The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Thu May 07, 2020 9:01 pm

MaryS, you are definitely misunderstanding what I am saying. I am *not* saying that there was a mistake in fact in this case. I was trying to explain perjury in a general matter not specifically in this case. I know that there are people from other countries and I was trying to be helpful and explain perjury. Perjury is knowingly lying when under oath. There is intent to deceive. That is different than a mistake of fact. Again not saying that it happened in this case. An example of a mistake in fact is if I saw a bank robbers escape in a blue car and I told the police it was a green car. Even though I am not telling the truth if I testified that it was a green car I would not be committing perjury. I am stating fact as I know it. If I thought I saw a blue car and told the police it was a red car in order to throw them off that would be perjury. I guess I over explain things because people always seem to misunderstand me. Again, I am just trying to explain that perjury involves intent.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Thu May 07, 2020 10:09 pm

Lbock wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
I didn't say that, sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes the statute of limitations is up for DV but not for purjery as it starts at the time you are aware of the purjery.

My post was about claiming the 5th amendment. If she answers a question which she knowingly proves she lied on the TRO (For example she is asked a question in VA and gives a different answer that refutes what she claimed in CA), that could be incriminating herself for a purjery charge in California.

So she could claim the 5th and avoid answering a question in a civil suit in VA to avoid incriminating herself for a purjery charge in CA.
I do not think that she would plead the fifth. No matter what Amber Heard does, she will be in a bad situation. Taking the fifth is something that mostly happens in criminal cases. She would be alerting the court to the fact that she might have committed a crime. The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime. But, she would definitely be drawing attention to her perjury and I don't think that she would want to bring that much attention to her perjury. She would be taking a huge risk if she did this. She has given many different stories. If she testifies the attorney's will be able to expose her lies. If she does not testify she is alerting the courts to the fact that she "might" have committed a crime. No matter what she does she will be exposed as a liar. Another possibility is that she will testify and the attorneys can object to questions that they do not want her to answer. Both attorneys will explain to the judge why they thing she should or should not answer the question. The judge will decide and either overrule the objection and make her answer the question or sustain the objection which means that she does not have to answer the question.

I do not know what she will do. I think Amber is arrogant and thinks that she can get away with her lies. I also think Kaplan is arrogant and thinks she will win this case. The truth is that the judge is the one that decides the case. This judge has made many rulings in favor of Johnny. I think he is a good judge.

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Thu May 07, 2020 10:28 pm

Kaplan filling Heard's head with the possibility of a win is insane.

I wonder where Kaplan gets this idea from.
Unlike Kaplan's other cases, Johnny has evidence.
She can't use her usual playbook as has been demonstrated thus far.

I will be shocked if they go to trial especially once the depositions are complete. I think that Heard will make a confession somewhat.

We will see.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Thu May 07, 2020 10:45 pm

Thanks for info and reminders about perjury.

I don't think Amber really wants to testify for the Sun.
I foresee a repeat of 2016 when she said she was going to give a deposition and then repeatedly avoided it until court ordered. Her lawyer said she would make a police report but LAPD said she did not.
In the UK 2018, Heard hired human rights Jennifer Robinson (team Julian Assange) from Doughty St chambers (also Amal Clooney's firm [not implying anything other than small world]) to argue that the divorce agreement prevented AH from giving evidence.
The Judge did not agree.
The Sun and News have made a truth defence so they have to prove Depp was a "wife beater". So far, there has no been evidence that Heard directly supplied the Sun with information. If Heard doesn't attend court, then the Sun have to say why they printed unverified second-hand information.

We (the public) don't know if Amber has threatened to lie about others including Musk. We know about Depp because he did not agree to her demands. We know she snoops at phones and sets up secret recordings. A privacy breach for the CEO of a tech company would seem more damaging - even if nothing illegal is revealed, it would be embarrassing.

The Australian incident was 5 years ago, not reported at the time and seems more reckless than intentional injury. I doubt that the Queensland police or public prosecutor would want to pursue something similar for locals and even less likely for foreign visitors.
There was also assault in the Bahamas but that also seems unlikely to be prosecuted.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu May 07, 2020 11:09 pm

Amber wants to testify for The Sun. She has wanted to testify from the very beginning but there was an issue with the NDA. Still trying desperately to save her "reputation" which went down the toilet four years ago.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Thu May 07, 2020 11:57 pm

I agree with Rumlover, Heard doesn't want to testify for The Sun but she is left with little choice.

The NDA was used by The Sun's lawyers to file the *stay* motion.
I think I got my legalese right.

That was dismissed by the UK Judge which has left The Sun with little choice but to call on their primary witness.
It would look bad if they don't.

If you want to know Heard's defence, it's laid out in the comment sections of THR, Deadline & Variety.
All pro-Heard comments are from her team and yeah, they don't have much of a defence.

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Fri May 08, 2020 12:57 am

I think the NDA was just the best excuse Heard's lawyers could come up with to avoid testifying. It's not like she could say that she really didn't want to testify as she would incriminate herself.
The NDA was not written to prevent her testifying in court. As Depp's lawyers said, Depp was not opposing Heard testifying in court. If Heard wanted the NDA altered, she could have applied in California. Instead she tried to stay the case in UK.

We still have the question of whether Heard communicated with the Sun at the time of the "wife-beater" article. If Heard spoke with or gave evidence to the Sun or if she gave evidence to a third-party who passed it to the Sun, then Heard was in violation of the confidentiality agreement. If Heard did not have any communication with the Sun, then why did Wootten not write "alleged", not seek comment from Depp's representatives and file a "truth" defence.

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Fri May 08, 2020 1:40 am

The Sun like every outlet wanted to jump on the bandwagon to destroy Johnny and make him go away.
That's why they didn't include the word *alleged*.
The reason being that all are somehow implicated in this hoax maybe not directly but indirectly.
In The Sun's case, the owner of News Corp's son sits on the board of Tesla.
But interesting question Rumlover, did The Sun corroborate with Heard for the article?

And Heard's running to really low level magazines such play game crazy now.
They name says it all.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3479
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Fri May 08, 2020 3:18 am

JUDYMAC: The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime.

ME: OK, I only know about "taking the fifth" from movies, but there they usually say something like "I decline to answer because it could incriminate myself"
Is that a movie invention?
Because if it isn't I would say that it is sort of admission of guilt. Or what :love: ?

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Fri May 08, 2020 7:56 am

I am sorry I keep on saying this but there is no way Amber wants to testify in the Sun case.

She said she was keen to do her 2016 deposition but did everything to drag her heels. She said she would file a police report yet didn't. Like many narcissists she says things with authority and confidence and many times gets away with it because most people tend to believe authoritative, confident statements.

If she had wanted to testify for the Sun she would have been in London on that Friday. Her plane ticket would have been long since booked (we had loads of notice it was due to be heard 23 March so the people involved definitely did). She would have turned up to court on that Friday in a dramatic - here I am, I am ready - especially as Johnny had already appeared in court. She would also have spent that previous week with the Sun's lawyers - in the UK you are not allowed to do the same amount of witness 'coaching' as you are in the US, but they would have met, ensured the Sun's barrister had the right questions to ask her etc. For something so important surely you would want to be well rested and ready.

Isn't it remarkable the lengths her side is going to just to avoid being questioned. It seems to me, Johnny has easily been able to gather people together to make witness statements. There is simply no explanation for iO and Raquel, along with Amanda de Cadet and whoever else claims to have relevant testimony -not to have already made witness statements for the VA case unless there is something to hide. Take for example the present and former employees of JD or Samantha McMillen. No need to speak to the press - sit down - give your testimony, that gets filed and if the press wants to pick it up they can. So COME ON. If iO were to do the same - all of the media would pick it up and report it.

The fact is - iO was happy to speak to the media where there are no legal consequences but doesn't seem to want to commit to court. Well that is plain crazy if he was telling the truth. So much more powerful and legally proper to say what he has to say through a court process.

I think the Sun (1) desperately needs a dramatic, front page story (2) will claim that they relied on her testimony - whether or not she spoke to them directly. Their defence will be that they believed she was a victim. It won't help but they will have to put up a defence and that's what it will be I guess.

(And please don't forget that article was not just a swipe at Johnny - they were going for JK Rowling - darling of the UK liberal establishment and hated by the right wing press. They could have just written that JD was a 'wife beater' they didn't have to bring her into it. At the time, the UK was deeply mired in Brexit recriminations and JK Rowling was a bit proponent of Remain - so a real target for the right.)

AH"s entire strategy from day one has been to put pressure on Johnny knowing how much he hates publicity. I think her miscalculation was that she took his 'splitting' to thinking he would also run away from this fight. But over the divorce he didn't back down and she got the minimum settlement she was entitled to. And then when she made her speeches etc, he didn't react so she became emboldened. And then she went to far - forgetting that fundamentally he is a person of principle.

I feel that court is the thing she really fears - on that recording of the two of them it was remarkable how her tone completely changed and she became desperate at the point he said 'fine I'll see you in court'.

User avatar
Judymac
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:23 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Judymac » Fri May 08, 2020 10:51 am

meeps wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 3:18 am
JUDYMAC: The reason why I say "might" is that pleading the fifth is not supposed to be taken as an admission of guilt of a crime.

ME: OK, I only know about "taking the fifth" from movies, but there they usually say something like "I decline to answer because it could incriminate myself"
Is that a movie invention?
Because if it isn't I would say that it is sort of admission of guilt. Or what :love: ?
No, it is not a movie invention, it is true. It's hard to explain but I will try. In American criminal law, a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Just because a person takes the fifth does not automatically make them guilty. The judge will actually tell jurors that just because someone refused to testify that it is not an admission of guilt. A judge tells a jury to weigh all of the facts before deciding if a defendant is guilty. It is supposed to be a protection against innocent people being convicted of a crime. I do not know of any innocent person who would take the fifth. I am sure it sounds strange but it is the way American law works.

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3479
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Fri May 08, 2020 3:16 pm

Yes, it does sound complicated, but thanks a billion for explaining :airkiss2:

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Fri May 08, 2020 5:31 pm

Well there may not be too much movement on the lawsuit front.
But there are reports that Heard has been fired from Aquaman.
And this time for real.
We will see.

Heard's flying monkeys are out in full force.
So there might be some truth.

justintime
Posts: 1915
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Fri May 08, 2020 5:36 pm

AdeleAgain wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 7:56 am
§1. I am sorry I keep on saying this but there is no way Amber wants to testify in the Sun case.

§2. She said she was keen to do her 2016 deposition but did everything to drag her heels. She said she would file a police report yet didn't. Like many narcissists she says things with authority and confidence and many times gets away with it because most people tend to believe authoritative, confident statements.

§3. If she had wanted to testify for the Sun she would have been in London on that Friday. Her plane ticket would have been long since booked (we had loads of notice it was due to be heard 23 March so the people involved definitely did). She would have turned up to court on that Friday in a dramatic - here I am, I am ready - especially as Johnny had already appeared in court. She would also have spent that previous week with the Sun's lawyers - in the UK you are not allowed to do the same amount of witness 'coaching' as you are in the US, but they would have met, ensured the Sun's barrister had the right questions to ask her etc. For something so important surely you would want to be well rested and ready

§4. Isn't it remarkable the lengths her side is going to just to avoid being questioned. It seems to me, Johnny has easily been able to gather people together to make witness statements. There is simply no explanation for iO and Raquel, along with Amanda de Cadet and whoever else claims to have relevant testimony -not to have already made witness statements for the VA case unless there is something to hide. Take for example the present and former employees of JD or Samantha McMillen. No need to speak to the press - sit down - give your testimony, that gets filed and if the press wants to pick it up they can. So COME ON. If iO were to do the same - all of the media would pick it up and report it.

§5. The fact is - iO was happy to speak to the media where there are no legal consequences but doesn't seem to want to commit to court. Well that is plain crazy if he was telling the truth. So much more powerful and legally proper to say what he has to say through a court process.

§6. I think the Sun (1) desperately needs a dramatic, front page story (2) will claim that they relied on her testimony - whether or not she spoke to them directly. Their defence will be that they believed she was a victim. It won't help but they will have to put up a defence and that's what it will be I guess.

§7. (And please don't forget that article was not just a swipe at Johnny - they were going for JK Rowling - darling of the UK liberal establishment and hated by the right wing press. They could have just written that JD was a 'wife beater' they didn't have to bring her into it. At the time, the UK was deeply mired in Brexit recriminations and JK Rowling was a bit proponent of Remain - so a real target for the right.)

§8. AH"s entire strategy from day one has been to put pressure on Johnny knowing how much he hates publicity. I think her miscalculation was that she took his 'splitting' to thinking he would also run away from this fight. But over the divorce he didn't back down and she got the minimum settlement she was entitled to. And then when she made her speeches etc, he didn't react so she became emboldened. And then she went to far - forgetting that fundamentally he is a person of principle.

§9.I feel that court is the thing she really fears - on that recording of the two of them it was remarkable how her tone completely changed and she became desperate at the point he said 'fine I'll see you in court'.
Excellent thoughtful, right-on-the-money post, AdeleAgain. Thanks for deftly touching on so many key points.

§1. §2. §3. Agreed. The police report fiasco was the one that, if filed timely, could have buried AH back in 2016, newly available evidence or not. And every :censored: tabloid and moderately respectable media source took Spector’s word that her client filed one and “jumped the gun” with headlines proclaiming same. Headlines they could never recant with the same ferocity once they realized they’d been played. I get chest pains every time I revisit that particular sequence of lies.
She has tried for dismissal of JD’s case against her three (4?) times now. This will be different - it’s not her case. But, as I’ve held before, a plane ticket as well as hotel arrangements would have been bought and paid for long before the (anticipated) shut down made it possible to put on a show of going to all lengths to secure that last flight across the pond IF she truly wanted to make an appearance . . . What a joke she is!

§4.& §5. Yeah, mouthy despicable cowards the lot of them, until they each have to raise their right hand...

§6. Wow. Do you really think the Sun will turn up for this showdown with nothing but a plaintive “We believed she was a victim.” Ha! Geez - A hideous rag that deserves to be ground into dust throwing their case on the pity of the Court for having been betrayed by the very scum they were so stalwartly defending? Of course, the Court would not be faulted for firing back with a resounding, WHY? Why did you believe she was a victim? What research did you do and evidence did you find to drive you to that conclusion without receiving any confirmation from her?? At about that point (if not sooner) I would think the courtroom would be in an uproar of uncontrollable laughter.

§7. Yes - the J.K. Rowling angle. I hadn’t really considered how odd - and risky - it was for the Sun to drag her into the fray until you mentioned it. It was such a low blow. I guess a political swipe of that magnitude was just too irresistible to ignore. Glad Johnny didn’t let it go.

§8 & §9. Agreed. A costly miscalculation on AH’s part - and a lazy one on Kaplan’s part. And a bottomless pit of arrogance and wheel-spinning on both parts. I know the Sun case is not Kaplan’s terrain, but I hope she’s starting to sweat.
"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

MaryS
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 8:16 am
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by MaryS » Fri May 08, 2020 5:56 pm

Justintime,
I think that Kaplan first started sweating when she kept *losing* all the motions she put forward.
And then when she had a good read of the notes on her client Heard which read like Gone Girl.
The Sun trial is just icing on the cake to make Kaplan's worst fears come alive.

And Heard's flying monkeys twitter-ers are out and about so something is going down.