoax? We suggest
25 that the court can exclude any suggestion that it was money

But, that is not what she has stated publicly from the beginning that Johnny is arguing. She misled the public and if she didn't donate the settlement and kept the oney, that is what hurts her credibility

She made it public she was going to donate, therefore she cannot claim privacy on if she donated or if someone donated on her behalf

Johnny included several of the articles where she is in quotes stating that she will or did donate.

[nebraska]

What am I missing here? The lawsuit accused the Sun of libel for a headline that called Johnny a horrible name. Wasn't the entire lawsuit supposed to be about whether the Sun had reason to believe at the time of writing that what they published was true? The court case became a trial about Johnny's behavior, not about whether the Sun was guilty of libel. Did anyone from the Sun actually show up to defend their action? The author of the article, for instance? It seems to me the entire case got way off track. "Evidence" that came to light after the writing of the article should have no bearing on whether the Sun wrote a libelous story. Or is it not libel if you write something awful and someone gives you false "evidence" to support the story after publication?

[AdeleAgain]

Thanks Lbock - actually you've made me more hopeful that this will be relevant to the appeal.

I have been hoping all along that somehow she'll be prosecuted for perjury but realistically I am probably expecting too much.

It is not just what she has said in court - it has been her entire narrative and so that does go to credibility. So whilst she may have been careful to avoid perjury over this particular matter, you are so right - it does have relevance that she said these things publicly.

I hope JD's team can find a way to use it - appeal papers have to be done next week!

It is just that I feel until she is really found guilty of one of her crimes, she will just parade around, yanking some poor dog behind her (thank you for the footage on your twitter yesterday by the way - unbelievable, you can see she is so full of aggression). I know that the public cannot stand her, but she'll still get invited to things and claim victimhood.

I just rage with injustice that she consistently manages to get away with stuff.

[Lbock]

Thanks Lbock - actually you've made me more hopeful that this will be relevant to the appeal.

I have been hoping all along that somehow she'll be prosecuted for perjury but realistically I am probably expecting too much.

It is not just what she has said in court - it has been her entire narrative and so that does go to credibility. So whilst she may have been careful to avoid perjury over this particular matter, you are so right - it does have relevance that she said these things publicly.

I hope JD's team can find a way to use it - appeal papers have to be done next week!

It is just that I feel until she is really found guilty of one of her crimes, she will just parade around, yanking some poor dog behind her (thank you for the footage on your twitter yesterday by the way - unbelievable, you can see she is so full of aggression). I know that the public cannot stand her, but she'll still get invited to things and claim victimhood.

I just rage with injustice that she consistently manages to get away with stuff.

I wonder if the "yanking of the dog" shows her anger that she found out Depp Team got their info on CHLA. Remember, the ruling I have is from 10/29. Lots, I hope, have happened since then. Fingers crossed they have proof she didn't donate the settlement - "It was never about money". BS It was always about money even if someone donated for you and you kept the settlement - that's a lie!

[AdeleAgain]

To me the entire web of lies has been about two things: one money, two - she couldn't stand the public vilification for filling for divorce right after his mum died.

I think she kept unsent emails and took photos, to put pressure on him if she needed to. I don't think she ever expected him to call her out - I go back to the second leaked recording where he snaps after she accuses him to telling the media something (I never quite understood from the conversation if it was that she was a stripper or that she had been arrested for DV) - and he says "that's it I will see you in court". The panic that enters her voice is incredible.

But once down the route - she could not go back.

And so the donating the money way her way for vindication - and you have to wonder how deeply she was in with Elon Musk by then - if he advised her on doing this, and whether he offered to cover the amounts? Pure speculation.

But back to my original point - she couldn't bear the vilification so I wonder how she is feeling now despite the win. In public her ego must be soaring but narcissists are full of shame and self loathing - right? So looking at the love he is getting from people, she must be furious.

[AdeleAgain]

And sorry one more thing about this and the lies being called out: one of my first fears in reaction to the UK ruling was that it would embolden her witnesses - they got away with it once so keep to the story.

If they can see that even when you think you've got away with it, facts can come back to bite you - well it just needs one of them to wobble! Melanie apparently unfollowed AH after the verdict so live in hope!

[Lbock]

My thoughts, and further excerpts (again, twitter is the only way I know to get screen shots here - not my intention to promote my or anyone's accounts)

[Newt]

Latest update from Dan Fogler on IG: "THIS THREAD has served its purpose & has become a forum of information I’ll be starting a new Post shortly to discuss next Phase but I will leave this right here for anyone to reference. Thank you all for your patience. Stay tuned."

[Lbock]

There is another Motion to Compel brought by AH to be heard this Friday. Johnny's opposition was finally uploaded. I truly hope the judge is done with her

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 3-2020.pdf

1) His prior litigation has nothing to do with AH and is massively overbroad. TMG, Bloom, Lawyers, Bodyguards, even Rocky which is still pending.
2) He did provide the tax records as the court requried. His "loan out companies" are him, and only him so its the same numbers
3) He has no insurance claims or otherwise to provide to her
4) he has provided all he has from Disney (note: I expect her to file a supplement asking for all communications with him and WB on Grindewald firing)

Hearing Friday: Her Motion to compel:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 6-2020.pdf

[meeps]

What am I missing here? The lawsuit accused the Sun of libel for a headline that called Johnny a horrible name. Wasn't the entire lawsuit supposed to be about whether the Sun had reason to believe at the time of writing that what they published was true? The court case became a trial about Johnny's behavior, not about whether the Sun was guilty of libel. Did anyone from the Sun actually show up to defend their action? The author of the article, for instance? It seems to me the entire case got way off track. "Evidence" that came to light after the writing of the article should have no bearing on whether the Sun wrote a libelous story. Or is it not libel if you write something awful and someone gives you false "evidence" to support the story after publication?

One should think that normally the newspaper would have sent one or two of its people to testify about what they knew when they wrote what they did about Rowling and Johnny, but no.
JD sued the Sun, but they hid timidly behind Amber's skirts.
I wish Johnny and his people had insisted on hearing from them. But maybe they couldn't do that. That is: the Sun decided fully what should happen on their side.
And the judge - who now seems to have been on their side all along - didn't ask for journalists and editors to defend themselves either, as far as I know.

[AdeleAgain]

Meeps I think it is for each side to decide themselves how to defend themselves - the judge can't insist on hearing from witnesses.

JD's could have compelled NGN people to give testimony I suppose but why would they - you only call witnesses who are going to be helpful to you.

One day I would love to know the story of what happened - because AH fought and fought being dragged in as a witness. I think NGN must have told her that if she didn't carry this thing with their full backing- they would throw her to the wolves - have to settle with JD and would then turn on her for lying.

Now I would also like to understand how far the Sun went in supporting her and whether rules have been broken. I presume they paid for Elaine and Jenn? The bill at the Hamyard Hotel in Soho where they all stayed? The two week lockdown in what looked like lovely English countryside? I presume you are allowed to meet the expenses of witnesses under the UK rules but you have to wonder if any were broken. Jeez if Johnny doesn't win the appeal does he have to foot that bill? That would seem outrageous.

Can feel the blood boiling again.

[nebraska]

What am I missing here? The lawsuit accused the Sun of libel for a headline that called Johnny a horrible name. Wasn't the entire lawsuit supposed to be about whether the Sun had reason to believe at the time of writing that what they published was true? The court case became a trial about Johnny's behavior, not about whether the Sun was guilty of libel. Did anyone from the Sun actually show up to defend their action? The author of the article, for instance? It seems to me the entire case got way off track. "Evidence" that came to light after the writing of the article should have no bearing on whether the Sun wrote a libelous story. Or is it not libel if you write something awful and someone gives you false "evidence" to support the story after publication?

One should think that normally the newspaper would have sent one or two of its people to testify about what they knew when they wrote what they did about Rowling and Johnny, but no.
JD sued the Sun, but they hid timidly behind Amber's skirts.
I wish Johnny and his people had insisted on hearing from them. But maybe they couldn't do that. That is: the Sun decided fully what should happen on their side.
And the judge - who now seems to have been on their side all along - didn't ask for journalists and editors to defend themselves either, as far as I know.

I have wondered if Johnny should have won by default since the Sun essentially didn't put up a defense of their article.

[Moonbeam]

Hi Nebraska!! I totally get and agree with your point of view! It has really bothered me that the lawsuit did seem to get off track, imo. It turned from a suit about Libel to a he-said she-said about their personal lives and the possibility of DV and who abused who. I don't think I am making myself clear. The defense was supposed to support their article and that they had done their due diligence on the proof of the truth of the allegations. In court, they had no NGN witnesses, no one to speak about actually writing or researching the article. They merely put the ex on the stand and proceeded to harp on about Johnny's drinking and drug use and supposed abuse of her. The media took it and ran, especially after the crazy verdict, to use it to further abuse Johnny's character, instead of using their work for good. Maybe they could have instead used that opportunity to reach out to troubled people, instead they used their media outlet to further persecute Johnny. It just makes me crazy!