Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

What is the smoking gun here? Most actors/actresses don’t write any of their communications.

Sure. The ACLU writing a piece about an extremely personal topic timed to the release of movie in which she stars.
Sorry. Sounds like a PR stunt.

Of course it was a PR stunt. But this is still a nothing burger. It’s not like they said, well we wrote it but she told us it wasn’t true but she was committed to her victim story so we just went along with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

What is the smoking gun here? Most actors/actresses don’t write any of their communications.

Sure. The ACLU writing a piece about an extremely personal topic timed to the release of movie in which she stars.
Sorry. Sounds like a PR stunt.

Of course it was a PR stunt. But this is still a nothing burger. It’s not like they said, well we wrote it but she told us it wasn’t true but she was committed to her victim story so we just went along with it.

Her whole story is coming off as a PR stunt.
She does not seem like a nice person. Depp is weird.... but I don't believe he is abusive. I think she is the abusive one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

ACLU looking bad here.

[Anonymous]

Was her donation a payment for the op-Ed?

Cheaper and better ghost writers out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was her donation a payment for the op-Ed?

Cheaper and better ghost writers out there.

No. She claimed she would give them half or most(?) of the settlement that Depp gave her. That was said at the time of the divorce, not the article. That was why the ACLU was questioned about how much money she actually gave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

Do hollywood casting directors care about the legal process? He's ruined her name with this trial and it seems like that was the goal all along

Um, but for her article, there wouldn't be any defamation lawsuit about the truth of that article. She can't cry foul that she landed herself in the hot seat over the truth of it.

Did PP say amber was crying foul? What point are you responding to with your post? It seems like you're making an entirely new point in order to distract from the point that you guys don't know anything about the american legal system.

But i do. This IS a defamation lawsuit. About a WaPo article by Heard. I guess the "but for" went over your head.

Here it is. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-0002911_complaint_8766635_03_01_2019.pdf

Read the HUGE word on the intake sheet on first page - says DEFAMATION.

Read paragraph 1 - its a defamation action about an article Heard wrote for WaPo.

This case IS about that article - it alleges Heard published a false fact about Depp, see paragraphs 3 + 4, and he is seeking monetary damages for harm it caused his career, see paragraphs 5, 71, 73 . . .

[Anonymous]

^^^ Thanks for the PDF, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have a hard time believing any of her abuse claims.

Today, on Day 11 of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed in damning testimony that Amber Heard has given just $1.3 million to the organization after promising in 2016 to give $3.5 million of her divorce settlement to the organization—and her ex Elon Musk donated nearly half of that money ($500,000, to be exact).

Worse yet, ACLU staffers actually ghost-wrote The Washington Post op-ed at the center of the trial, in which Heard claimed to be a survivor of domestic violence, and they pitched on her behalf, timed to the release of Heard’s then-upcoming film, Aquaman.

Email correspondence shows that Robin Shulman, a communications strategist with the ACLU, wrote the first draft of the op-ed in November 2018, a month before the article was published, while Heard’s legal team made edits to avoid obvious incrimination of Depp. Terence Dougherty, general counsel and COO of the ACLU, said the ACLU was charged with pitching the op-ed to a number of outlets and had considered the New York Times, Teen Vogue and USA Today before eventually placing it in the Post. Another ACLU communications associate, Gerry Johnson, emailed other team members about timing the op-ed so it would be released near the premiere of Aquaman.

If anything this gives Depp a stronger case against the ACLU than Heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can hate her all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you have a woefully inaccurate understanding of the american legal process/system.

Do hollywood casting directors care about the legal process? He's ruined her name with this trial and it seems like that was the goal all along

Um, but for her article, there wouldn't be any defamation lawsuit about the truth of that article. She can't cry foul that she landed herself in the hot seat over the truth of it.

Did PP say amber was crying foul? What point are you responding to with your post? It seems like you're making an entirely new point in order to distract from the point that you guys don't know anything about the american legal system.

But i do. This IS a defamation lawsuit. About a WaPo article by Heard. I guess the "but for" went over your head.

Here it is. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-0002911_complaint_8766635_03_01_2019.pdf

Read the HUGE word on the intake sheet on first page - says DEFAMATION.

Read paragraph 1 - its a defamation action about an article Heard wrote for WaPo.

This case IS about that article - it alleges Heard published a false fact about Depp, see paragraphs 3 + 4, and he is seeking monetary damages for harm it caused his career, see paragraphs 5, 71, 73 . . .

The but for did not go over my head. I know what the case is about. People who are not lawyers reading lawsuits do not generally come away with the best grip on the reality of the proceedings. Look at the last four years of amateur twitter lawyers analyzing trump stuff.

Here's how the conversation above went.

Me: You guys can hate her but you clearly don't understand the legalities here
Someone else: Do casting directors care about legalities? Ruining her name was the goal!
Someone else (I think you?): If there hadn't been an article there would be no defamation suit! She can't complain now!
Me: Who is complaining? Why did both of you make comments that seem to be totally unrelated to my post? I didn't say anything about casting directors and no one said anything about her crying foul!
You: OH YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY USE OF BUT FOR!

[Anonymous]

Jennifer Grey on Depp's crazy back in the day. Interesting timing.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jennifer-grey-says-johnny-depp-was-paranoid-during-engagement/

[Anonymous]

Heard's lawyers are now trying to get the case dismissed claiming Depp's team has not proved anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Grey on Depp's crazy back in the day. Interesting timing.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jennifer-grey-says-johnny-depp-was-paranoid-during-engagement/

How else will she sell her book if not by reminding everyone that she was connected to Johnny Depp for a few months

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard's lawyers are now trying to get the case dismissed claiming Depp's team has not proved anything.

Judge denied the motion.

[Anonymous]

Her article destroyed his career.
I don’t see how this isn’t defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Grey on Depp's crazy back in the day. Interesting timing.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jennifer-grey-says-johnny-depp-was-paranoid-during-engagement/

This sounds like the work of the new PR agency.