By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Johnny Depp asked to resign from Fantastic Beasts series after court loss, #3 delayed

padib said:
JWeinCom said:

There is no law we can make that is going to be perfectly fair in every case. Holding newspapers and other platforms responsible for everything anyone says would prevent them from ever allowing any legitimate victim of abuse from ever speaking. I think holding the person who created the lie responsible is probably the best we're going to do.

At any rate even though Johnny Depp was wronged (based on what I know, I haven't been following super close), I don't really see how the fault lies with with the Washington Post. If the claims were false it makes sense to hold Heard responsible, and I think you could argue against Disney and other companies for taking actions based on only allegations (although that also has problems). As for the Washington Post, I don't see why there should be liability.

Setting aside the first amendment, if we were going to make a claim about this it would be, to simplify, negligence. Essentially a negligence claim is entity X had a duty that they failed and someone was hurt as a direct result. So, what would be the duty here? If you'd say there duty is to only to report what other people are saying when they know it to be 100% factually, I don't think that's a reasonable duty to impose. And even if you want to impose that duty, it's also hard to say that the damage was a direct result of the op ed since other entities with freedom of choice, i.e. Disney, WB, etc., could have responded differently.

I'm personally not American so the charter of the US does not mean as much to me as it does to you and probably others, and of course the JD case is an American one so I understand your reply. I'm speaking in terms of the sense of justice in general. Newspapers have been very irresponsible in the way they are using information in a way that causes injustice and more problems than to not report. I'm not for censorship either. But responsibility is lacking here.

IMHO

I agree though that Disney is more accountable than WSJ here. Still the newspapers are starting to upset me.

But, what exactly in this case did the Washington Post do wrong that we should punish them for?

In a domestic violence case, usually there are really only two people who will know what happened.  Even people who knew the couple couldn't say all the things that happened behind closed doors. There is pretty much no way they could have known whether or not the relationship was abusive, or who was abusing who. And, they did not report this as fact, as it is clearly labeled as an op-ed from Amber.

So, again, I'm not sure what they did wrong here. Is a media outlet liable whenever someone lies on their platform? Even when they had no real way of determining that? I actually wrote a whole 40 page note about how speech tort laws are overrestrictive to potential plaintiffs, but if you hold the Post liable in this situation, then you create a standard where no outlet could ever allow anyone to say anything, unless the outlet has personal firsthand knowledge of it. At the very least, if we hold the Post liable here, virtually no victim of any type of crime or abuse could ever be allowed to speak on any platform ever. Even if it would lead to a fair result in this case, and I do not believe that it would under US law or otherwise, this would lead to an incredible level of censorship.   

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 04 May 2022

Around the Network

Definitely seems like Amber is losing this one. We haven't even seen her half of the case yet, but the case Johnny and his team built is so strong that I don't see any scenario where she wins this. Johnny's shark lawyers are going to rip her to shreds once they get her on the stand.



So the law is finally siding with Johnny? Or can Heard pull something out? I know alot of people hate Amber now.



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

shikamaru317 said:

Definitely seems like Amber is losing this one. We haven't even seen her half of the case yet, but the case Johnny and his team built is so strong that I don't see any scenario where she wins this. Johnny's shark lawyers are going to rip her to shreds once they get her on the stand.

I don't know about that. If this were just who puts on a better case, so far, then the winner is clear. But, this is not a level playing field. The bar for defamation is incredibly high. They have done a good job of showing that Amber may be the type of person who would intentionally lie about abuse. But that isn't quite proving that Amber did not believe herself, right or wrong, to be the victim of abuse. With the combination of how vague the op-ed is, the general difficulty of proving what is in someone's head at a particular time, and the way the first amendment has been interpretted in similar cases, it's an incredibly difficult case for the plaintiff's side. Unless you have something very specific to hang your hat on, it's really tough. Establishing a general pattern is about the best they could do, but I don't know if it's enough. 

And honestly, I don't know to what extent Depp really cares about winning the case. I think that the main purpose here is to restore his public image, and if he wins, that's a bonus. In that regard, I think he's already "won" regardless of what the judge/jury determines.

Edit: If Heard is lying, then I would definitely book her in my next movie. Obviously, I have no idea, but if it's not true, it's an amazing performance. We'll see how she does in cross.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 06 May 2022

JWeinCom said:
shikamaru317 said:

Definitely seems like Amber is losing this one. We haven't even seen her half of the case yet, but the case Johnny and his team built is so strong that I don't see any scenario where she wins this. Johnny's shark lawyers are going to rip her to shreds once they get her on the stand.

I don't know about that. If this were just who puts on a better case, so far, then the winner is clear. But, this is not a level playing field. The bar for defamation is incredibly high. They have done a good job of showing that Amber may be the type of person who would intentionally lie about abuse. But that isn't quite proving that Amber did not believe herself, right or wrong, to be the victim of abuse. With the combination of how vague the op-ed is, the general difficulty of proving what is in someone's head at a particular time, and the way the first amendment has been interpretted in similar cases, it's an incredibly difficult case for the plaintiff's side. Unless you have something very specific to hang your hat on, it's really tough. Establishing a general pattern is about the best they could do, but I don't know if it's enough. 

And honestly, I don't know to what extent Depp really cares about winning the case. I think that the main purpose here is to restore his public image, and if he wins, that's a bonus. In that regard, I think he's already "won" regardless of what the judge/jury determines.

Edit: If Heard is lying, then I would definitely book her in my next movie. Obviously, I have no idea, but if it's not true, it's an amazing performance. We'll see how she does in cross.

"Vagueness" is irrelevant. Amber DID intend to namedrop JD in the WP Op-Ed and all available evidence clearly points to it being about JD in any event. Was there anyone else she filed fake TROs against in 2016? No, and I'd hardly call someone recording the plaintiff (in this case, JD) at their weakest and concocting a Gone Girl scheme to try to throw shit on them as not having malicious intent for writing an Op-Ed detailing their "abuse", especially when she conveniently planned it to coincide with Aqua Man's release. Hell, is it just me, or did Amber literally say she plans to paint fake bruises with makeup, take pictures with friends and show them to the authorities because "no one will believe Johnny"?:

Oh, and speaking of playing dirty, it turns out Amber's "injury" photos had metadata tampered with and edited after she stalled the judge's orders to hand over her devices for imaging AND Dr. Hughes (Amber's "expert" witness) has been impeached from other cases for inadmissible hearsay evidence (her lawyers love that word, a lot):

There's only one reason she would do this, and you'd pretty much have to be flat-earther levels of deluded to NOT see it (like we needed any more proof): 

As for Johnny winning, the Legal Bytes YouTube channel full of lawyers live-streaming the trial said they were iffy about his chances during his testimony, but feel much more optimistic now after everything that's come out, from Amber's fake Razzie of a performance where she quotes actual movie lines in her opening statement (which BTW, her antics perfectly mirror Dr. Curry's evaluation of her) to her "expert" sounding biased and unprofessional as all hell on the stand:

 Her story continues to crumble and fall apart. I can't wait for cross examination, which Depp's team will have plenty of time to prepare for. Good to know Dr. Curry's still living rent-free in their head BTW.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 09 May 2022

Around the Network
KManX89 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't know about that. If this were just who puts on a better case, so far, then the winner is clear. But, this is not a level playing field. The bar for defamation is incredibly high. They have done a good job of showing that Amber may be the type of person who would intentionally lie about abuse. But that isn't quite proving that Amber did not believe herself, right or wrong, to be the victim of abuse. With the combination of how vague the op-ed is, the general difficulty of proving what is in someone's head at a particular time, and the way the first amendment has been interpretted in similar cases, it's an incredibly difficult case for the plaintiff's side. Unless you have something very specific to hang your hat on, it's really tough. Establishing a general pattern is about the best they could do, but I don't know if it's enough. 

And honestly, I don't know to what extent Depp really cares about winning the case. I think that the main purpose here is to restore his public image, and if he wins, that's a bonus. In that regard, I think he's already "won" regardless of what the judge/jury determines.

Edit: If Heard is lying, then I would definitely book her in my next movie. Obviously, I have no idea, but if it's not true, it's an amazing performance. We'll see how she does in cross.

"Vagueness" is irrelevant. Amber DID intend to namedrop JD in the WP Op-Ed and all available evidence clearly points to it being about JD in any event. Was there anyone else she filed fake TROs against in 2016? No, and I'd hardly call someone recording the plaintiff (in this case, JD) at their weakest and concocting a Gone Girl scheme to try to throw shit on them as not having malicious intent for writing an Op-Ed detailing their "abuse", especially when she conveniently planned it to coincide with Aqua Man's release. Hell, is it just me, or did Amber literally say she plans to paint fake bruises with makeup, take pictures with friends and show them to the authorities because "no one will believe Johnny"?:

For fuck's sake, I already said multiple times that the fact that she didn't name him likely doesn't matter. XD Why are you so intent on trying to make me defend a position I don't hold? It's so bizarre that you're vommiting the same stuff at me again. Are you like a bot or something? 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 10 May 2022

JWeinCom said:
KManX89 said:

"Vagueness" is irrelevant. Amber DID intend to namedrop JD in the WP Op-Ed and all available evidence clearly points to it being about JD in any event. Was there anyone else she filed fake TROs against in 2016? No, and I'd hardly call someone recording the plaintiff (in this case, JD) at their weakest and concocting a Gone Girl scheme to try to throw shit on them as not having malicious intent for writing an Op-Ed detailing their "abuse", especially when she conveniently planned it to coincide with Aqua Man's release. Hell, is it just me, or did Amber literally say she plans to paint fake bruises with makeup, take pictures with friends and show them to the authorities because "no one will believe Johnny"?:

For fuck's sake, I already said multiple times that the fact that she didn't name him likely doesn't matter. XD Why are you so intent on trying to make me defend a position I don't hold? It's so bizarre that you're vommiting the same stuff at me again. Are you like a bot or something? 

Then why even bring it up? Everyone knew it was about Johnny, which is why he was lambasted by the media for years and he lost out on movie roles, including his most prominent one. It doesn't matter that it doesn't mention him by name or she had a screw loose (which is common knowledge at this point), Amber has no leg to stand on because all the evidence overwhelmingly points to her abusing AND defaming him and her knowing exactly what she was doing, hence the laughing at the end of one such recording (and I think you know what I'm talking about).

Oh, and once again speaking of her story not adding up, Amber was caught in yet another hole in her constantly-changing timeline (read: lie):



KManX89 said:
JWeinCom said:

For fuck's sake, I already said multiple times that the fact that she didn't name him likely doesn't matter. XD Why are you so intent on trying to make me defend a position I don't hold? It's so bizarre that you're vommiting the same stuff at me again. Are you like a bot or something? 

Then why even bring it up? Everyone knew it was about Johnny, which is why he was lambasted by the media for years and he lost out on movie roles, including his most prominent one. It doesn't matter that it doesn't mention him by name or she had a screw loose (which is common knowledge at this point), Amber has no leg to stand on because all the evidence overwhelmingly points to her abusing AND defaming him and her knowing exactly what she was doing, hence the laughing at the end of one such recording (and I think you know what I'm talking about).

Oh, and once again speaking of her story not adding up, Amber was caught in yet another hole in her constantly-changing timeline (read: lie):

XD XD XD XD XD And you're still trying to argue about it. Man, your reaction when this case ends is gonna be hilarious.



And the hits keep coming:

So basically, AH illegally smuggled her dogs into Australia knowing not only could she face jail time, but the dogs could be put down. The Australian authorities even told her this, and she was like "I don't care" and brought them in (illegally), anyway and perjured herself in doing so by lying about it.

And still, it gets worse: the only reason they weren't put down is because Johnny actually went down and got the dogs OUT of there via private flight, and AH is later chewing him out for saving her dogs' ass.

Wow, this woman is an absolute monster, and I don't say that blindly. I sided with Rhiannah and all of Weinstein's and Cosby's accusers, and believed O.J. did it, and I'll never support anything Roman Polanski does except from the inside of a prison cell, and I thought Greg Hardy was guilty as sin before those undoctored (that's kinda an important detail) bruise photos were made public (here's why). Not this time unless and until somebody can explain to me how AH can be vigorously punched in the face with metal rings, choked, SAed, hair-pulled, phone thrown in her face, etc., left with black eyes, a broken nose and a busted lip and be seen without a single scratch on her face (or anywhere) the very next day, which I have yet to get an affirmative answer for. Why do I think I won't get it?

P.S., most defamation trials don't have the defendant leaving a paper trail this fucking big spelling out in big bold rainbow letters their intent to defame on top of admitting to the things they accuse (read: defame) their victim of. This lawyer thinks her Op Ed is fair (lawsuit) game BTW, "vague" or no.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 14 May 2022

From a youtube commentor that has alot of likes that I copied and pasted these are not my writings.

Here are some quick facts about Amber that we know that are proven:

1) He wasn't the only alcoholic and drug abuser. She drank 2 bottles of wine a day, took drugs as well by her own admission.

2) Caught lying about using the makeup that didn't exist back then to "cover her bruises" frequently, which was refuted by the makeup company in court.

3) Past domestic violence arrest against her ex, literally charged and arrested. Plus admitted to domestic violence against Johnny. Plus suspicion of domestic violence against her own sister (her sister was discussing it with her friends by the poolside in a video clip), and assaulted her ex-best friend in public. In contrast Johnny has no history of being violent towards women, every single one of his ex gfs and spouses all speak highly of him, and has said he's never laid hands on them.

4) Audio recording of her admitting to cutting his finger in Australia (not allowed in this trial due to technicalities), proving again that her testimony was a lie. (one of the voices on the tape is now deceased and can't testify)

5) Her psychologist lied about Amber having no domestic violence history and was called out by Johnny's attorney.

6) Has NO witnesses or evidence (all conveniently random strangers that she doesn't know or deceased people like the bodyguard)

7) Her longtime assistant testified under oath that she did not once see or hear any physical abuse from Depp or ever saw any injuries on Heard in all the years. She also testified under oath that Heard spit ON her face when she asked for a raise

8) She visits Dr Kipper's office the day after an alleged incident where she was severely beaten, the doctor's medical report states her in perfect health, with no injuries of any kind on her, also state her skin was in perfect condition. Her explanation was "this was a partial report and I didn't have time to get into the details with the doctor about the injuries". (Day 16 of trial cross examination)

9) Allegedly got her nose broken, hit multiple times, her scalp and hair ripped off, penetrated by a bottle, dragged over broken glass and got her arms and legs "pretty cut up", then somehow felt safe enough to take sleeping pills with her "attacker" in the same house, woke up the next day and made him coffee, then went to James Corden's show miraculously healed. No marks, no scars, no pictures, no medical report . Hair stylist saw no signs of abuse, the hair stylist would've been inches away from her face looking at all the details while working on her appearance, and she saw 0 injuries. Multiple witnesses (including 3 cops) saw no signs of abuse.

10) Allegedly got raped and assaulted multiple times on her honeymoon, then wrote Johnny a love letter saying "it was the most amazing and beautiful honeymoon any girl could've ever dreamed of". (evidence presented in Day 18 of trial)

11) Claimed she wanted to leave Johnny, but in all the audio clips she was the one begging him to stay. Claimed she always tried to de-escalate, but in audio clips she was always the aggressor preventing him from leaving and taunting him .

12) In all her "crying", there's never a single tear coming out of her eyes, even when reciting the most "traumatic experience".

13) Allegedly feared for her life but bought him a large knife.

14) Testified under oath that she was beaten by Johnny with huge chunky rings on all his fingers, said she was "hit so many times in the face over and over again she lost count". The photos taken the next day shows her face completely spotless without any injuries, when cross examined, she answers "there do not appear to be any injuries on my face in that photo".

15) Caught lying under oath again saying she "didn't receive money" from Johnny when she got $7 million, and lying about "never assaulted" Johnny when she admits to it on tape.

16) Proven once again as a liar when she made public statement of donating 7 million dollars for children's hospital but in reality donated exactly 0 dollars before she was called out, also caught lying under oath about donating the money. Her sworn statement was "I donated the entire settlement of $7 million to charity", when cross examined, she states "I did not lie, I pledged the $7 million, "pledged" and "donated" are synonymous, they mean the same thing." (Day 16 of trial cross examination)

17) Blackmailing Depp with her attorney, trying to make a deal for 3 of the adjoining penthouses where they both lived, 50k monthly expenses, 500k in attorney fees and the SUV Depp let her drive in exchange for not filing the protection order.

18) Her publishing of the op-ed "domestic violence" piece is timed perfectly with the release of Aquaman film, it didn't get published when they divorced, or before, or right after, but instead it was published right when Aquaman was being released and when the "Me Too" movement was grabbing the most headlines.

19) Amber Heard's team desperately tried to stop the trial from being publicly broadcasted while Depp's team made sure it was made public

20) Long time friend and co worker of Amber Heard telling about her hardcore cocaine and drug habit dating all the way back to 2008 when they were close associates, (youtube show called "Steven and Jason" and in the newest episode titled "We need to talk about AH").

21) Amber testified about having injuries such as “gross colored puss coming out of her temple” and “suffering a broken nose”, but when cross examined she changes the lines to “gross colored puss UNDER HER SCALP” and “FELT like a broken nose”, because she knew the evidence is about to show ZERO injuries visible on her. (How does she see gross colored puss under her scalp? With an X-ray machine??)

22) Allegedly got beaten up for FIVE YEARS and not a SINGLE injury shown on her face, no doctor visits, no dentists, no surgeons, no photos, despite countless appearances in public events and countless photos taken given her celebrity status, many of those public appearances were the night after "the beating", keep in mind the beating were all allegedly done by Depp with "huge chunky" rings on all his fingers, yet after five years of beating, she didn't need to visit the doctors once or show on sign of injury on her face, sounds like her facial bone density and durability of her skin can match that of armor platings.

23) Alleges Johnny slashed the soles of her feet, but was seen the next day walking completely normal, again no doctor visits or treatments of any kind even though she has a personal doctor on retainer.

24) Constantly changing details of her stories and allegations, she's already given 4 different versions of the poop incident, she has said "1: told security guard that she pooped and it was a practical joke gone wrong. 2: Johnny did it to frame her. 3: said it never happened and Johnny was gaslighting her. 4: said the tiny puppies did it."

25) Her lying under oath is not even worth mentioning anymore, there is too many to list, just to list a few in this trial alone. Lying about not receiving any money from Johnny, when in fact she received $7 million. Lying about having donated the money, when in fact she has donated $0 so far. Lying about never assaulted Johnny, when in fact she was recorded admitting to it multiple times. Lying about never assaulted anyone before, when in fact she's assaulted at least 4 that we have evidence of. Lying about her injuries, when a medical record showed absolutely no injuries.

26) She put someone through hell for years, publicly shamed and destroyed his career and life, just so she can be seen as a noble victim and use the attention and sympathy to advance her career and profile. She claims she's never wanted to be seen as a victim and wanted to move on, but appears in countless TV shows and articles talking about her "abuse" and "donation" non stop, literally appeared on every show she could to talk about her being a victim and being noble on the donation that never happened.

27) Amber's own friend, Tillet Wright, a long time close friend with Amber Heard, testified under oath that he's never seen or heard Amber being abused by Johnny Depp.

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 23 May 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.