Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so conflicted on this, and admittedly didn't watch much but read a lot about this trial. So I was essentially always seeing an interpretation and not for myself. I just don't think there are any good actors here. I don't disagree that men can be abuse victims, and I don't automatically side with women. But in this case, they are both toxic, abusive people. She's as bad as he is with the bad and humiliating behavior. She gave as good as she got, and he gave as good as he got. In the DV world, that's called mutual combat abuse, and while it's abusive in terms of its being violent, there's no "victim." It's both. They both had power over each other in that relationship; it's not (in my opinion) at all one sided that's the hallmark of domestic violence. I see no primary aggressor. At various times they were equal aggressors. And she seems to have objectively lied her a$$ off. If there's a disservice to domestic violence victims, it was done by her in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter. It's just my opinion.

PP again. I also don't think this trial will have any lingering effect on "mainstream" domestic violence allegations or the overall believability of survivors. This trial was oozing in financial privilege for them both to call out every expert to throw their ridiculously privileged lifestyles and efforts at manipulating each other into focus. The standard of proof for defamation is so much higher for public figures so they went for it and had to to meet that threshold. The average DV survivor won't have the WaPo at their disposal so it's not even applicable in terms of other DV survivors "coming out and speaking their truth." This level of coming out simply doesn't happen to 99.99% of the population, so it's apples and oranges.

This side show emboldened Depp’s buddy Marilyn Manson to file a similar lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood. The more this happens, the more it will seep into “mainstream” domestic violence cases. Don’t speak up about abuse, because you’ll get slapped with a ruinous lawsuit and no one will protect you from it.

No, the message is “don’t lie about abuse.”

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A running of list of celebs who liked one of their post-verdict posts:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/johnny-depps-instagram-statement-liked-by-celebrities?d_id=3757244&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR1BXE-yjF0ny4mME9lDnA8fOSxOzN94mZct_ARdL9hn4KtjYOPFOZndTeI

What stood out for me is Gabby Douglas liking JD's post. She was part of the Me too wave against Larry Nassar. As a true victim of abuse, maybe she doesn't see the verdict as setting the clock back for women and doesn't want AH as their spokesperson?

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does Amber heard have to be a "spokesperson" for all domestic abuse victims? I don't understand some of you who think it has to be all or nothing. There WAS abuse. Clearly. It may not have been cut and dry man abuses the woman, but he did threaten her, he did get into physical altercations with her (and yes, so did she against him). Why are you in so much denial? She didn't make it ALL up, you psycho.

Calling someone you disagree with a psycho doesn't really help your case. lol. Her allegations may very well have some truth but she was caught lying under oath many times. That fact alone should disqualify her from being a representative for any cause.

I disagree. And what cause? Loreal? Speaking out against powerful famous men who are dysfunctional and vengeful?

Abuse victims? Speaking out against powerful men who are dysfunctional and vengeful is a fine and dandy cause. The problem is her credibility has been shot for lying on the stand. I don't think any cause would want a liar as their representative.

What about all of *his* lies, which you and many others seem to conveniently overlook? Your double standard is ridiculous.

Well, he has never claimed to be a spokesperson for abuse victims, hasn't he?

He is now the de facto celebrity spokesperson for male “abuse” victims, or something to that effect.

You can remove your childish quotation marks around abuse, as it was clearly delineated in this trial that she abused him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A running of list of celebs who liked one of their post-verdict posts:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/johnny-depps-instagram-statement-liked-by-celebrities?d_id=3757244&ref=bffbbuzzfeed&utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeed&fbclid=IwAR1BXE-yjF0ny4mME9lDnA8fOSxOzN94mZct_ARdL9hn4KtjYOPFOZndTeI

What stood out for me is Gabby Douglas liking JD's post. She was part of the Me too wave against Larry Nassar. As a true victim of abuse, maybe she doesn't see the verdict as setting the clock back for women and doesn't want AH as their spokesperson?

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does Amber heard have to be a "spokesperson" for all domestic abuse victims? I don't understand some of you who think it has to be all or nothing. There WAS abuse. Clearly. It may not have been cut and dry man abuses the woman, but he did threaten her, he did get into physical altercations with her (and yes, so did she against him). Why are you in so much denial? She didn't make it ALL up, you psycho.

Calling someone you disagree with a psycho doesn't really help your case. lol. Her allegations may very well have some truth but she was caught lying under oath many times. That fact alone should disqualify her from being a representative for any cause.

I disagree. And what cause? Loreal? Speaking out against powerful famous men who are dysfunctional and vengeful?

Abuse victims? Speaking out against powerful men who are dysfunctional and vengeful is a fine and dandy cause. The problem is her credibility has been shot for lying on the stand. I don't think any cause would want a liar as their representative.

What about all of *his* lies, which you and many others seem to conveniently overlook? Your double standard is ridiculous.

Well, he has never claimed to be a spokesperson for abuse victims, hasn't he?

He is now the de facto celebrity spokesperson for male “abuse” victims, or something to that effect.

You can remove your childish quotation marks around abuse, as it was clearly delineated in this trial that she abused him.

Or it was a whole lot of DARVO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how Dior stood behind JD and refused to give in to cancel culture nonsense.

+1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how Dior stood behind JD and refused to give in to cancel culture nonsense.

He was never canceled. Dior knew no matter the verdict they’d be winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Gal Gadot stopped following AH on Insta.

And yuck.
What a spineless twOt. No sisterhood. There isn’t a sisterhood. If you are abused by your partner you albetter be prepared for a lonely road. Feel deeply for Amber.

Save your sorryness for Amber’s daughter who will be here posting 20 years from now about the damage her BPD mother has caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really amazed that people assume Johnny was the first one who laid a hand and therefore Amber must have lived the relationship in self-defense instead of the other way around—especially when she has the proven history of DV and was recorded many times admitting to instigating fights. Mind boggling, really.

Only women can be believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

Then why are they suing him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

Then why are they suing him?

He sent them a non-party subpoena, and now they are seeking to recover their costs of producing documents in response to his subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Gal Gadot stopped following AH on Insta.

And yuck.
What a spineless twOt. No sisterhood. There isn’t a sisterhood. If you are abused by your partner you albetter be prepared for a lonely road. Feel deeply for Amber.

Forget about sisterhood - does Amber have any friends?
The unfollowing happened on the day when Amber was trying to convince everyone how she's on the same career level as Gal Gadot or Zendaya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

Then why are they suing him?

He sent them a non-party subpoena, and now they are seeking to recover their costs of producing documents in response to his subpoena.

Cost of doing business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

Then why are they suing him?

He sent them a non-party subpoena, and now they are seeking to recover their costs of producing documents in response to his subpoena.

Cost of doing business.

And recoverable by the ACLU. That's the cost of filing a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ACLU gets a black eye here, too. If your lawyers are ghost writing an op-Ed that results in a multi-million dollar judgment, that is less than ideal legal work.

I hope JD goes after them next. The ACLU has lost its way.

ACLU is suing him for 86k claiming it’s what it cost them to prepare paperwork evidence for the trial. Hope they never get it.

What would the basis for the suit be? Can anyone sue someone who subpoenas you to be party to a lawsuit (say for lost wages while testifying)?

Oh dear lord. The ACLU was not a party to this suit.

Then why are they suing him?

He sent them a non-party subpoena, and now they are seeking to recover their costs of producing documents in response to his subpoena.

Cost of doing business.

And recoverable by the ACLU. That's the cost of filing a lawsuit.

They have to win first.