KManX89 said:
Only because the ACLU told her to remove Depp's name. In any case, it's clearly about Johnny. Were there any other stories of abuse Amber allegedly (I realize "allegedly" is a VERY strong word for a medically-diagnosed narcissist who's been caught in countless lies, including others not mentioned in said link) suffered around that time? Did she file a restraining order against anyone else? Are there depositions against anyone else from Amber on said subject of abuse in the past few years? Answer to all: NO! Oh, and I'd say Amber recording herself saying things that never happened to paint a frame-up of Johnny, painting magically-vanishing-as-fast-as-a-day-bruises with makeup and goading Johnny with "no one's gonna believe you because you're a man" is pretty damning evidence she's out to destroy his life with false accusations. We already have proof of damages, two lawyers confirmed he lost his Pirates role because of these false accusations, this speaks pretty clearly to malicious intent as well. |
Let me repost the full quote.
"And I'm not sure the op-ed on its own is defamatory. It doesn't mention Depp by name although you could make a good case that it was sufficiently clear without that."
Did you really cut off the part of the same fucking sentence where I said it was likely clear enough without the name to rant at me about how it's clear enough without the name. Man, that is ridiculous. To what end XD?
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 May 2022
