Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[MCMLXXXII]

Tell me you know nothing about civil trials without saying you know nothing about civil trials.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Ok, one more time then!

Ok

1) you keep talking about this being a criminal case not a defamation one. The case actually fits both defamation and fraud, but the statute of limitations is up for the fraud part, so that’s irrelevant. Also, any possible criminal proceedings are out or JD’s hands, defamation is a civil case though, so an avenue he can take.

No it does not. Criminal and Civil Charges are not the same thing and they aren't interchangeable, If Amber Heard was guilty of committing fraud that's a complaint Depp would have to go the police for to investigate and a District Attorney would decide based on evidence and Merits of the case "ideally".

The same is True for if Johnny Depp was guilty of domestic Violence (FULL STOP). This needs to be boldened and because without that process, Johnny Depp has never committed domestic violence PERIOD.

Now people are free to make whatever opinions they like, and Amber is free to give whatever perspective she has for that, Just as Johnny is free to do the same thing.

And Disney is free to make whatever associations they like that is in line with whatever image thy like or dislike when it comes to their business. Whether it's Johnny Depp being mentioned in a "Op-Ed" or Amber Heard only ever being a horrible Actor and people signing petitions to Axe her from a film.

The Difference is Johnny Depp used the courts as though it's an official Arena to substantiate his claims they aren't and shouldn't be in a defamation case.

2) the case fits defamation (by virginia law) if:
- The maker of the statement knows it is false (or displays a reckless disregard for the truth
- The maker of the statement stands to gain from the statement
- The subject of the statement is named or implied
- the subject was harmed (financially or otherwise)

Wrong it doesn't matter if the statements were false Slander nor Libel require it, only that only that the statements weren't true. And yes I understand that might confuse you but just because something hasn't been established as Truth, doesn't mean they are false.

It's why we should believe all Victims including Johnny Depp, just because he may or may not have enough evidence to PROVE he was a victim of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it might just mean there isn't enough to in the eye's of a criminal court prove that.

Where that is relevant is that had Johnny Depp wrote an Op-Ed but didn't mentioned Amber Heard the same elements would apply. It's his perspective, and unless he named her specifically, and went on to make claims not validated by an official authority Criminal Court that directly leads to damage to Amber Heard person he wouldn't be guilty of defamation eiher.

The Washington Post (Op-Ed) is NOT an official Authority of Anything! Neither is a Civil Court for Defamation. Which is why statements can't be verified as true because claims if a person finds there are any are of CRIMINAL conduct. Not Uncivil behavior.

3) If defamation has been proven to have occurred, the Jury decides how much money is awarded as compensation, and how much money has to be paid as punitive (the fuck you, don’t do it again amount). The amount voth parties sue for is largely irrelevant, it’s upto try the jury. The 50 million Depp sued for, and the 100m Heard sued for, are damages they allege and get a chance to proof.

4) punitive damages in virginia are capped at 350k. The jury put 5 million punitive on Heard, but the judge slashed that down to 350k.

I get it, nothing here to argue about, I was wrong about the amounts of who sued for what, I am fully aware the awards were knocked down, I was ignorant to exactly the amounts in the end.

I don't think either should have been awarded anything and any of the figures I have heard are fucking ridiculous. This was petty bullshit.

So, why was the case about wether or not Heard was abused? Due to the first requirement of defamation: did Heard know the statement was false? First they needed to show that she wasn’t abused, second that she knowingly lied about it. An incredibly high bar, but they cleared it, largely due to Heards own testimony.

Second was the question: Did Heard gain from it? The court decided the timing of the Op-ed (right before aquaman release) indeed shows it was for personal gain, as she needed to catch the spotlight.

I don't know this doesn't seem any more established than any other opinions or accusations of anyone in this case. Even though I personally agree and believe this entitled yes LIAR Amber Heard was starved for attention and up to no good.

I personally don't find her Op-Ed funny or compelling at least not in the way she likely intended it. I also think no mentioning Depp while likely implying in every other way clearly who she was talking was cute.

If the Jury found based on that alone and that is all that was introduced and argued in this trial, I would Support this verdict.


I don't because of the circus this became and the shenanigan's that played out in the media because this, that only served to make people more ignorant and stupid about the law.

This could have been educational and and actually meaningful, but that would have been a lot more boring and likely less financially rewarding for all the clowns involved.

Third question was: since JD wasn’t named, was it clear the Op-ed was about him. Though Heards team initially denied it (easy way to get away with defamation) Heard admitted it was about him. Aside from her admitting it, the implications were very clear, the court decided.

I don't know how clear the court was on how it decided, because the court was never clear as to what the case was about evident by the scope of what nonsense was allowed to be introduced or argued in the first place.

I will certainly agree they could have found that the Op-Ed was clearly about JD even without Amber Heard admitting it which would have been stupid if she didn't. That doesn't however lend that any of what she said was True or that it caused any damages Johnny Depp Claimed.

Maybe if I heard more about that and MAYBE I missed it, but I don't remember any Disney Executive or anyone else equally as brave to admit that YES that in part might have had a huge impact on them NOT hiring JD again.

However, while that would be their civil right do to their business model. I think it would have been also bad by that same line to admit that was the sole reason.

Either way if the first burden was believed by the Jury, then complain detailing this kind of damage is reasonable too.

Again the problem isn't where jury arrived as they sometimes do, but how.

Fourth question: was JD (financially) harmed by Heards op-ed? This is moet up for debate, because indeed his career was slowing down since before the op-ed. Heards team extensively debated this. Due to the nature of hollywood contracts (often nothings put to paper until the filmingg actually starts) it’s hard to prove much. Outside experts gave such testimony that the jury decided to award Depp 10 million in compensation though. How they got to that number, nobody knows.

This is how these cases work. You may not like it, but this is it.

Was it a spectacle?
Yes it definitely was. Celebrity mudslinging at the highest level.

Did Depp have an alternative?
Other than swallow false accusations and allowing his name to be dragged through the mud, no.

I separated this last point because it's the most compelling part of what you said here, and where I will admit I stand corrected on part of my views of this trial, and what I missed.

I want to leave with this too, I don't hate JD, I enjoy most of his work and despite Amber Heard's bullshit, I went on enjoying his work provided I like the material he is in.

The point is I don't LIKE either of them though and not because of their personal failings as human being. I don't know how well anybody does with their entire lives being examined by a bunch of self righteous boobs and finger pointers of all backgrounds.


But both of their behaviors have been pathetic and sadly everyone involved dragged into the BS, meaning people who honestly should know better, which he exception of the lawyers because hey that's what they do. Everybody hates lawyers until they need one.


I am not OK with this entire spectacle, However YOU have convinced me that Johnny Depp honestly may have had NO other choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure he has only read about the trial and most likely from dubious sources that misrepresent what actually happened during the trial.
Think his bias is with wherever he gets his info from.

What bias, you mean Shit on Pillogate on whatever the fuck "AmberTurdgate" Yeah, I didn't get the skinny on every failing of these two individuals irrelevant to the case.

[Kumorii]

What bias, you mean Shit on Pillogate on whatever the fuck "AmberTurdgate" Yeah, I didn't get the skinny on every failing of these two individuals irrelevant to the case.

Why are you talking like that's what this is about? I have never been part of pillogate. Didn't even know it existed until you mentioned it.

Fyi, I don't condone any action towards any of the parties involved and that include towards Depp 6 years back. I myself have only called Heard a liar in this thread because that's proven and speculated around some disorders as of why someone can lie about a sentence they just said.

You talk as if everyone talking about this case is on the shit on amber train .. that's your bias.

I have never cared about the individuals involved except just basic empathy for someone that has been wronged.
This is all about, hopefully, a societal change... Where people don't jump the gun over fucking nothing. Believe victims but verify is a good adage.

Sucks that I keep seeing articles saying we should still believe Amber because she's a woman. Means media haven't changed... But hopefully people in general stop attacking people for something they have no clue about.

[Rennadrel]

It's a lack of bias, nobody intelligent is cheering this bullshit, nor are they unclear what this means.

The Other Narrative is a Man Near 60 witch Millions, bodyguards and fame is the victim of an article that didn't mention him, he wasn't, whether she was a victim is completely irrelevant to this case.

Insulting other people's intelligence while spouting off bullshit that is factually wrong in every single sense isn't doing you any favours nor is it winning you any arguments. Quit while you are ahead.

[Veggie50]

Ok



No it does not. Criminal and Civil Charges are not the same thing and they aren't interchangeable, If Amber Heard was guilty of committing fraud that's a complaint Depp would have to go the police for to investigate and a District Attorney would decide based on evidence and Merits of the case "ideally".

The same is True for if Johnny Depp was guilty of domestic Violence (FULL STOP). This needs to be boldened and because without that process, Johnny Depp has never committed domestic violence PERIOD.

Now people are free to make whatever opinions they like, and Amber is free to give whatever perspective she has for that, Just as Johnny is free to do the same thing.

And Disney is free to make whatever associations they like that is in line with whatever image thy like or dislike when it comes to their business. Whether it's Johnny Depp being mentioned in a "Op-Ed" or Amber Heard only ever being a horrible Actor and people signing petitions to Axe her from a film.

The Difference is Johnny Depp used the courts as though it's an official Arena to substantiate his claims they aren't and shouldn't be in a defamation case.



Wrong it doesn't matter if the statements were false Slander nor Libel require it, only that only that the statements weren't true. And yes I understand that might confuse you but just because something hasn't been established as Truth, doesn't mean they are false.

It's why we should believe all Victims including Johnny Depp, just because he may or may not have enough evidence to PROVE he was a victim of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it might just mean there isn't enough to in the eye's of a criminal court prove that.

Where that is relevant is that had Johnny Depp wrote an Op-Ed but didn't mentioned Amber Heard the same elements would apply. It's his perspective, and unless he named her specifically, and went on to make claims not validated by an official authority Criminal Court that directly leads to damage to Amber Heard person he wouldn't be guilty of defamation eiher.

The Washington Post (Op-Ed) is NOT an official Authority of Anything! Neither is a Civil Court for Defamation. Which is why statements can't be verified as true because claims if a person finds there are any are of CRIMINAL conduct. Not Uncivil behavior.





I get it, nothing here to argue about, I was wrong about the amounts of who sued for what, I am fully aware the awards were knocked down, I was ignorant to exactly the amounts in the end.

I don't think either should have been awarded anything and any of the figures I have heard are fucking ridiculous. This was petty bullshit.






I don't know this doesn't seem any more established than any other opinions or accusations of anyone in this case. Even though I personally agree and believe this entitled yes LIAR Amber Heard was starved for attention and up to no good.

I personally don't find her Op-Ed funny or compelling at least not in the way she likely intended it. I also think no mentioning Depp while likely implying in every other way clearly who she was talking was cute.

If the Jury found based on that alone and that is all that was introduced and argued in this trial, I would Support this verdict.


I don't because of the circus this became and the shenanigan's that played out in the media because this, that only served to make people more ignorant and stupid about the law.

This could have been educational and and actually meaningful, but that would have been a lot more boring and likely less financially rewarding for all the clowns involved.





I don't know how clear the court was on how it decided, because the court was never clear as to what the case was about evident by the scope of what nonsense was allowed to be introduced or argued in the first place.

I will certainly agree they could have found that the Op-Ed was clearly about JD even without Amber Heard admitting it which would have been stupid if she didn't. That doesn't however lend that any of what she said was True or that it caused any damages Johnny Depp Claimed.

Maybe if I heard more about that and MAYBE I missed it, but I don't remember any Disney Executive or anyone else equally as brave to admit that YES that in part might have had a huge impact on them NOT hiring JD again.

However, while that would be their civil right do to their business model. I think it would have been also bad by that same line to admit that was the sole reason.

Either way if the first burden was believed by the Jury, then complain detailing this kind of damage is reasonable too.

Again the problem isn't where jury arrived as they sometimes do, but how.




I separated this last point because it's the most compelling part of what you said here, and where I will admit I stand corrected on part of my views of this trial, and what I missed.

I want to leave with this too, I don't hate JD, I enjoy most of his work and despite Amber Heard's bullshit, I went on enjoying his work provided I like the material he is in.

The point is I don't LIKE either of them though and not because of their personal failings as human being. I don't know how well anybody does with their entire lives being examined by a bunch of self righteous boobs and finger pointers of all backgrounds.


But both of their behaviors have been pathetic and sadly everyone involved dragged into the BS, meaning people who honestly should know better, which he exception of the lawyers because hey that's what they do. Everybody hates lawyers until they need one.


I am not OK with this entire spectacle, However YOU have convinced me that Johnny Depp honestly may have had NO other choice.

- - - Updated - - -



What bias, you mean Shit on Pillogate on whatever the fuck "AmberTurdgate" Yeah, I didn't get the skinny on every failing of these two individuals irrelevant to the case.

There we get to the heart of the problem, you don’t understand the legal definition of defamation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

This should help you!

Also…

The Difference is Johnny Depp used the courts as though it's an official Arena to substantiate his claims they aren't and shouldn't be in a defamation case.

That’s by definition what the courts are for…

[Kumorii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCiQnJf4hoM&t=4755s


This is why people are angry with amber.
This why people are angry at media who try to spin this in a way that they are essentially telling victims to shut up.

Or at least I am... but I feel and hope that more are in this camp.

[Milchshake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCiQnJf4hoM&t=4755s

Amazing coincidence, that most of the YouTube-Reaction-Video-Lawyers also moonlight as "The election was stolen from Trump" guys. They are really mad at queer folk and feminists for our "lies"...



Surprised/unspsurprised that so many people keep falling for this Reactionary bullshit. Sucks to see a whole generation so irony-poisoned.

[Kumorii]

Amazing coincidence, that most of the YouTube-Reaction-Video-Lawyers also moonlight as "The election was stolen from Trump" guys. They are really mad at queer folk and feminists for our "lies"...

Surprised/unspsurprised that so many people keep falling for this Reactionary bullshit. Sucks to see a whole generation so irony-poisoned.

You are right, we should tell victims to shut up. Don't come forward. Stay silent and live with your abuser. Good message. Completely opposite of how reality has proven to work. Which is SPEAK UP. People will believe you.

He has a retarded opinion about something unrelated, Cool. What the other guy, and what he said later on in the video is a good message for victims. You know, completely opposite to Elaine. I guess if Elaine have the right views on homosexuality that means she have the right to tell victims to shut up? Sickening to be fair.

Good to know where you stand, and it's not with morality or ethics.

[Milchshake]

You are right, we should tell victims to shut up. Don't come forward. Stay silent and live with your abuser. Good message. Completely opposite of how reality has proven to work. Which is SPEAK UP. People will believe you.

He has a retarded opinion about something unrelated, Cool. What the other guy, and what he said later on in the video is a good message for victims. You know, completely opposite to Elaine. I guess if Elaine have the right views on homosexuality that means she have the right to tell victims to shut up? Sickening to be fair.

Good to know where you stand, and it's not with morality or ethics.

Sorry you got caught pushing You Tuber guys with reactionary agendas.

[Jotaux]

Before the trial most people on Law tube thought Heard was going to win this case. I think only Legalbytes thought he had a chance. By the end of the trial I don't think anyone still thought Depp would lose.

[Kumorii]

Before the trial most people on Law tube thought Heard was going to win this case. I think only Legalbytes thought he had a chance. By the end of the trial I don't think anyone still thought Depp would lose.

Most of the world tbh. Think most thought it was done after the UK trial...

[Endus]

Before the trial most people on Law tube thought Heard was going to win this case. I think only Legalbytes thought he had a chance. By the end of the trial I don't think anyone still thought Depp would lose.

Like I think I said pretty early on, there really wasn't an evidentiary path that would lead Depp to win on what he could present. It was Heard's trial to lose, and she did so, between her inconsistent testimony, apparent perjury, and referencing witnesses like Kate Moss who would then categorically refute her claims. It all made it that much more difficult to believe anything else she testified to, and that was essentially her entire defense; her own testimony.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There we get to the heart of the problem, you don’t understand the legal definition of defamation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

This should help you!

Also…

That’s by definition what the courts are for…

No courts are not there to assign guilt outside their purview.

This was not a defamation case as much as it was a desperate attempt to do exactly what Johnny’s complaints were about.

And you and others go along with it because you made up your mind before watching any trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the world tbh. Think most thought it was done after the UK trial...

Yes that’s because of the theater allowed to take place.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I think I said pretty early on, there really wasn't an evidentiary path that would lead Depp to win on what he could present. It was Heard's trial to lose, and she did so, between her inconsistent testimony, apparent perjury, and referencing witnesses like Kate Moss who would then categorically refute her claims. It all made it that much more difficult to believe anything else she testified to, and that was essentially her entire defense; her own testimony.

Bullshit this came down to the merits of the law now shit on pillows or how good the attorneys were.

[Endus]

Bullshit this came down to the merits of the law now shit on pillows or how good the attorneys were.

And on the merits of the law, Amber Heard ruined her own defense, and that led to her being found liable, appropriately.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And on the merits of the law, Amber Heard ruined her own defense, and that led to her being found liable, appropriately.

Because the judge allowed testimony not relevant to the complaint.

[xmirrors]

Someone definitely didn't watch the trial, or even bother to look up the facts presented...

[unfilteredJW]

Someone definitely didn't watch the trial, or even bother to look up the facts presented...

This is Mallcop's M.O.

[Calfredd]

Sorry you got caught pushing You Tuber guys with reactionary agendas.

Or in other words; If you're a man, of course you'd be against the woman and if you're a woman? Obviously a sex traitor.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I already explained, the Judge dismissed Depp because the Judge believed he was using a DARVO defense. Thats all there is to it. You says hes corrupt because you dont agree with him..

Technically, there are some places where there were possible conflicts of interest. Heard was acquaintances with judge Nicol's wife and the lawyers presenting her case had a longstanding relationship with both judge Nicol and his wife. This included the judge having worked for and publishing books with Geoffry Robertson, the head of the chamber which the lawyers were from, and one of the aforementioned lawyers presenting Heard's case was being mentored by Robertson.

An even more tenuous link is that judge Nicol's son works for a subsidiary company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Sun. Although, quite frankly, I don't know why Murdoch, who has a net worth around $19bn, would really care about this case, or what possible reason could be conceived to try and justify him putting pressure of the son of a judge to skew a verdict that didn't really affect him.

All that said, there's a difference between saying the judge should have probably made a disclosure and thinking that there's necessarily corruption involved. The judge should have obviously disclosed his relation to the chamber and those presenting Heard's case, but if there was any actual corruption then Depp's lawyers would have probably explored that avenue already.

[Doctor Amadeus]

What testimony, exactly?

Any of it outside the scope of the of whether or not the Op-Ed clearly identified Depp and if the statements did damage, not whether or not they whether or not they were true because the accusation were of a crime.