The Lawsuits Thread

[AdeleAgain]

OK a few random thoughts.

Firstly - big films, franchises, cinema etc - absolutely trashed for quite a while. If this legal fall out had to hit anytime (and it is chicken and egg because the delays are all COVID related) - now is the time to be out of action.

I have no doubts JD will get future work - likely on streaming services. The concept worked well for WFTB and Crock of Gold - and I think he would be ideal for a TV series. What do Netflix etc want? Audience share - and he has a huge fan base. All of the studios and streaming services are fully aware of various measures of popularity and they will all know the loyalty of his fan base. So let's not get ourselves into a funk of despair. He has talent, experience, respect and people who will watch him paint a dry wall if necessary.

You are so right Lbock. Everyone thought he had won because he should have done. What right minded person could look at his evidence and deduce that NGN had reached even a 51% possibility that he was guilty. It was simply outrageous. What makes me so angry about WB and forgive me for repeating myself: in 2018 they saw the evidence he had and were satisfied he wasn't guilty. That was even without the tapes. Well two things: one this is a zero sum game - one of them is lying. I said this in 2018 if you believed him you couldn't believe her - so why did they continue with her as Mera? (I think WB expected her to stop talking about it and being difficult.) If the press were doing their job they would have called this out. Two - if you believed him even before you had the compelling evidence, stick with him after it. It really makes me unreasonably cross.

She will behave appallingly between now and forever more. No matter what happens.

He is on the legal path now and there is no way off without throwing in the towel.

Sorry (I've caught up really quickly on all the posts) someone said she didn't actually say on the stand in London she had donated. No that's right and interestingly they didn't ask her. They didn't need to: she said in her witness statement that the entire divorce settlement had been donated to charity, therefore JD's claims on her motives for marriage were false. She was not questioned on this (I think deliberately) and so that statement stands as her truth. The judge can and did use it. But oh dear, oh dear - it wasn't true. I think what Lbock is saying is right - if she had been asked about it she would have thrown out some word salad and avoided answering the question in a straight way. She hasn't had that chance to muddy the waters and revert to her usual "oh no I haven't changed my position" so her words stand. And they are false - that is very serious.

Also and finally. She is loathed. There is simply no support base for her. People either don't know her, think she has lied or remember she is the women who took a dump in Johnny Depp's bed.

[AdeleAgain]

Goodness I apologise in my haste to write down random thoughts I missed the Sausage Roll article and Deadline piece. Have they opposed I wonder?

The Sausage Roll explanation does make sense - did I say his in another ramble yesterday (I must really apologise to you all having to put up with my rants, work is very busy and stressful!) - if it is clear that she committed perjury, NGN are in a very difficult position.

Oh please let this be even vaguely true!!

[ForeverYoung]

"Now that Amber Heard is being accused of perjury she must oppose the emergency hearing with evidence of her own to disprove the allegations. If she fails to do so and the evidence submitted by Johnny Depp sufficiently proves perjury then The Sun must take back all testimonies made by Heard."

Her lawyer Elaine already admitted that Amber didn't donate the money and said it was because of JD filing suit against her but that didn't happen until a year after she got her last installment. Nice try.

[Lbock]

Amber Heard stated in her Witness Statement the entire settlement was donated. When Amber first took the stand she had to attest that those were her witness statements and they were truthful. Also, Wass pointed out to the judge as part of her closing that Amber had donated and included the CHLA donor honor role. If that isn't enough perjury I don't know what is.

Example for each Witness Statement:

Q. I am going to ask you, please, to identify the witness
13 statements that you have made in preparation for this case.
14 Could we start at bundle 2, which is the first of the two blue
15 bundles, thank you. Could you go behind divider 60, please.
16 That should be a document called "Witness statement of
17 Amber Heard".
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At page E1. Could you just go to E39, please, is that your
20 signature and the date of 15th November 2019?
21 A. It is

And then in conclusion:

Thank you very much indeed. Subject to that clarification to
25 your seven witness statements, are you able to confirm that
the contents of those statements is true?
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. WASS: Thank you very much indeed. Would you wait there, you
5 are going to be asked some more questions.
6 MR. JUSTICE NICOL: Yes.

[Lbock]

DENIED!
Another DENIED. Leave the LAPD alone!

[ForeverYoung]

IMO, it wouldn't be a bad idea for NGN to try and settle this case given the fact JD has proof the ex lied about the charity contributions and Wass was no saint either in all of this.

[Granna]

ForeverYoung: That sounds like a good idea. However, I doubt that would ever happen. I am sure that the Sun magazine would not want to admit defeat. I can just imagine their headlines. It would be nice, if the magazine would just throw her under the bus. I seriously doubt that they would do that. It certainly would be a big help though, in the Virginia case. I would think with this events that have happened of late, that she is sweating in her boots.

[nebraska]

Question: In the libel suit isn't the question if the newspaper believed what they printed, even if they found out later that they were mistaken. The trial seemed to concentrate on whether the story was true, not if the paper believed it at the time. Of course, they should have printed a retraction.

[ForeverYoung]

I think it is important to remember all these ups and downs are just a part of being a JD fan. He calls it the roaring rapids but I call it a roller coaster. Buy the ticket, take the ride because it's always going to be like this and we will never abandon him.

[Lbock]

Question: In the libel suit isn't the question if the newspaper believed what they printed, even if they found out later that they were mistaken. The trial seemed to concentrate on whether the story was true, not if the paper believed it at the time. Of course, they should have printed a retraction.

They stood their ground that it was true and their defense was based on a Truth Defense. That is why AH was such an important witness

[Granna]

LBock:

With NGN standing their ground and using the truth defense - now that it is known that she, Amber Heard has lied what can their defense be now? Do you honestly think that NGN would even print a retraction, apology or state something to that effect in their headlines?

[Lbock]

Unless Johnny not only gets permission for his appeal but also wins a new trial, NGN, based in the current judgement, can continue to call him a wife beater. They won and he has to pay them millions.

[Inquiring Minds]

Lbock wrote:

Unless Johnny not only gets permission for his appeal but also wins a new trial, NGN, based in the current judgement, can continue to call him a wife beater. They won and he has to pay them millions.

In conjunction with the two previous posts, I'm not sure it may come to this. If it is agreed that any truth defense is now beyond NGN, it may be that permission for a new trial may be sufficient - and would publicly vindicate Depp (imo).

If the previous trial's verdict can be appealed (and especially if the grounds for the appeal are perjury), then the verdict has been rendered "unsafe". I imagine they could even throw out the verdict, even more damning. In a criminal case, the State would need to build a new case and prosecute anew. I don't know how that applies in civil cases, but I imagine it is up to the plaintiff to sue again.

So assuming the ball is back in the Depp camp, all verdicts and fines would have been put aside and Depp would have to sue again. Without the truth defense and not having suggested anything else at the original trial, I doubt anything else would fly. NGN would have little choice but to settle. With NGN having nowhere to go, settlement could include not just money but an apology, a retraction and maybe even access to some privileged dialogue between NGN and AH (that could be used in VA, although this would be pretty unlikely).

From poking around yesterday I also discovered that NGN have had to settle around 1,000 phone hacking cases - most of which were brought (on behalf of clients) by Sherbourne. I had thought many of the latest claims stem from discovery in the Depp v NGN trial, but I may have got that wrong. They seem to have started before this case, but the Depp case may have contributed (I would like to think so). It could have been a case where the cases intersected and reinforced each other.

It also looks like Depp has a pending phone hacking case against NGN. Have I got this wrong (it's not on my list)?

[Granna]

Yes. JD does have another case against NGN on the phone hacking. This was about his daughter being serious ill, while JD was filming Sweeney Todd.

[ForeverYoung]

Is it possible the UK judge could say that just because she lied about the charity doesn't mean she didn't lie about the abuse and still stand by Nicol's decision? The site Sausage Roll said that if it is determined she committed perjury then her whole testimony gets removed. If that's the case then there would be nothing for Nicol to base his decision on, imo and then there would have to be a new trial. I don't know how the UK works but I believe in the US it is up to the state to investigate and to determine if a perjury happened. I don't know if a judge can say "ok, there is clearly perjury here and so her testimony will get removed."