The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp, Probably Coming Soon to a Streaming Service Near You
Posts
Sure like now, at the time though it certainly wasnt.
Either way if neither of these two work again great, the sooner we all forget this bullshit the better.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean, the movies are shit, yes. But I don't thing appearing in them, collecting a fat paycheck and going home is actually damaging anyone's career. They aren't that kind of bad.
My take on what probably actually happened is that Depp and Heard frequently got into drunken arguments, during which they often hit each other. Let's face it, that's an abusive relationship.
What the court case revolves around, is that Heard said (exaggerated for effect): "Depp physically assaulted me every hour of every day, kept me captive in a cave in Pakistan for weeks, and threatened to eat babies in front of me".
i.e. Heard told a story that was different from reality, and one that was provably false.
In return, Depp's lawyer said (following on from previous exaggeration) "Heard attempted to stage a crime scene in Pakistan".
I.e Depp's lawyers told a story that was also provably false - Heard alleged a crime in Pakistan, but made no effort to fabricate evidence.
The bottom line was that the jury found that the abuse did not happen in the way that Heard described, and that these specific proven-false public allegations had damaged Depp's career. They also found that Depp's lawyers had caused damage through untrue statements, but to a lesser degree.
The jury did NOT find that abuse never happened.
For an actor getting paid is how they earn a living. Getting paid a lot of money to star in drek like Fantastic Beast is a fairly good gig. Even if he isn't starring in Oscar worthy blockbusters anymore, he has a career. Nobody is due a high paying career but nobody is due to lose it due to defamation either. When the accusations happened it hurt his career in tangible and widely documented ways.
Bear in mind that nobody knew any of the facts of the case when he lost those jobs. We believed the victim, but instead of moving to the next step; Trial. The Public went straight to punishment.
This has been the weakness of Me Too for many. Its been the accusation leveled at "Cancel Culture" (which isn't a real thing in a formal sense). Punishment without a trial.
This goes against the spirit of Me Too, which was to make such accusations able to get their day in court instead of being dismissed as "bitchy women who can't take a joke". This is why this case has been a setback, because now cases that should get their day in court, wont.
No, the laws about broadcasting courtroom proceedings do actually vary. Plenty of judges have the option to permit TV cameras and choose not to, but a significant amount don't have the option at all.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah. It barely/never happens in federal court. Your perception is clearly shaped by the high profile cases you become aware of because of high publicity and you are not taking into account the unobserved cases (because they’re not high profile!!)
NNID: Hakkekage
You don't know that. They also didn't necessarily find that the abuse did happen. There are a lot of failure points in
AFAICT the big provable one was that Amber and her friends spilled wine around, then called the cops. The cops' bodycams showed no evidence of spilled wine. Boom, false statement that can be spun up into defamation.
The speculation I've seen from a handful of different Lawtubers is that it was a compromise verdict. According to them, there was probably one pro-Heard juror being a stick in the mud about finding in favor of Depp on every single charge. The rest of the jurors, after they got sick of arguing about it, decided to give that person a sop by calling Waldman's statement defamation so they could all go home.
And she'd be getting a ~50% rawer deal if the jury had their way with the five million in punitive damages
It turns out waging a 6 year+ campaign of deception to ruin your world-famous ex-husband, up to the point of committing perjury on two different continents, makes people angry.
In all seriousness, it wouldn't be appropriate to render her homeless. I guess it all depends on what happens to her when she (borderline inevitably) can't pay what she owes.
As for this point — so? c-span is mostly mind numbing. That’s not the reason congress is publicly available on live broadcast. Viewership numbers aren’t a factor.
Live streaming isn’t the norm because of a combination of a) technological shift happening slowly in courts; b) the tech being new enough that the concept of the word “public” doesn’t yet necessarily include “on demand live streams” but does include much more established cases like “open doors” and “reporters” and sometimes overflow courtrooms where they pipe in a livestream but don’t put it online, and c) judges often being reluctant to introduce wild card elements to proceedings while they are trying to manage a trial (even remote testimony in court gets messy quick bc so much control has to be ceded to the tech)
This is the unusual case with two high profile individual litigants (as opposed to for example Fed Agency v. Corporation or BigCorp v. BigCorp). Treat it like one and don’t draw broader conclusions about trials writ large where there isnt any basis.
NNID: Hakkekage
Yes but the high profile ones are the only time it's relevant. It doesn't matter if you can or cannot broadcast the cases no one was going to broadcast anyway.
So….we are not talking about courts, procedures, or laws, but legally irrelevant public opinion. Which means there is no broad statement to be made about how American courts in general operate with respect to publicity of trials, and in fact, it is the departure from normal practice in this specific case that is the only issue bothering you, which is what I’ve been saying this entire time.
NNID: Hakkekage
I mean, the behavior that Depp admitted to, and that nobody is really contesting, qualifies as persistent emotional abuse. It wasn't the sexual abuse that Heard seemed to fabricate or the physical abuse that Heard exaggerated to the point of farce, but it was still pretty pernicious.
I was under the impression Archangle was inferring, from the jury's finding in favor of Heard w/r/t one of her defamation claims, that they had come to the conclusion he did in fact physically abuse her. The jury coming to that conclusion is possible but, it seems to me, not required to judge Waldman's statement defamatory. I might have read the wrong emphasis into what Archangle said, though.
The UK case was against The Sun, and had to prove that The Sun knew the op-ed was a lie when they published it.
The US case was against Heard herself, and had to prove that she lied in the op-ed, that the op-ed was written about Depp, that Depp was harmed by this, and that she did so maliciously.
And Depp lost the UK case because The Sun would really have to fuck up to get nailed on that, and they've probably upped their training on avoiding criminal charges since that cell phone hacking scandal.
Depp won the US case because Heard basically admitted on the stand the op-ed was about Depp, Depp lost acting jobs at around the time of publishing the op-ed, and Heard put events in the op-ed that were contradicted by witnesses and/or photographic evidence. Plus Heard seemingly being a worse witness than Alex Jones as far as hurting her case goes. I'm not even bothering with the malicious bit because that's just going to flow naturally from the jury deciding that Heard lied in the op-ed about Depp.
Is that the basic situation?
I don't think anyone has any ground to stand on if they assert neither abused the other.
I do not.
Maybe don't try to take advantage of a movement meant to embolden victims to speak out against their abusers, to play the role of a victim for your own advancement and write an easily disprovable op-ed trying to trash your ex-husbands life and career for your own benefit.
What Heard did was pretty monstrous.
Since two other people already handled the other two points you tried to make here I'll go ahead and let you know why this second one is also farcical bullshit. Amber Heard LIED. If because of how she was so easily proven to have made up those allegations by constantly lying and undermining herself on the stand makes actual victims coming forward with real instances of abuse less likely to be believed then that's the fault of Amber Heard.
Amber Heard defamed Depp, and whatever you may think of him outside of this instance, he has every right to defend himself against false allegations.
Yes but it doesn't matter because some people convinced themselves years ago that Depp is a physically and mentally abusive monster that is beyond redemption
and some people think that Heard is a lying shitbag that used Me Too in order to raise her profile
and some people think they're probably both damaged people who genuinely need help
and some people want them to just go the fuck away so they never have to hear about this inane bullshit ever again.
Oh, it's somewhat useful as far as being able to sort out who is completely talking out of their ass on this. For example, anyone holding up the UK loss as some a sign that the US trial wasn't on the up and up or something.
No…..no. Generally, Defamation of a public figure requires that the claim made by the defendant was 1) a factual claim about the plaintiff that the defendant 2) stated with actual malice (specific intent to harm reputation) 3) knowing that the claim was untrue or likely to be untrue and stated anyway with more than reckless disregard for the truth 4) stated to a third party/parties and 5) which actually harms the plaintiff’s reputation (NOT just emotionally; there must be demonstrated and quantifiable monetary loss). Any gloss VA caselaw has added to these elements is unlikely to materially change these requirements
Being a liar in general is not enough. Being a noncredible witness is not enough, unless it makes the jury believe that if you lie about one thing you probably lied about other things. And in America, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the factual claims are false (whereas in the UK, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the factual claims are true). From what I remember about the specific statements alleged to be defamatory in Heard’s op-ed, they were general — “I know what it’s like to be domestically abused and not be believed” or something like that. It’s enough that through context the readers of the op-ed would understand that Heard, as the speaker, meant the perpetrator of the abuse referenced was her husband, Depp, for the statement to be about him. It is not enough that she lied about certain aspects of the abuse (ie severity/regularity/unprovoked or not). Depp would have had to prove that there was NO abuse in order for Heard’s claim in the op-Ed to be false; that she knew there was no abuse and maliciously stated it anyway with the purpose of or reckless disregard for the likelihood that it would damage Depp’s reputation.
And, without again getting into the details of the testimony and the evidence, it seems like Depp didn't prove that he never abused Heard...just that in incidents Heard claimed happened outside of the op-ed (incorporated by reference, I guess??), she lied a lot about details, and some didn't happen; but some did happen, even if they were milder than she claimed them to be outside of the direct statement claimed to be defamatory. That doesn't mean there aren't additional factual issues to resolve about what sort of "domestic abuse" was understood to be invoked by Heard's usage of the term in the op-ed (physical; sexual; emotional; financial/controlling behavior), which is necessarily thorny for a jury to determine.
And, finally, the jury found no facts whatsoever about Heard's motivation w/r/t MeToo or becoming a spokeswoman for domestic violence, that she was selfish or self-serving or vain or arrogant. It found that she intended to hurt Depp through her statements.
NNID: Hakkekage
If you don't want to watch the whole trial, you should check out Emily D Baker's summaries of it so instead of just guessing at things like this you'd actually know. Also no one is saying the Jury was supposed to find that Heard was selfish or arrogant but that just comes with the territory of taking advantage of Me Too to write a bullshit op-ed specifically to defame your ex.
I have seen some of her stuff on youtube, thanks. And I never stated it was implausible for the jury to find that Depp met his burden of proving that he never abused Heard. I was very clearly responding to the suggestions in this thread that because Heard lied about certain aspects/delivered inconsistent testimony, she failed to meet her burden/defamed Depp. That's not enough as a matter of law, whatever the facts.
NNID: Hakkekage
We're obviously talking past each other somehow because I don't know what you're replying to other than I thought you should check out her summaries if you wanted to know more more details of the specific testimonies and evidence, and that it was obvious that the Jury wasn't supposed to rule on whether Heard was selfish or arrogant or whatever.
I don't want to know, thanks (see, e.g., my resistance to getting sucked in). It is telling that despite this recognition it is beyond question that the conclusion people are drawing from the verdict is that she had to be motivated to lie by these cynical purposes regardless of the jury's finding.
NNID: Hakkekage
I think H's point is that per the law (and given the non-specific nature of the allegations of being abused), Depp's burden was to show that any abuse simply had never happened (or perhaps that any abuse occurred after the op-ed was written, I mean I guess that'd satisfy the requirement that the statements in the op-ed were false). If Heard had made detailed claims about an abusive event X and Depp knocked those down with witnesses and photos, then that would satisfy the law's requirements, but the statements that were found to be defamatory were not specific like that and so for Depp to succeed he would need to, I guess I'd say generally, show that he had never abused her. I copy/pasted the defamatory statements from the WaPo's addendum to her op-ed.
I'm glad spending my morning commute typing on my phone is helpful to some.
NNID: Hakkekage
I don't necessarily think its just the verdict that is giving people this impression. If the trial was totally private and only the verdict was publicized, I don't think Heard would be catching as much criticism as she is. Her own testimony was pretty self-damning. The verdict just caps the whole thing in people's minds, but meat of it was what was displayed in the trial. The jury may be deciding on a narrow issue, but the public at large is under no such obligation to do so.
Yeah. I half expected Depp to lose the case, right up to the end, even though I had watched all of it and made up my mind that Heard is a liar (and not a very good one at that). I grew up with front row seats to domestic abuse, and I've also had the misfortune of dating someone with borderline personality disorder in the past. To me it was clear what Amber was all about, and I wouldn't have believed any of her claims even if she hadn't destroyed her own credibility by failing to keep her lies consistent. But I didn't understand the law well enough to predict how this would end, or even how I myself might have voted if I were on the jury. I'm just happy it ended like it did.
The public is also getting a PR campaign aimed at them to get them to view things in a certain way. For example, let's take Issac Baruch, the witness who testified about not seeing Heard's bruising and weeped on the stand about "false accusations" - I've seen his testimony brought up in "why she lost" pieces. What those pieces don't mention, however, is that Baruch is a long time friend and former employee of Depp's, with significant financial ties to Depp. Funny how a pretty important piece of background that goes to the credibility of the witness for Depp gets quietly elided over.
Okay. Did Heard's counsel being that up in cross? Seems pretty straightforward.
I didn't quite know what to make of it myself.
But I think the claim from the lawyer was that Heard basically deliberately trashed the place specifically to frame Depp. Which is a very specific claim, and could be debunked by, say, showing that the place was trashed because Depp broke shit in a drunken rage, or Heard and Depp collectively trashed it while fighting, but weren't actually attacking each other. Basically, unless Heard was breaking stuff on her own while cackling gleefully about ruining Depp's life, it didn't fit the allegation.
Which is why it was a pretty stupid allegation for the lawyer to make, honestly.
It is super interesting to see someone with qualifications in American law weigh in.
I am worried you're not putting enough #NOTLEGALADVICE in your posts though...
In a lot of people's defense, the reporting on this case is really pretty bad. Lots of hot takes about "the UK case proved that Depp definitely did everything Heard claimed, so obviously Heard should have won her case" and "Heard clearly demonstrated everything she claimed and the jury only sided with Depp because apparently it's okay to rape people now" and other nuclear hot takes.
My own opinion until I started paying closer attention was that Depp did all the things and should lose and probably be in prison, so I can emphasize with some of the opinions people have here.
Edit: Also, I think a key part of Heard's loss was the title of the op-ed, which specifically referenced sexual violence. And while the title was chosen by the Post, Heard retweeted the article, including the title. Her claim was that she didn't know the title referenced sexual violence, even though she retweeted the title, which the jury obviously didn't buy. (Because c'mon.)
I can't speak to all the counts, but that's why she specifically lost that particular count. She needed to either demonstrate that sexual assault happened (which she could not) or that she hadn't realized the title of the op-ed that she had published and then retweeted said she was a victim of sexual abuse (which <snrk>).
I'm not advising anyone about their legal rights and options under the law or suggesting at all that anyone take or refrain from taking any action consistent with that advice, or holding myself out as representing any one or any entity, so....if you change your actions based on my posts, that's on y'all. Caveat emptor *middle fingers*
NNID: Hakkekage
Given that the AP reported on it, I would imagine so. Which doesn't change the fact that you have a lot of "commenters" bringing up his testimony without noting his ties to Depp.
I cannot wait until you're on the Supreme Court.
Fortunately the case wasn't big news where I am, so I was able to hold off on forming bad opinions until I (checks notes) read some detailed legal analysis from internet randos on this forum.
(love ya Hakkekage!)
The one that I found interesting was the British guy who's been a servant to the fucking queen and had no ties to Depp, but chose to fly across the Atlantic to be all "I was there when this particular event happened, and Heard's version is straight up bullshit, y'alls *flips table, double birds*"
But, you know, the stuffy British version of that.
"Absolute poppycock."