Johnny Depp's Defamation Suit

[Mayhem]

Yes, I am aware which is why none of the BS about anything AH said or did should have been brought up as testimony. It had nothing to do with defamation because none of it was substantiated in the first place, her Opinion or perspective in a Op-Ed where she didn't specifically mention him and DIDN'T cause any damage that could be established is what is relevant.

Not did or did he beat her, if he wasn't triad and found guilty nobody reasonably should or could credibly believed without that to the point that JD would be punished. RUMORS on the other hand is another issue, people OUTSIDE the court in a private business can act on all kinds of RUMORS or GOSSIP especially in Hollywood.

AH isn't especially responsible for that unless it's determined. That's defamation, This trial was not about defamation because that element was never proven, along with proof, that anybody else KNEW who AH meant in the Op-ED after it was published, not after it was discovered for this trial.

Alright, I'll leave this circle jerk now.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean, I'm asking for help, dude. I can't find anything that backs your claims, so I'm just hoping that you can help a fellow internet user out with a link since you seem to know where to find them.

You're not asking for help, you're fucking Bullshitting, evident by the fact you clearly were able to link that shit yourself. Meaning you knew where to look or you already had the link memorized before you asked.


Either way it was a bullshit question, you aren't honestly arguing in good faith for any kind of dialog and even if you were, I am not your fucking HOMIE LOL!

[Edge-]

You're not asking for help, you're fucking Bullshitting, evident by the fact you clearly were able to link that shit yourself. Meaning you knew where to look or you already had the link memorized before you asked.

I found a True Crimes wiki article...that's the best I could find. I'm just asking for some help to better understand you dude. It's a simple request.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Alright, I'll leave this circle jerk now.

It's not a circle jerk, take a deep breath, step back, ignore the names of the subjects involved, look at the evidence in the case and apply the law.


We don't know if Johnny Depp beat up Amber Heard meaning the court, because that kind of fact finding doesn't happen in a civil proceeding, so it has ZERO place here.

By that same line we don't know Amber Heard made it all up, because this is a civil proceeding the actors and process as to elements are different.


What we need to find out, did the Washington Post Op Ed Specifically Defame Johnny Depp without mentioning him by name and HOW?


Her making claims or wild accusations isn't enough, because outside of her own perspective. People are free to speak of their own experiences, and nobody is obligated to act on that, if they do that is up to them.

If it was proven than JD didn't do what AH claimed he did, then even IF she didn't mention his name it would be defamation.


But none of that happened.


Johnny Depp's argument is AH is a bad person who poops on pillows is an abuser herself and because she said nasty things about him, he gets do the same in a CIVIL CASE which is essentially the same thing he suing about, and because people BELIEVED IN without it being substantiated JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW. That he is now a Victim!

No he's not a Victim and because life is unfair in the social arena, doesn't mean that bullshit should be brought in a legal arena, thus making a mockery of the fucking courts, and idiots of people who go along with it.

As I said Judge Attorneys people that KNEW better cared more about the publicity of this trial, than they did about justice and their duty. That's worse than a Hollywood Entertainment company acting on unsubstantiated claims.

That's our legal system saying fuck the law. Not a good look or example to set.


This shit is going to backfire, especially on those cheering this shit now because THEY LIKE JOHNNY DEPP which should never have been the point.

- - - Updated - - -

I found a True Crimes wiki article...that's the best I could find. I'm just asking for some help to better understand you dude. It's a simple request.

No, You're just going for optics, you want to make it look like you asked a legitimate question, to distract from your condescending bullshit, and the fact you clearly can find this information on your own. Any of the other clowns that do the same aren't really going to be convinced either since you do the same kind of shit to them.

You can read, you can see what I said right here, unlike you and too many others, I am no concerned with how shit looks to others when I argue, nor am I concerned with opinions formed based what other people have said, so they know what arguments to regurgitate.

I am also not sucked into bias when I mean to be objective.


You aren't the same so you aren't ever going to understand that or me.

[Magical Mudcrab]

The odds of Depp winning are pretty low, the combination of her bad acting and the mountain of evidence against her narrative sank her case. It probably didn't help that her lawyers seem to be from the cheap section on craigslist.

In her lawyers defense, they weren't given much to work with. Credit where credit is due, as much as Rottenborn was grating at times, he did a legitimately good job with what he had. Especially in the closing, it was Elaine who ended up fumbling.

[Jotaux]

look at the evidence in the case and apply the law.
.

Have you tried this? Go watch the trial and actually see the evidence for yourself.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Have you tried this? Go watch the trial and actually see the evidence for yourself.

I’ve watched the trial. I do not need to watch 6 weeks of irrelevant BS.

The trial was a performance.

But what have I missed in this thread. I did get wrong what Johnny Depp was suing for I thought it was 150 million. I said 100 million to be safe but it was 50 million I still could be wrong he got 15 or 17 million but judge bumped it down to 10 million.

Amber Heard sued for something and got 2 million.

I’ve spoke in some hyperbole but I know it’s a civil trial even if the press convicted her as though it was a criminal.

And I know what defamation is. And this wasn’t it.

So go on what am I missing. I’ll admit some things I don’t know but if they aren’t relevant to this specific case and the complaint.

So go on what is it you think I don’t know about this case that I should.

I don’t run from arguments.

[Daymanmb]

It's "inexplicable" in that there's no good explanation for him.

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..

[tikcol]

The moment JD triad to suggest she made up the allegations of Domestic Violence it's called fraud especially when you seek to gain monetarily from it.

Let me help you

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circui...structions.pdf

In page 2, under Liability Issues, see point (5)

Actually, read the whole thing. It might help you with your confusion

[Jotaux]

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..

Isn't that exactly what Heard did?

[PenguinChan]

I am not forgetting, I am of the mind if what came out here IS true Amber should be in Prison, however that should be stablished by an authority charged with validating that or not.

This is about a civil matter or Should have been her is suing for defamation, the reason people sue for defamation is because their reputation and they themselves have been personally harmed.

The fact neither of hem handled these powerful allegations through authorities, says that if it wasn't important enough to seek justice there, then neither of them should be rewarded here.

Maybe there were good reasons not to press charges or get police involved.


Believing victims isn't the same as treating their every statement as fact. Just as not everything wrong is illegal or should be punished by the courts.

I have to spell this plainly for myself, excuse me if I'm being rude about it:

'Accusing someone of sexual abuse (And later on rape in the court) with physical abuse shouldn't be punishable by monetary compensation (Defamed) if they didn't report to the authorities about criminal charges first. It clearly wasn't important!'

That's what I'm reading from you and your posts. Is this some weird ass order of operations going on for it to be okay in your mind? It's reading like that. And if so, I completely disagree and think you're in need of reading up as to why that thought process is bad and harmful.

That's legit victim blaming. Whether or not it was heard or depp, that's genuinely not okay.

[Cthulhu 2020]

UK trial isn't even close to what the US trial was about.

Why would that squash anything? Didn't you say that the UK trial had nothing to do with this previously?

The testimony in the US trial completely changed what people thought were the facts. In the minds of those who hate Depp, he was a terrible abuser with how Heard described him.

But finding out that it was all her imagination/lies and they were both just drug addicts really changed what the reality is. It exposed Amber Heard as a liar who will lie straight faced to a judge and weave fiction. So all of her claims are now in question.

[Veggie50]

I’ve watched the trial. I do not need to watch 6 weeks of irrelevant BS.

The trial was a performance.

But what have I missed in this thread. I did get wrong what Johnny Depp was suing for I thought it was 150 million. I said 100 million to be safe but it was 50 million I still could be wrong he got 15 or 17 million but judge bumped it down to 10 million.

Amber Heard sued for something and got 2 million.

I’ve spoke in some hyperbole but I know it’s a civil trial even if the press convicted her as though it was a criminal.

And I know what defamation is. And this wasn’t it.

So go on what am I missing. I’ll admit some things I don’t know but if they aren’t relevant to this specific case and the complaint.

So go on what is it you think I don’t know about this case that I should.

I don’t run from arguments.

Ok, one more time then!

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Makabreska]

All of this is literally a Shalcker level of reality denial. Dude just knows better how law works, and no links, facts, rulings or verdicts can sway him. Amadeus my man, you better pray you never get into any type of litigation, you brain will literally explode if you start to present in a courtroom what you did and the way you did here and hit an obvious reality wall.

[Kumorii]

The testimony in the US trial completely changed what people thought were the facts. In the minds of those who hate Depp, he was a terrible abuser with how Heard described him.

But finding out that it was all her imagination/lies and they were both just drug addicts really changed what the reality is. It exposed Amber Heard as a liar who will lie straight faced to a judge and weave fiction. So all of her claims are now in question.

Oh I agree, I was just answering someone who flip flop more than a fish out of water when it comes to the UK trial and it's relevance.

[Orange Joe]

I am not wrong about shit, but if you want to argue otherwise GO FOR IT!

But I don't care about her shitting on his bed, or his cut finger, nor about he said she said shit. The scope of their of their characters is also irrelevant.


If you can establish that the Op-Ed in and of itself, explicitly mentioned JD AND that is harmed him in any reasonable way. I would freely admit I am wrong, I don't think I am infallible.

But I am not going to make up my mind and decide something like a defamation case based on WHO I LIKE BETTER!


That is what is going on here.

It's almost like this was done in the trial..........

Take the fucking blinders off you are coming off as a angry heard fan

- - - Updated - - -

Oh She was Prosocuted alright, and yes it WAS SUPPOSED to be a Civil matter, this became a Criminal matter, when the Circus got involved. and decided to Punish Amber out of retaliation.

None of this had to do with Justice at this point.

You clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Yess Google.com Search Johnny Depp Trial, you're welcome

Odd. I only find results for a CIVIL trial, no criminal judgements to be found.

- - - Updated - - -

Either way it was a bullshit question, you aren't honestly arguing in good faith for any kind of dialog and even if you were, I am not your fucking HOMIE LOL!

But you are while calling a civil verdict a criminal one?


FUCKING LOL!!!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

I am also not sucked into bias when I mean to be objective.


You aren't the same so you aren't ever going to understand that or me.

Yes... you are clearly showing your "non bias" in this thread

[Rennadrel]

As I understand it he lost his case against the Sun because the judge inexplicably discarded most evidence he provided and ignored his witnesses (friends and employees) because they were biased in his favor, yet chose to hear out Heard's witnesses (also friends and employees). A big factor in it as well was her claiming to have donated the money. Apparently that convinced the judge that her intentions were pure. Realistically it was a dumb thing to look at in either case. Donating the money or keeping it doesn't really matter in my eyes; it's clear she was after his reputation. Still that judge probably feels like an absolute moron now.

One thing I do find funny is the constant pushing by Heard and her team that "we won in the UK" when really they weren't on trial in the UK. They aren't the Sun.

That was another issue that was brought to light thanks to this trial. That she virtue signaled and convinced midwits on Twitter that she has donated a bunch of money to the ACLU and the LA Children's Hospital, when all she did was make a commitment to it. So she was going around saying that she did but in reality the total sums of the donations hadn't been met yet. If someone is going to be dishonest about such things, what else are they going to be dishonest about?

[Kumorii]

It's almost like this was done in the trial..........

Take the fucking blinders off you are coming off as a angry heard fan


You clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about.


Odd. I only find results for a CIVIL trial, no criminal judgements to be found.


But you are while calling a civil verdict a criminal one?


FUCKING LOL!!!!!!!

Yes... you are clearly showing your "non bias" in this thread

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.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I have to spell this plainly for myself, excuse me if I'm being rude about it:

'Accusing someone of sexual abuse (And later on rape in the court) with physical abuse shouldn't be punishable by monetary compensation (Defamed) if they didn't report to the authorities about criminal charges first. It clearly wasn't important!'

That's what I'm reading from you and your posts. Is this some weird ass order of operations going on for it to be okay in your mind? It's reading like that. And if so, I completely disagree and think you're in need of reading up as to why that thought process is bad and harmful.

That's legit victim blaming. Whether or not it was heard or depp, that's genuinely not okay.

It isn't victim blaming because we haven't established anything happened, we can believe ALL victims, but we still have apply a process to determine that and a Civil trial isn't it.

This trial is about defamation as it relates to damages to a person or persons reputation. You can't arrive at that to begin with if something Amber Heard said wasn't true, especially if she didn't mention him by name (Although I agree that doesn't HAVE to established for defamation) and that the specific statements caused damage intended or not.

My argument is neither of those burdens were proven, NOR were they even points of argument in the trial. Nobody here in this trial has established abuse or violence happened to either party. Because no criminal findings or process has confirmed this.

It's speculation whether it's in the Washington Post or this CIVIL defamation trial.



People are now suggesting that Amber Heard is guilty of abuse, or shitting on Johnny Depp's bed are NO better than people who suggest because of the Washington Post Op-Ed that Johnny Depp assaulted Amber Heard even thought it didn't mention her by name.

That is not an attack on ANYONE it's not a defense either.

If Johnny Depp could prove that 1, The Washington Post Article clearly was about him and that the statements where verifiably false regardless of Amber Heard telling and 2, Johnny Depp could prove that it caused direct harm to himself or his person meaning his career, then my opinion he won.


That didn't happen, and what this trial became was about Johnny Depp and his lawyers doing exactly what they were complaining about out of revenge. That isn't what courts are for, that's what Op-Eds and Trash Magazines are for.

[cordrann]

Snip

But you didn't watch the trial. You know who did? The unanimous jury. But hey, keep on having strong entrenched opinions on things you know nothing about, it makes you seem super competent and reasonable.