Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[beanman12345]

Yes it's moot regardless if it's overturned.
I don't speak from a legal pov on the matter. I'm talking from a common sense pov.

If a ruling is made on lies it's worth nothing. Ruling doesn't and shouldn't tell anyone want to think. The evidence should dictate that.

Okay but not everyone knows that that was what the ruling is based off of, I don't even know that, just taking your word here. Also not everyone is even really paying attention to this whole trial, so may not even be aware that she lied, I am, but not everyone else is.

[Jotaux]

Okay but not everyone knows that that was what the ruling is based off of, I don't even know that, just taking your word here. Also not everyone is even really paying attention to this whole trial, so may not even be aware that she lied, I am, but not everyone else is.

The judge cited the donation in his ruling as to why he finds heard credible. You knowing that or not doesn’t matter, the uk ruling isn’t evidence of anything.

[Daymanmb]

The ruling in the UK weighed heavily on the fact Amber had no motive since she said she donated her money from the divorce.

Which turned out to be a lie. So the entire UK ruling is moot.

Depp’s lawyer Andrew Caldecott attempted to appeal the verdict after the team learned of the truncated payments to the ACLU. Caldecott argued that the alleged lie sent “a potentially subliminal message” to the judge who decided the case, and “strengthened Heard’s credit in an exceptional way.” Caldecott added that it was a “calculated and manipulative lie, designed to achieve a potent favourable impression from the outset.”

The judges hearing the appeal wrote, “We do not accept that there is any ground for believing that the judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as Mr Caldecott relies on. In the first place, he does not refer to her charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022...fficulties/amp

Not even mentioning that it becomes difficult to make payments to charity when you have to pay for legal representation with the cloud of a $50 million suit hanging over your head.

[Veggie50]

Depp’s lawyer Andrew Caldecott attempted to appeal the verdict after the team learned of the truncated payments to the ACLU. Caldecott argued that the alleged lie sent “a potentially subliminal message” to the judge who decided the case, and “strengthened Heard’s credit in an exceptional way.” Caldecott added that it was a “calculated and manipulative lie, designed to achieve a potent favourable impression from the outset.”

The judges hearing the appeal wrote, “We do not accept that there is any ground for believing that the judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as Mr Caldecott relies on. In the first place, he does not refer to her charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022...fficulties/amp

Not even mentioning that it becomes difficult to make payments to charity when you have to pay for legal representation with the cloud of a $50 million suit hanging over your head.

You realise the UK suit came 16 months after she got the ENTIRE settlemeny, right?

So… “yea, of course I’ll donate it. I just don’t know if someone in an indeterminate amount of time is going to sue me.”

That means you can’t donate. Ever.

[Daymanmb]

You realise the UK suit came 16 months after she got the ENTIRE settlemeny, right?

So… “yea, of course I’ll donate it. I just don’t know if someone in an indeterminate amount of time is going to sue me.”

That means you can’t donate. Ever.

And she made payments until late 2018, ran into finacial problems according to the ACLU, then was sued in early 2019.

Still has nothing to do with the UK trial.

[Kumorii]

Depp’s lawyer Andrew Caldecott attempted to appeal the verdict after the team learned of the truncated payments to the ACLU. Caldecott argued that the alleged lie sent “a potentially subliminal message” to the judge who decided the case, and “strengthened Heard’s credit in an exceptional way.” Caldecott added that it was a “calculated and manipulative lie, designed to achieve a potent favourable impression from the outset.”

The judges hearing the appeal wrote, “We do not accept that there is any ground for believing that the judge may have been influenced by any such general perception as Mr Caldecott relies on. In the first place, he does not refer to her charitable donation at all in the context of his central findings.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022...fficulties/amp

Not even mentioning that it becomes difficult to make payments to charity when you have to pay for legal representation with the cloud of a $50 million suit hanging over your head.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54779430

Mr Justice Nicol said that "a recurring theme in Mr Depp's evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an 'insurance policy'," and that Ms Heard was a "gold-digger".

But he added: "I do not accept this characterisation of Ms Heard."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-charity.html

"4. As for what Johnny says about my so-called "agenda" in marrying him - for financial benefit or to somehow further my career - that is preposterous. I remained financially independent from him the whole time we were together and the entire divorce settlement WAS DONATED to charity. In fact, my desire to remain financially independent was one of the main sources of conflict during our relationship"

Her testimony relied on her being righteous. And you are doing what Heard is doing by saying "well she would paid if she wasn't sued". As Veggie50 said, she had plenty of time to donate the money she already claimed she HAD DONATED the entire amount. Donated means the payment is done, you are doing the same thing where you use pledge and donation as synonyms. Which works in casual talk, but not when you doing testimonies.
Donated = They have received your money, which she claimed she had done the entire amount.
Pledge = They get payments over time, which can be determined to be over a long time and can even be halted for a while.

If you pledge a donation, you can still benefit from all that money through investments and the like. Your entire motive crumbles.
Thinking her character doesn't play a role in the verdict is naïve. In these civil cases, character is a big one.

Granted, he doesn't explicitly say it in his CENTRAL FINDINGS according to them, which to me still means he used it. (Funnily enough the appeal quotes doesn't mention it either, yet they bring it up nor do they mention the fame and attention she got). Then it's up to you if you think lying by saying you had already donated the entire sum of the money says little or a lot about your character and motive.

[Magical Mudcrab]

And she made payments until late 2018, ran into finacial problems according to the ACLU, then was sued in early 2019.

No, she did not make continuous payments until 2018. The overwhelming majority of payments made to the ACLU were not from her. Of the payments that are known:

* ACLU (Rolling Stone)
- 100,000 came from Depp's accountant.
- 500,000 came from Elon Musk.
- 350,000 came from an anonymous donator on Heard's behalf, also believed to be Musk.
- 350,000 is assumed to come from Heard.

To date, the ACLU has credited Heard with donating $1.3 million, though most of that appears to have been made by Musk and $100,000 came via Depp, testimony showed. In their June 2017 email exchange, Romero wrote to Heard, referring to a philanthropic fund used by anonymous wealthy donors: “We did get a $500,000 check from Vanguard Charitable on 6/9. If this is your gift, I’m guessing you want me to apply that amount to the overall pledge.” Heard responded: “Yes! Sorry! Was not meant to go through vanguard. … I’m back in L.A. to see E and he said he had a great talk with you.” For his part, Dougherty testified that the $500,000 came from Musk’s account, and that an additional $350,000 made anonymously on Heard’s behalf in 2018 also likely was made by the Tesla billionaire. He added that no payments have been made by the actress or on her behalf since.

- Link

* Children's hospital (Deposition)
- 100,000 came from Depp's accountant.
- 250,000 came from Fidelity Charity, from Heard.

Heard has paid a grand total of 600,000, with an additional 200,000 being paid by Depp from the 7,000,000 amount. Heards payments were (assumingly, given testimony) paid in lump sums. She did not make "payments" she made a payment, to each, totaling around 11% of her pledge overall (incl. the amount paid by Depp). Moreover, she had the 7 million for over a year before Depp announced he was suing her for defamation, in which time she opted to not pay what she had pledged. The idea that she "ran into [financial] problems" as being a valid excuse when she outright said the 7 million was only for the charities is stupid. This isn't even considering the fact that she had testified as having donated the full amount, which was a lie.

[Jotaux]

Not even mentioning that it becomes difficult to make payments to charity when you have to pay for legal representation with the cloud of a $50 million suit hanging over your head.

It's almost like they addressed this in the current trial... She had the full amount 13 months before any lawsuit came through.

[Veggie50]

It's almost like they addressed this in the current trial... She had the full amount 13 months before any lawsuit came through.

16 months even ^^

[Daymanmb]

And none of this had a significant bearing on the UK trial. Which is the point.

Unless the conspiracy theory is now that the UK court and subsequent appellant court are both biased...

[Jotaux]

And none of this had a significant bearing on the UK trial. Which is the point.

Unless the conspiracy theory is now that the UK court and subsequent appellant court are both biased...

It’s only cited in the actual judgement as why the judge finds her credible…

[Mayhem]

And she made payments until late 2018, ran into finacial problems according to the ACLU, then was sued in early 2019.

Still has nothing to do with the UK trial.

So it was not because she is being sued that kept her from donating it was her wasting millions she didn't have?

[Daymanmb]

It’s only cited in the actual judgement as why the judge finds her credible…

Thats not true at all. The appellant court disagrees with you.

- - - Updated - - -

So it was not because she is being sued that kept her from donating it was her wasting millions she didn't have?

Wait, do you think she did all of this for money?

[Magical Mudcrab]

Thats not true at all. The appellant court disagrees with you.

Except it was...

A recurring theme in Mr Depp’s evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an ‘insurance policy’ – presumably in the event that the marriage broke down. Mr Sherborne commented in his closing submissions that Ms Heard had said that she recorded some of her conversations with Mr Depp to show him what he was capable of doing when the Monster prevailed and yet many of these were never played to or shown to Mr Depp. She was, according to this scenario, nothing more than a gold-digger. I have in the course of this judgment given reasons why I do not accept this characterisation of Ms Heard. ... I had evidence as to what Ms Heard had received as a result of the divorce settlement. I have explained that there was no expert evidence to compare those figures with what she would otherwise have been entitled to under Californian divorce law. The principal element of that settlement was payment to her by Mr Depp of US $ 7 million. 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 recognise 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.

- Link

Not only that, let's take a look at what the court said on the appeal:

They concluded that “the appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.”

...

Lawyers for Depp argued at a court hearing last week that Depp hadn’t received a fair hearing and that Heard was an unreliable witness. As evidence of her unreliability, they claimed that Heard hadn’t kept her promise to donate her $7 million divorce settlement to charity.

The appeals judges said it was “pure speculation, and in our view very unlikely” that the fate of the divorce money influenced judge Nicol’s decision.

“It is clear from a reading of the judgment as a whole that the judge based his conclusions on each of the incidents on his extremely detailed review of the evidence specific to each incident,” they said.

“In an approach of that kind there was little need or room for the judge to give weight to any general assessment of Ms. Heard’s credibility.”

- Link

So, you have now argued that Judge Nicol didn't cite the $7 million and that the appellant court also said the Judge didn't do so. But what we find, when looking at sources, is that the Judge did cite it in their ruling and the appellant court did say that it was cited in the judgement, although stating that it wasn't reason enough for the case to be appealed. The fact that you're willing to lie about something so minor really gets the noggin joggin' about what else you've lied about.

[Mayhem]

Wait, do you think she did all of this for money?

Let's just say it doesn't look good if you announce on TV and in interviews that you donated $7 mio to the prevention of violence and a children's hospital and then just keep it.

[Daymanmb]

Let's just say it doesn't look good if you announce on TV and in interviews that you donated $7 mio to the prevention of violence and a children's hospital and then just keep it.

So why didnt she take what she was entitled to? It was a lot more than 7 million..

- - - Updated - - -

Except it was...


- Link

Not only that, let's take a look at what the court said on the appeal:


- Link

So, you have now argued that Judge Nicol didn't cite the $7 million and that the appellant court also said the Judge didn't do so. But what we find, when looking at sources, is that the Judge did cite it in their ruling and the appellant court did say that it was cited in the judgement, although stating that it wasn't reason enough for the case to be appealed. The fact that you're willing to lie about something so minor really gets the noggin joggin' about what else you've lied about.

Lie? Chill.. Being mistaken isnt the same as lying lol. Thanks for proving me wrong, but chill with the accusations.

The fact remains that the appellant court did not believe the charity donation was central to the ruling, despite my misunderstanding.

[Jotaux]

Lie? Chill.. Being mistaken isnt the same as lying lol. Thanks for proving me wrong, but chill with the accusations.

The fact remains that the appellant court did not believe the charity donation was central to the ruling, despite my misunderstanding.

Amber heard, that you?

[Orange Joe]

So why didnt she take what she was entitled to? It was a lot more than 7 million..

- - - Updated - - -



Lie? Chill.. Being mistaken isnt the same as lying lol. Thanks for proving me wrong, but chill with the accusations.

The fact remains that the appellant court did not believe the charity donation was central to the ruling, despite my misunderstanding.

Is this you saying courts are never wrong?

[Magical Mudcrab]

Lie? Chill.. Being mistaken isnt the same as lying lol. Thanks for proving me wrong, but chill with the accusations.

The fact remains that the appellant court did not believe the charity donation was central to the ruling, despite my misunderstanding.

If it's genuinely a mistake, then saying you're lying would be too far. That said, consider this context: you historically have a strong bias towards one of the sides (Heard or anti-Depp) and made a claim (that neither the judge nor appellant court stated that the "donation" [pledge, in reality] was part of the decision), and then double down on this claim when @Kumorii links articles to the contrary (which I then expand on). In this context, people are obviously going to assume that there's a bad faith argument being made.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this you saying courts are never wrong?

To play Devil's Advocate, it's not that the courts can never be wrong, but is the case that if the courts are wrong then a compelling case needs to be made to demonstrate that. In the case with the U.K. appeal, the fact that Heard has only donated (i.e.: paid, because we learned in the trial that clarity may be needed for this word) an incredibly small percentage of the total amount pledged was not found to be sufficient to appeal the case. While people can disagree with the court's decision or believe the fact that Heard lied about the donations could swing the decision in Depp's favor, the fact is that this was a single component of a much larger case and more evidence would need to be presented to the U.K. appellant courts before they will allow the decision to be appealed.

[Mayhem]

So why didnt she take what she was entitled to? It was a lot more than 7 million..

Ask her, I can only tell you that she obviously doesn't care about prevention of violence and children.