Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 196 to 207 of 207
Like Tree564Likes

Thread: Amber Heard (Turd) vs Johnny Depp (Derp)

  1. #196
    Elite Member MsDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northwest MS/Memphis TN
    Posts
    31,704

    Default

    What the fuck is he appealing? I don't even get this.

    But I do get that he's becoming more famous for this (and being a hot mess junkie) than he used to be for being an actor.
    Jadestone and lindsaywhit like this.
    My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex

    "I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin

  2. #197
    Elite Member Trixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    exiled and ostrich sized
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NickiDrea View Post
    He can appeal what appears to be a credibility decision? Couldn’t (successfully) happen in the US.
    Can this ruling in the UK be used against him in his upcoming defamation case against Amber in the US?
    These people don't give a fuck about YOU or us. It's a message board, for Christ's sake. ~ mrs.v ~
    ~"Fuck off! Aim higher! Get a life! Get away from me!" ~the lovely and talented Miss Julia Roberts~



  3. #198
    Elite Member SHELLEE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    24,223

    Default

    I wouldn’t think so. At least it shouldn’t.
    effie2 and crayzeehappee like this.
    See, Whores, we are good for something. Love, Florida
    #fingersinthebootyassbitch

  4. #199
    Elite Member ana-mish-ana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Default

    I'm no fan of both but Depp should have dropped this, gone to rehab and take a break. He probably could have moved on from this but like all narcs they're going down with an epic implosion because of ego.

  5. #200
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    58,267

    Default

    Hollywood assumptions overturned by Johnny Depp's court defeat


    Stakes were high not just for the actor but for an industry that spent decades investing in him



    Indulgence of Depp’s flaws had hitherto seemed to expose the reality of a post-#MeToo landscape. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

    Catherine Shoard

    Mon 2 Nov 2020 10.49 EST

    The curtain has fallen on the London act of the courtroom drama starring Johnny Depp and Amber Heard – with a final twist that has surprised many in the industry.


    The widely-held assumption across Hollywood had been that Depp would not have mounted the case were he not convinced of victory. Simply by instigating proceedings, the theory ran that Depp was boosting a stock that was in decline.
    “He had no choice but to defend himself,” says Steven Gaydos, executive editor of Variety. “He was correct in his assessment of the potential damage that the phrase ‘wife-beater’ would have done to his future.”

    What Depp does now that the phrase is legally deemed acceptable to describe the actor is unclear. Certainly any plan beyond just filing for libel will have been “shaky”, Gaydos thinks.

    “Depp seems to have spent the past 10 years lurching about, teams of people chasing behind him,” says Gaydos.
    Yet there had remained an expectation – even a hope – within both Depp’s circle and the industry to which he has been so central that the high court proceeding would serve to remind the world of the cliches surrounding Depp’s appeal: as an artistic bad boy prone to madcap excesses and lapses of self-control.
    Meanwhile, the more humbling images the trial brought to light – Depp collapsed over ice-cream, missing a bit of his finger, finding faeces in his bed – potentially lent a new, pitiable aspect. Says one veteran entertainment publicist: “Thirty years ago, he’d have hated to be seen as a humiliated victim. Pushing 60, it sort of serves him.” Brand expansion is not an exact science.
    Now 57, Depp is an increasingly rare commodity for an industry facing substantial challenges: a franchise movie star also reckoned to be a talented actor. Now too old for leading man roles, Depp’s central role in the Pirates of the Caribbean has come to a close – and his involvement in the Fantastic Beasts series looks to be in increasing jeopardy.
    In late September, Warner Bros resumed production on the third instalment of the Harry Potter spin-off, after filming was halted in March due to the pandemic.
    Despite a substantial drop in US box office takings between the first two instalments, and some negative press surrounding creator JK Rowling as well as Depp, the studio is likely to proceed with the film.

    Rowling’s work has helped bankroll Warner Bros for the past 20 years, and a switch to an alternative studio for future Harry Potter work would be disastrous.

    Depp’s scenes in the film, whose release is still set for the end of next year, are not due to be filmed until the new year, and whether he remains part of the cast following Monday’s ruling is likely to be primarily down to Rowling’s discretion. Three years ago she defended him publicly, writing a statement in support of his continued role in the franchise despite the unfolding allegations.

    Rowling’s agent, Neil Blair, attended the hearing alongside Depp’s lawyers in what many interpreted as a show of solidarity. Shortly before the trial, in response to criticism of her public comments on transgender issues, Rowling published a statement in which she said she was a survivor of domestic and sexual violence in her first marriage; a claim her former husband denies.

    With blockbusters out of the picture, Depp will require credible choices to establish himself as a veteran player worthy of the Oscar that has so far eluded him. Small-scale vanity projects have largely failed to woo crowds or critics. For film historian David Thomson, Depp has not “been attached to a worthwhile film in a decade”. Yet film-makers remain eager to collaborate; he currently has 25 projects in pre-production.
    The stakes were therefore considerable not just for the man but for a beleaguered business that has spent decades investing in him.
    “Nobody talks about him as the CEO of a billion dollar corporation called Johnny Depp,” says Gaydos. “A corporation predicated on the charm and sexiness and talent and appeal of a person who becomes like a member of the family.”
    When returns on Depp delivered, they did so in style: the five Pirates films made more than $4.5bn and the series was the first to spawn two instalments that both grossed over $1bn.
    Yet indulgence of Depp’s flaws had hitherto seemed to expose the reality of a post-#MeToo landscape. Press reporting of the trial accorded as much finger-pointing to Heard as Depp.
    “A lot of the coverage reminded me of an earlier time,” says Gaydos. “Heard was blamed for a lot of the abuse. There was so much scepticism around her story and this sense she brought it on herself as a strong-willed, attractive woman.”
    That sentiment is echoed by Mariana Dahan, who runs World Identity Network, an NGO foundation championing the rights of undocumented migrants for which Heard has acted as an ambassador.
    “Power flows downward,” she said, “which is why the outcome of the lawsuit Depp filed against her is so important – and will send a message to women around the world about the extent their voices matter.
    “For the vast majority of women, Amber is an ambassador on women’s rights; standing with survivors as male-dominated cultural institutions discredit those who speak out against accused abusers.”
    Her testimony – and the eventual verdict – reflect especially badly on the high-profile stars who failed to come out in support for Heard at the time, thinks Dahan.
    “Women should stand up for each other, especially other survivors of abuse. But there were no brownie points in endorsing someone like Amber, and I think people are now more cautious about how doing so could hurt their careers.
    “Women like Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder [Depp’s exes, who said he had never been violent towards them] ought to have more compassion for what Amber went through. They lacked solidarity.”
    The future prospects for Heard now seem far brighter than before the trial.
    “She never really got traction as a major, quality actress,” says Gaydos. “She does not have a Jennifer Lawrence career; she doesn’t even have a Kate Hudson career.”
    Now 34, the actor currently has just one officially listed upcoming project – a thriller set in the underworld of European modelling – and her supporting role in DC franchise Aquaman has not yet been complemented by a meaty lead.
    But Dahan thinks Heard may use the victory to pivot more permanently into the world of advocacy. Heard frequently carried out her duties entirely at her own expense, once flying from Los Angeles to New York, then – as the city was gridlocked – walking miles through town on high heels to speak at an event.
    “I was blown away by her commitment,” says Dahan. “Male counterparts have asked for $200,000 to speak at such things. I was like: ‘My God, we are a charity!’ But Amber did it for free.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/02/hollywood-assumptions-overturned-by-johnny-depps-court-defeat


    Sarzy and Sleuth like this.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  6. #201
    Elite Member Neptunia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,999

    Default

    The fall of Johnny Depp: how the world's most beautiful movie star turned very ugly


    https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...rned-very-ugly


    It won't let me post the article or any of the pictures but it's a great article about the downfall of a movie star.
    I know he's an awful person and a big mess but I still love any picture of him with Winona Ryder back when they were both young and beautiful.

  7. #202
    Elite Member NickiDrea's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
    Can this ruling in the UK be used against him in his upcoming defamation case against Amber in the US?
    I don’t definitively know the answer to this question, but I lean towards no.
    Trixie and Novice like this.
    "Thankfully I'm an educated multi-millionaire who knows better than to speak to perverted unjust cops without my lawyer. "
    "I think she's psychotic...what do I do?" - Jenny Schecter

  8. #203
    Elite Member lindsaywhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neptunia View Post
    The fall of Johnny Depp: how the world's most beautiful movie star turned very ugly


    https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...rned-very-ugly


    It won't let me post the article or any of the pictures but it's a great article about the downfall of a movie star.
    I know he's an awful person and a big mess but I still love any picture of him with Winona Ryder back when they were both young and beautiful.
    Great article. Thanks for posting the link, Neptunia.


  9. #204
    Elite Member MsDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northwest MS/Memphis TN
    Posts
    31,704

    Default

    Thank god Winona didn't end up with him for the long haul.
    My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex

    "I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin

  10. #205
    Elite Member Kittylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somewhere been 'General Confusion' and 'Total WTF?'
    Posts
    21,320

    Default

    I don't normally watch these type of videos but a friend sent this to me and kept nagging me to watch it and if even half of the stuff listed here is true Depp could have a good case to have the verdict overturned on appeal on the grounds of undeclared interests/conflict of interests. I'll try and break it down as best as I can from what I understood from the video for anyone who doesn't want to watch it.



    * The trial judge, Mr Justice Nicol, has a son (Robert Palmer) who is a presenter on Talk Radio, which also employs Dan Wooten, the author of the article in The Sun that started all of this.

    * Talk Radio is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns the Sun, which employs Dan Wooten as the Executive Editor.

    * Amber Heard's counsel Jen Robinson was mentored and is employed by Geoffrey Robertson who is close friends with Mr Justice Nicol and co-authored a book with him.

    * Geoffrey Robertson's estranged wife is the author Kathy Lette, who threw a private dinner party during the trial which was attended by Jen Robinson, who took Amber Heard with her as her guest.

    * Also attending the dinner party was Baroness Helena Kennedy who, along with Geoffrey Robertson, founded the high end legal practice Doughty Street Chambers, where Mr Justice Nicol was a barrister before becoming a judge.

    * Mr Justice Nicol's wife, Camilla Parker QC is also a close friend of.... Kathy Lettes.

    (And there's other stuff about Amber Heard being allowed access to stuff in court that she possibly shouldn't have been but that's the least complicated way I can summarise the rest of it for you all lol. ETA: There's a hand drawn flowchart of all of this which might give Mo conniptions, so Mo Discretion is advised).

    This has the potential to get longer and messier than anyone could have guessed, so don't put away the popcorn just yet.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S Thompson

    How big would a T-Rex wang be?! - Karistiona


  11. #206
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    58,267

    Default

    I think that just proves that the UK is elitist and insular and that anyone in any kind of position of power, be it in the media, politics or justice is in some way related. This information isn't a secret and if depp's lawyers are worth even a quarter of what he's paying them, they would have known this from the beginning and it wasn't enough to get the judge removed. Also, Amber heard was just a witness in this case not a plaintiff or a defendant.

    this is an interesting article about the legal merits of the case:

    A critical analysis of the Johnny Depp libel trial


    By Benjamin Ramsey on Nov 5 2020

    County court advocate Benjamin Ramsey considers what’s next for the Hollywood megastar after the High Court dismissed his claim on Monday


    On 2 November 2020, Hollywood megastar Johnny Depp’s libel claim against The Sun newspaper was dismissed by the High Court. While Mr Justice Nicol found that Depp had proved the necessary elements for an action in libel, The Sun had also proved that what they had published was “substantially true”.
    An exploration of the relevant law surrounding this case is provided here, along with a comparison to American defamation laws. I will also consider the fairness of the article published and its relevance to the decision. Finally, I will look at what is next, if indeed anything, for the former Pirates of the Caribbean star.

    The law

    The legal issues within the case are straightforward.
    Depp brought the libel action under Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013. This claim followed the publication of an article on 27 April 2018 on The Sun newspapers’ website with the headline, ‘GONE POTTY How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?’. The author of the article was also a party to proceedings as the second defendant.
    Depp’s legal team, headed by Eleanor Laws QC of QEB Hollis Whiteman, claimed that the term ‘wife beater’ was untrue and would cause the actor’s personal and professional reputation ‘serious harm’. The Sun meanwhile, whose legal team was headed by Sasha Wass QC of 6KBW, utilised the ‘truth defence’ as defined in Section 2 of the 2013 Act.

    Section 2(1) of the 2013 Act states the following: “It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.”
    What is important to take from the above is that it was for the defendant, namely The Sun, to prove that the statement made in the article was “substantially true”. Under English law, therefore, there is a presumption that the statement made is false. So, while the burden of proof rested on Depp to prove his reputation had suffered serious harm, that burden was reversed to show that the statement made was true. Both parties had to prove the elements to the civil standard, that being on the balance of probabilities i.e. in the case of The Sun, it is more probable than not that Depp did what is alleged in the article.
    Some would argue, that placing the burden on the defendant to prove the statement hinders Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to expression. I do not intend to delve into that here but it does raise the question whether the current defamation legislation strikes the right balance between the rights of newspapers to have sufficient freedom to engage in journalistic practices and the right of private citizens not to suffer unwarranted interference (Article 8: Right to privacy and family life).

    The UK’s so-called pro-claimant approach is in direct contrast with American defamation law, which is largely pro-defendant. In America, they believe the right to free expression, which is entrenched in the First Amendment of the American Constitution, is more important than compensating claimants for harm caused by defamatory statements. As such, in the US, there is no presumption that the statement made is false. Rather, it is for the claimant to prove that the statement is false. Therefore, had this case been brought in America, it would have been for Depp to prove that The Sun had been negligent as to the falsity of the defamatory statement. Whether that would have meant a different outcome for Depp is a different matter entirely.

    The decision

    Ultimately, ruling in Depp II v News Group Newspaper Ltd [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB), Mr Justice Nicol found that while the statement of ‘wife beater’ would cause serious harm to Depp’s reputation, a fact accepted by The Sun‘s legal team in closing submissions, it was also found on the balance of probabilities that such a statement was true. Of the 14 incidents of physical violence alleged against then-wife Amber Heard, 12 of them had been proved to the civil standard. For the two incidents which could not be proven, the judge noted this was due to certain facts not being put to Depp during cross-examination. Further, the judge rejected Depp’s case that this was all hoax concocted by Heard finding that she had not been physically violent towards Depp.

    Is the article as a whole a fair reflection of the situation?

    Whether the statement, or indeed the article as a whole, is a fair reflection of events is immaterial to the truth defence. All Mr Justice Nicol was concerned about was whether the term ‘wife beater’ was substantially true or not. It was accepted by both parties that such a term meant the following:
    i) The claimant had committed physical violence against Heard;
    ii) This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and
    iii) On occasion it caused Heard to fear for her life.
    Therefore, provided The Sun could prove to the civil standard that Depp had been physically violent toward Heard on at least one of the 14 occasions regardless of the context of the violence or whether she had been violent also, the statement would still be “substantially true”.


    Many news outlets depicted this case as Johnny Depp v Amber Heard; however, Heard was only ever a witness for The Sun. She was there solely to prove that the statement was true. While Depp had gone all in to prove his innocence in what could be one of the biggest missteps of his already patchy career.

    To conclude, neither Depp nor Heard has come out of this highly publicised trial in good shape, even if no finding of physical violence were made against Heard.
    Arguably, Depp’s pursuit of this case was ill-advised. The case placed the depths of a personal life, fraught with excessive alcohol and drug abuse, in full view of the public over three long weeks. The alternative was to simply dismiss the article as tabloid rubbish. Instead, Depp has been legally termed a ‘wife beater’ albeit to the civil standard. This result will serve as a stark reminder to those who believe that they have a cause of action but actually bringing the claim may cause more harm than good.

    Next steps

    It will be interesting to see where this case progresses. Depp’s legal team have called the judgment “perverse and bewildering” and indicated that he will be seeking permission to appeal.
    The relevant test is outlined in Part 52.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). It states the following:
    (1) Except where rule 52.7 applies, permission to appeal may be given only where–
    (a) the court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or
    (b) there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

    While at first glance the test appears wide, it is difficult to see how Depp would be successful and what an appeal would achieve. Mr Justice Nicol’s judgment is extensive and involves various findings of fact against Depp across those 14 incidents. The judge made those findings having had the advantage of numerous witnesses giving live evidence. Any appeal hearing, should permission even be granted, would not be a rehearing of the case and would most likely be submission-based only.

    This case revolved around the issue of fact, with the judge having to decide which versions of events were more credible. The judge sided with Heard. Any appeal court would place significant weight on the judge’s discretion in the case, with him being more familiar with the evidence than any appeal court would be.

    Dragging this case out would only seek to further damage Depp’s reputation with little positives to achieve. He would have to show that the 12 findings of fact that he was physically violent towards Heard were incorrect for his claim to be successful on appeal.

    Despite this, the war between Depp and Heard wages on in the US with Depp bringing a further defamation claim against Heard directly for $50 million. It will be interesting to see if the different approach in the US, which poses different questions to that of the 2013 Act, will throw up a different outcome. Further to that, following the imposition of the SPEECH Act 2010, American courts no longer recognise, nor enforce, foreign judgments for libel obtained under laws which do not afford as much protection for freedom of speech as that of the First Amendment. It appears then, that while this judgment may be persuasive to the American courts, Depp and Heard appear destined to do this all over again and I for one will be watching.
    https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journa...p-libel-trial/
    palta likes this.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  12. #207
    Elite Member Lofty Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,819

    Default

    I'm quite sure that he is ruining not only his reputation, but also his future lovelife to an extent. Not only is he an aging unwashed violent addict, no - he will haunt you for years after the relationship ends, trying to end you on a personal and professional level. What a catch he is.

    Of course soon there will be another young woman with an old soul at his side.
    lindsaywhit and MsDark like this.
    OITNB, Galina 'Red' Reznikov:
    You want to assassinate someone, vision is a basic requirement. It's like: step one: pick a person to kill. Step two: kill THAT person.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
    By dowcat in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: June 19th, 2016, 08:46 PM
  2. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
    By Honey in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 11th, 2016, 10:06 PM
  3. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
    By sprynkles in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 6th, 2016, 11:43 PM
  4. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in Australia
    By dowcat in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2015, 02:48 PM
  5. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
    By Honey in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 24th, 2014, 04:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •