• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Johnny Depp Vs Amber Heard Defamation trial live

Lord Panda

The Sea is Always Right
I’m still amazed at how moronic she is. She pretty much had everything at her fingertips: career, shitloads of cash, fans... But it wasn’t enough; she wanted to be sanctified by destroying Depp. No remorse, no ownership of all the shit (literally) she’s done, Glad she’s done and I’m still pissed that the ACLU got off relatively unscathed, and had the gall to bill Depp for legal costs.
 

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member

Amber Heard is switching legal counsel going into her appeal of the Johnny Depp defamation trial verdict.

On Monday, a spokesperson for the 36-year-old actress announced that she hired David L. Axelrod and Jay Ward Brown of Ballard Spahr to lead, with Ben Rottenborn continuing as co-counsel. Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, who represented Heard in the six-week Fairfax County, Virginia, trial earlier this year is stepping down.

"When it comes to protecting the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech, we look at the jury's decision — to paraphrase a famous quote — not 'as the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.' A different court warrants different representation, particularly as so much new evidence is now coming to light," a spokesperson for Heard said in a statement.

Said Bredehoft, "This is the perfect time to pass the baton. I have pledged to Amber and her appellate team my complete cooperation and assistance as they move forward on a path towards success."

Attorneys Axelrod and Brown successfully defended The New York Timesagainst Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit earlier this year.

They said in a joint statement, "We welcome the opportunity to represent Ms. Heard in this appeal as it is a case with important First Amendment implications for every American. We're confident the appellate court will apply the law properly without deference to popularity, reverse the judgment against Ms. Heard, and reaffirm the fundamental principles of Freedom of Speech."

On June 1, the seven-person jury handed down its verdict, siding mostly with Heard's ex-husband Depp, 59, finding that she defamed him in her 2018 Washington Post op-ed about domestic violence, though she didn't mention him by name. He was awarded more than $10 million in damages. Heard, meanwhile, won one of her three defamation countersuit claims and was awarded $2 million.

Judge Penney Azcarate , and after Heard officially appealed the verdict, Depp's legal team announced that they would .

A source close to Depp said it was an "overwhelmingly positive verdict" for the actor, who "believes that this is a time for both parties to move on with their lives and heal." The source added, "But if Ms. Heard is determined to pursue further litigation by appealing the verdict, Mr. Depp is filing a concurrent appeal to ensure that the full record and all relevant legal issues are considered by the Court of Appeal."

In a statement last month about — which will require Heard to post a bond of the full damages amount she owes — a spokesperson for Heard said they "believe the court made errors that prevented a just and fair verdict consistent with the First Amendment."

"We are therefore appealing the verdict," they added. "While we realize today's filing will ignite the Twitter bonfires, there are steps we need to take to ensure both fairness and justice."

Responding to the development, a Depp spokesperson then said in a statement: "The jury listened to the extensive evidence presented during the six-week trial and came to a clear and unanimous verdict that the defendant herself defamed Mr. Depp, in multiple instances. and that this verdict will stand."
 

*Nightwing

Member
Said Bredehoft, "This is the perfect time to pass the baton. I have pledged to Amber and her appellate team my complete cooperation and assistance as they move forward on a path towards success."

rIpN6B5.gif
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
First Amendment implications for every American. We're confident the appellate court will apply the law properly without deference to popularity, reverse the judgment against Ms. Heard, and reaffirm the fundamental principles of Freedom of Speech
Cue to people on one side of the spectrum making their usual point about “First Amendment is just a protection from
Government’s oppression” (this concept ignores a much much changed landscape from the 18/19th century: https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/24/1a/) and “Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences”…

Any minute now…

plains tumble weed GIF


Almost as if those were just debate school arguments trying to score wins and dropped when convenient:
dXL90Uu.jpg
 
Last edited:

lifa-cobex

Member
I would find a new flatmate.
She kept going on about i this morn. Blatantly trying to get me into a "discussion".

I haven't been up to date since the defamation trial but apparently those sealed documents blow Depp out the water............
She also thinks Youtubers pushed a narrative.

"ahh rite.... Well gtg"
 

Woggleman

Member
Come on, it's not that hard to see. A big name actor won against a big name actress and it shows that #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen is nothing more than another toxic pile of lies?
It's a PR disaster, they need a victory. They NEED IT.
The sad thing is it could have been in opportunity for MeToo. It would have showed that they actually cared about facts so when they made an accusation it would carry that much more weight. Whenever somebody said it was just about hating men they could have pointed to this case and shown that it wasn't the case. By backing her they just prove their enemies right.
 
But if she gets rekt for a second time (which she most likely will) won't she be even poorer? The new attorney group aint doing it for free
Someone might take the risk. If you want to make a name for yourself, good or bad, this is a good case to do it. And lot's of people in America, I'll never know why, want to be famous.

Of course though, I suggest making a better job than Rottenborn and Bredehoft did as not every publicity is good career-wise.

Also Amber Heard is a nutjob to defend in court, but to some extent so is Johnny Depp and their relationship was clearly toxic, so it wasn't just toxic on his end, it was toxic, period. Also the unsealed document paint his original defence and defence team streategy in a different light. They did a very nice job for him in the end, neatly tucking away the things that would be bad for Johnny to admit and justify and hammering the other team in every possible situation for being incompetent.

Anyway, the court case was a slam dunk, but on paper it isn't. A new trial is bad for Johnny Depp even if his teams strategy is trying to make it appear as if they filled the motion alongside Amber (they only did because she did), and Amber thinks she has nothing left to lose. That might be true, other than perjury charges which seem to be off the table. And extra costs that she wont pay if she lacks the funds.
 
My niece went on a date with a guy who started saying how much he supports Amber Heard while my niece said she supports Depp he changed tune. He was just trying to show her what a good feminist he is.
I read somewhere recently that hook ups on dating apps in New York are more likely if guys that say in the bio that they go to therapy. That's something girls over there are looking for.

WTF. That guy was probably trying to tap some similar stereotype/tendency. What a feminist.
 

Tams

Member
The sad thing is it could have been in opportunity for MeToo. It would have showed that they actually cared about facts so when they made an accusation it would carry that much more weight. Whenever somebody said it was just about hating men they could have pointed to this case and shown that it wasn't the case. By backing her they just prove their enemies right.
'They' didn't though, because that's not what the movement is about.

I say 'they' because there is a minority who genuinely have been abused and ignored because they were/are women. I believe most of the first lot were genuine, though grifters and nutters will have gotten in early too. The genuine people have mostly disassociated themselves with the whole thing now.
 
Someone might take the risk. If you want to make a name for yourself, good or bad, this is a good case to do it. And lot's of people in America, I'll never know why, want to be famous.

Of course though, I suggest making a better job than Rottenborn and Bredehoft did as not every publicity is good career-wise.

Also Amber Heard is a nutjob to defend in court, but to some extent so is Johnny Depp and their relationship was clearly toxic, so it wasn't just toxic on his end, it was toxic, period. Also the unsealed document paint his original defence and defence team streategy in a different light. They did a very nice job for him in the end, neatly tucking away the things that would be bad for Johnny to admit and justify and hammering the other team in every possible situation for being incompetent.

Anyway, the court case was a slam dunk, but on paper it isn't. A new trial is bad for Johnny Depp even if his teams strategy is trying to make it appear as if they filled the motion alongside Amber (they only did because she did), and Amber thinks she has nothing left to lose. That might be true, other than perjury charges which seem to be off the table. And extra costs that she wont pay if she lacks the funds.
Judging by those summaries it's just more bullshit and hot air that's angled to make Depp look worse.
 
Judging by those summaries it's just more bullshit and hot air that's angled to make Depp look worse.
It's the Guardian though, and there has been a bunch of articles like this (on major outlets) which make it seem the tide might change. Of course it's not the journals that mean anything here but more data means more confusion and more fuel to the flame. The end idea was that there was one who was more of an abuser than the other, but that's hard to prove. When Johnny Depp went into the last trial a tie would be good, for amber a tie is good right now, further mudding the waters.

I doubt it will because Amber stance in court is unbelievable, she has more of a chance of winning a trial not showing up (the English one) than if she shows up.
 
Last edited:

Tams

Member
It's the Guardian though, and there has been a bunch of articles like this (on major outlets) which make it seem the tide might change. Of course it's not the journals that mean anything here but more data means more confusion and more fuel to the flame. The end idea was that there was one who was more of an abuser than the other, but that's hard to prove. When Johnny Depp went into the last trial a tie would be good, for amber a tie is good right now, further mudding the waters.

I doubt it will because Amber stance in court is unbelievable, she has more of a chance of winning a trial not showing up (the English one) than if she shows up.

The Guardian is great for the news, but the opinion pieces are an absolute shitshow and full on both-sideism, that is, as long as it suits their agenda.
 

Dane

Member
Top Bottom