Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I read it isn't a lawsuit, more like a bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't blame Gal Gadot at all. The arrogance of comparing Amber to other actors was uncomfortable to watch! The Hollywood expert, Richard Marks was great at putting it in proper perspective!! He made it clear Amber was not in the same category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't blame Gal Gadot at all. The arrogance of comparing Amber to other actors was uncomfortable to watch! The Hollywood expert, Richard Marks was great at putting it in proper perspective!! He made it clear Amber was not in the same category.

Omg, that man was so awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I read it isn't a lawsuit, more like a bill.

DP. It is a motion filed in the NY action Depp filed to get non-party subpoenas issued to the ACLU. Depp isn’t disputing that he’s obligated to reimburse the ACLU, he is just disputing the reasonableness of the amount. He stupid thing is that when it’s all over, whatever reduction he might get will probably be less than the legal fees he’ll pay to his own attorneys to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a "suit" and it's not a thing you "win" or lose. It is a normal part of the cost of expensive litigation. A court sometimes helps the parties decide what is a fair and reasonable reimbursement to pay people who were not directly involved in the suit, but compelled by law to spend money to participate in it. Basically, our system recognizes that no one should be out $$$$ to be a witness in a suit that gets someone else paid. But you can't price gouge either; the cost has to be reasonable, so judges get involved in settling up the bill.

So if you were subpoenaed as a witness to testify and it cost you a day's wages and bus fair, you might petition the court for reimbursement; but if you unnecessarily hired a $1000 per hour lawyer to help you prepare to testify that the light was indeed red ... you won't be seeing that cash.

[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.

Good lord. Just take the L already. Your lawyers botching this directly lead to the verdict. Now you want to charge for that quality legal work? Unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the AH fans who claimed Johnny will never be in a blockbuster again or whatever -- Wall Street Journal reports his Dior cologne is selling out. His star power is through the roof; a blockbuster comeback is imminent.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1532520000245882880

Imagine if he has a sort of catharsis and changes his appearance to old Johnny. The shorter hair, no mustache, no rings and funky chains, etc. More of a polished look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

Men can be abuse victims, but JD isn’t. He’s a washed-up junkie desperate to blame anyone but himself for ruining his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you say that again in English? I don’t speak Online Adolescent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

Men can be abuse victims, but JD isn’t. He’s a washed-up junkie desperate to blame anyone but himself for ruining his life.

Women can be abuse victims, but AH isn’t. She’s a compulsive liar who committed perjury.

And “washed up junkie” is entirely immaterial to someone being abused. Try harder next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you say that again in English? I don’t speak Online Adolescent.

If you don’t know what DARVO means, you have no business engaging in a debate about domestic abuse. I am not your research monkey, figure it out for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. Too many still think men can't be victims. Such as the PP with the "abuse" post. Jerk.

Men can be abuse victims, but JD isn’t. He’s a washed-up junkie desperate to blame anyone but himself for ruining his life.

Women can be abuse victims, but AH isn’t. She’s a compulsive liar who committed perjury.

And “washed up junkie” is entirely immaterial to someone being abused. Try harder next time.

At least you don’t deny he’s a washed-up junkie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the AH fans who claimed Johnny will never be in a blockbuster again or whatever -- Wall Street Journal reports his Dior cologne is selling out. His star power is through the roof; a blockbuster comeback is imminent.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1532520000245882880

Imagine if he has a sort of catharsis and changes his appearance to old Johnny. The shorter hair, no mustache, no rings and funky chains, etc. More of a polished look.

Yes!! (DP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the AH fans who claimed Johnny will never be in a blockbuster again or whatever -- Wall Street Journal reports his Dior cologne is selling out. His star power is through the roof; a blockbuster comeback is imminent.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1532520000245882880

Imagine if he has a sort of catharsis and changes his appearance to old Johnny. The shorter hair, no mustache, no rings and funky chains, etc. More of a polished look.

Yes!! (DP)

Don’t hold your breath.