Johnny Depp asked to resign from Fantastic Beasts series after court loss, #3 delayed

[DonFerrari]

JWeinCom said:

DonFerrari said:

You wanted to push that if she believed she was telling the truth (which well no one would really be able to prove since the evidence all show she was lying) then she should be awarded a victory in the case. That is pretty much defending that even if she is wrong she is right, or that even if JD was the victim of abuse and defamation he should lose.

Asking her to be held accountable is a lot less than "hang the bitch", but you are more similar to some people that say "both were wrong so none should lose" while doing nothing to remedy the wrongs that she done.

You are interested as an almost lawyer but don't hear the testimony, evidences and anything else? What type of interest is that? To just say whatever?

Yes the sexual assault claim wasn't included in the claims from JD lawyers, but I do remember it being mentioned. Anyway on the regards to physical abuse (instead of only mental abuse that could be more of a perception claim) do you think believing to be right is enough to say it wasn't a lie or defamation? And on malice from what I understand it have more to do with she having intention of harming JD with it than to believe it was the truth or not.

Yes, if she believed she was telling the truth as to those statements the case should have been dismissed. Even if Johnny Depp was the victim of abuse and defamation, then he should lose, especially since this wasn't an abuse trial. That is not defending her actions, that is stating what the law is. Do you have a legal source to indicate that I'm wrong? If you have a problem with it you could talk to Justice Brennan about it, I didn't make the fucking rules.

I guess I have to repeat myself again.

 I haven't heard the testimony, and honestly don't really care that much, so I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. I can't say whether the jury came to the right conclusion or not. 

Is that clear now? How did you get from that to "both sides are wrong so none should lose"? This is why I made that comment, because no matter how clearly or how many times I say something I get "OH SO YOU SUPPORT AMBER HEARD HUH?!" 

As for my interest, yes, I'm interested enough to comment, but not interested enough to watch 100 hours of testimony. Did everyone in this topic make watching the trial their full time job over the past couple of weeks? Did you? That's why I'm not saying who was actually right or wrong, just what the relevant laws are. But I assure you, I am far more knowledgeable about defamation law than you are, so if one of us is not qualified to speak here, it's not me. And, in all of law school, I have never been asked to read over testimony, because that is generally only relevant to one case, not the law in general. 

If you think actual malice has more to do with harming Depp than it does with whether the statements were knowingly false or not, then I'm sorry, you're just wrong. I'm not going to argue about it, because there's nothing I could say beyond that. I've explained the concept multiple times. Legal terms don't always have the meaning they do in everyday life. Go look at the five or so times I explained it, or google it. NY Times v Sullivan. Go read the case. 

There is an abyss between watching 100h of trial and not even looking testimony, summaries, etc.

Please explain to us how she could be sane and believe truly believe she was physically and sexually assaulted by JD to the point there would be no malice on her part to do the exposition on public OP (while at the same time not denouncing to police?).

JWeinCom said:

DonFerrari said:

If she used her lawyer and doctor to state she is mentally impaired that would be digging her career even further. If it was a homicide case perhaps one would claim it to avoid jail, but for a "paltry sum" of money don't think she would think of claiming that she was so out of touch with reality that she believed all that was true (she physically abuses JD but believes she is the victim of it, thinks was rapped without being, etc). JD Doctor claimed she had mental issues to which her Doctor claimed otherwise so it would be quite hard to go and reverse that by herself. Plus she committed perjury in several instances in her deposition (with consecutive contradictory claims in sequence) so would be hard to say she is sane and believed all that to be true. If you truly believe Trump is a rapist and genocide writing OP after OP while being famous as well would serve as defense?

As far as I know mentally disabled people have different sentence and let`s say in a case like this wouldn't be found guilty of defamation not because they believe it is true, but because they are incapable of properly understanding the consequences of their acts which isn't the case of Amber.

I'm not her publicist, I don't know or care what kind of defense would best serve her career.

If you truly believed that Trump was a rapist and... a genocide? Then yes, that would generally be a defense, although that deals with objective facts, so it would be a more difficult thing to prove, although I don't know that Trump isn't a rapist, or why he is relevant here. I could say that Biden once stuck his dick in my Honey Bunches of Oats if I believed it, and he couldn't do shit to me if I could prove my belief. That's why I would have argued over whether the statements were objective or subjective, if I was representing Heard and she would allow me. Dunno if it would have worked.

Nobody has EVER been found guilty of defamation. Because it's not a crime. They are found liable. And that is an important difference. In criminal cases, not being able to understand the consequences OR not being able to appreciate something is wrong can both be valid defenses depending on the crime. And sometimes insanity is not a defense at all. But, again, that is criminal law, not civil law. In intentional torts mental capacity is NOT a defense, except in certain cases, defamation against a public figure being one of them. That's cause of the first amendment which is not usually applicable to torts.

You can talk about what you feel about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp all you want, but in terms of the legal aspect, you should not be commenting.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I'm not going to called to an ethics committee for this, but nothing I said in this or any other post should be taken to constitute legal advice of any kind or to establish any client attorney relationship. Please do not write articles about Joe Biden sticking his penis in your cereal without consulting a licensed attorney.

Phisical and Sexual abuse are objective facts not opinions or impressions.

Amber wasn't able to prove any evidence under the court that she was right or could believe she was right. And that is why I brought a Trump (which could be anyone else), if you have zero proof and say you believe because you believe then you whole claim contradicts itself.

As I said in another discussion, if her opinion piece was that she was unhappy in marriage and felt harmed or that JD mistreated her, all which are subjective JD wouldn't had faced any of this harship nor would there be ground for a defamation claim as would all be subjective. But when she claimed sexual and physical abuse that made him into a monster and which would need physical evidence which she totally failed to present.

On your edit, I hope no one is insane to the point of going to the board to complain about you giving your opinion on the case.