The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:22 pm

Honestly, I don't think it would have made a difference to Judge Nicol if Amber lied or not about donating the money because he was finding every reason to protect her in one way or another.

My question is if she violated the divorce settlement agreement and if so, what the repurcissions would be.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:17 pm

I have not seen any provision in the divorce settlement that she was required to donate it.

The issue is she leveraged the claim that she donated it as, "it was never about money" she was a victim and wanted to help other victims. Through this she garnered public suport and eventually became an activist. If she lied to the public and didn't donate, then she lied for financial gain, so to speak. Thus, her credibility is blown. If not admissible in court, for sure in the public arena! That is a big reason most believed her. Why would she lie about abuse and give her entire settlement away? She isn't a gold digger then.

Starts Page 230 (Divorce Settlement)
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 1_2019.pdf

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:46 am

The charity donation must have been part of the negotiations, not necessarily included the settlelment agreement. This is not something that would normally be part of a divorce settlement.

"Ms. Heard's evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr. Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memorandum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78). I recognize that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold digger."
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:11 am

It looks like the gloves are off. JD's team is attacking her BS and it's about time.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 3-2020.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
stroch
Posts: 1475
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: New Orleans
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by stroch » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:32 am

ForeverYoung wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:46 am
The charity donation must have been part of the negotiations, not necessarily included the settlelment agreement. This is not something that would normally be part of a divorce settlement.

"Ms. Heard's evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr. Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memorandum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78). I recognize that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold digger."
I thought that Johnny had donated part of the settlement in her name shortly after the divorce and her lawyers accused him of trying to reap tax benefits or something. At the time, I think the consensus here is that he thought she would not follow through, so he was going to pay the charities directly. Do I remember incorrectly?
I'll buy you the hat....a really big one.
St. Roch -- patron saint of pilgrims

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:59 am

stroch wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:32 am
I thought that Johnny had donated part of the settlement in her name shortly after the divorce and her lawyers accused him of trying to reap tax benefits or something. At the time, I think the consensus here is that he thought she would not follow through, so he was going to pay the charities directly. Do I remember incorrectly?
Yes, and her camp admitted the donation was part of the settlement agreement.

https://deadline.com/2016/08/Johnny-dep ... 201809008/
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:18 am

Goodness some of the comments on that article were right on the money. Even in 2016 most people didn't believe or trust her.

justintime
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:09 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:11 am
It looks like the gloves are off. JD's team is attacking her BS and it's about time.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 3-2020.pdf
Thanks for that Link, Ladies - Lbock (yesterday) and ForeverYoung (today). Such a good read! Yes, I agree, it is certainly about time. And finally getting hit recently with the reality of sanctions must have also been a shocker. There is no more time to indulge the obvious ”What To Do When You Have No Case? Bury Him In Paperwork!” playbook AH’s one-note legal team is trying to follow. Try getting on your client’s case to stop fabricating diversions and to start complying with the myriad substantive motions to compel SHE has been evading for literally years now.

ForeverYoung wrote:
.....her camp admitted the donation was part of the settlement agreement.

https://deadline.com/2016/08/Johnny-dep ... 201809008/
Thanks for that one, too!
"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

justintime
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:52 pm

Just to solidify what we already know:



If this isn’t a dealbreaker as far as taking a guess where Justce Nicol’s allegiance might rest and, um, when he really made his decision, well let’s be honest... might as well ask: Just how random was his getting this case assignment to begin with???

What an excruciating, worldwide embarrassment to the legacy of the “revered” High Court of London.


Thank you, TruthSeekerUK @TruthSeekerUK5.
"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

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Online

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:13 pm

TruthSeeker wrote:
Just how random was his getting this case assignment to begin with???
This is a great question. Hypothetically, how would they have ensured their tame judge was assigned to the case?

Of course, the other side of the coin is that Murdoch wouldn't have to manipulate the judge selection if he owned every horse in the race.....

justintime
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:58 pm

Inquiring Minds wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:13 pm
TruthSeeker wrote:
Just how random was his getting this case assignment to begin with???
This is a great question. Hypothetically, how would they have ensured their tame judge was assigned to the case?

Of course, the other side of the coin is that Murdoch wouldn't have to manipulate the judge selection if he owned every horse in the race.....
Oops - don’t burden TruthSeeker with that one. It was my paranoia, Inquiring Minds :blush:

Maybe Murdoch was hands off in the judge selection. Nicol may have reeled in that assignment on his own - looming retirement and all, just a whisper in a few ears here and there - enticingly high profile, deceptively straight forward, and nice homage to his pro-freedom-of-the-press legacy. All tied up in a pretty box with the hated JD photoshopped on top.

As the complexity of the case began to emerge, the likelihood JD was indeed innocent became annoyingly obvious, and all the conveniently never mentioned or casually dismissed connections started being noticed - big time. Just social media to start with, but Nicol had seriously misjudged JD’s place in this world - and his evidence. Never in a million years would the arrogant, biased Justice Nicol have anticipated the worldwide furor his tidy Decision would evoke. And now there is truly nowhere for all these shady players to hide.

Ha! I doubt if the slimy Murdoch would give any of those snooty low-life’s the time of day at this point ...
"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

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Online

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Thanks for the thoughts justintime.

I tend to agree with you on all points and how he was selected is of far less relevance to the outcome/verdict itself.

I remember reading somewhere that he always expected this one to go to appeal anyway, so I expect he thought it could be a landmark case and a good way to finish his career. He went to great lengths to explain his reasoning, probably because he thought it was perfect and would be discussed and debated not just in a higher court, but also for years to come. Lawyers would debate nuances of meaning in his wise and sage legal interpretation.

Instead he will look like a gullible old fool. He kicked over an ants' nest and the whole case is being microscopically and publicly examined. If I were him, I would be thinking I had been set up. Wass and Robinson did a number on him imo. And Wass did it in open court with her "don't check the donations" thing. No telling what was going on behind the scenes. He may even be thinking about and mulling over what Camilla has whispered in his ear in the past. Was she part of the girl-gang and did she play an active part?

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:23 am

Murdoch seems to be on a mission but everyone sees right through his antics.

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Uers938f8dLP
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:08 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Uers938f8dLP » Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:10 am

Johnny Depp Fired!?! BIG MISTAKE Disney and Warner Bros. Due FULL Salary. Thousands want him Back!


User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:38 am

Please delete this if this is not the right forum for it, but here's a petition to have Rupert Murdoch's media empire looked into for a change.