Legal victory for Johnny Depp after he and Amber Heard found liable for defamation

[spidermike007]

The jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million dollars in punitive damages. The jury awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages and no money for punitive damages.

 

Excellent outcome, and perhaps a shot across the bow of Me Too. So many accusations, and so little in the way of proof. He did this, he did that. Ok, if he did, prove it. Show us something. Anything. 

[JonnyF]

Just now, KhunLA said:

Obviously they were worried, as he wasn't cast in: Pirates or Fantastic Beast sequels.

That was due to being labeled a domestic and sexual abuser by Amber Heard. Hence the court case.

 

It wasn't for being a drunk. It's been known he drinks and takes drugs for decades.

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That was due to being labeled a domestic and sexual abuser by Amber Heard. Hence the court case.

 

It wasn't for being a drunk. It's been known he drinks and takes drugs for decades.

That's what I wrote, since cleared of domestic abuse.

 

"But now studios won't be worried about a boycott for hiring an 'abuser' of only alcohol & drugs "  

[JonnyF]

Just now, KhunLA said:

That's what I wrote, since cleared of domestic abuse.

 

"But now studios won't be worried about a boycott for hiring an 'abuser' of only alcohol & drugs "  

Understood .

 

The laughing face you added at the end of the sentence on the original post made me think you were being sarcastic.

[Jaybott]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yeah she's gorgeous. Just don't spend too much on the bed linen ????.

 

If you do, maybe get them in a shade of brown.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Just another new age polarization phenomenon, we are all getting more divided day by day. 
 

Easiest if both just agreed they where crazy and not good for each other, and there would had been more peace in this world if more people could  follow same principles. There is not always only good and bad, but something between. 

He risked to expose a lot of bad behavior from himself. And she made lots of videos and pictures from him in bad situations. He appears like an individual with lots of problems. But beating up women is not part of that behavior.

She tried from the beginning until the end to present herself as the good person who never did anything wrong. She didn't even admit that she didn't donate the money to the children even if it was clear on record that she didn't donate it. She is delusional. 

On top of that she is a bad actor. Why should anybody hire her? Who wants to see her? 

[Dutchjohn]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

He already tried that with the sun in the uk...and lost.

That was before he was acquitted. Now it is a different story.

[OneMoreFarang]

48 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I don't regard the Guardian as biased.

It is biased - like any other source.

In general the Guardian is still my favorite news source. Not perfect but better than many others.

But with this trial they failed. At least one news article not long ago reported maybe 10% of the facts. And only the facts which were good for Amber. It must have somehow missed the 90% in favor of Johnny.

And the opinion piece today is about as bad as it gets. At least it was clearly marked as opinion and it wasn't from any of their usual contributors. 

[peter zwart]

I am very pleased with this statement. For JD but also certainly for us men as a whole. As we know we are abused almost daily and no one stands up for us.
 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Dutchjohn said:

That was before he was acquitted. Now it is a different story.

No. 

 

He lost the case in the uk.

 

This case does not change that in any way.

[OneMoreFarang]

51 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes, it kept me entertained for hours. I hope Depp does go after Disney and everyone else who tarnished his name. At least he knows he has a great legal team!

He won the case and he won the public. I don't think he can win more.

I am pretty sure he will get lots of roles again and soon that chapter of his life is behind him. There is no point for him to keep this in the news. It's done. He won.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It is biased - like any other source.

In general the Guardian is still my favorite news source. Not perfect but better than many others.

But with this trial they failed. At least one news article not long ago reported maybe 10% of the facts. And only the facts which were good for Amber. It must have somehow missed the 90% in favor of Johnny.

And the opinion piece today is about as bad as it gets. At least it was clearly marked as opinion and it wasn't from any of their usual contributors. 

I regard the Guardian as fair and balanced.

[proton]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The Guardian? ???? 

 

Their opinion was also that Amber Heard was an 'imperfect victim'.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/22/metoo-is-over-if-we-dont-listen-to-imperfect-victims-like-amber-heard

 

That's an interesting way to describe someone who fabricated a sexual assault to destroy the reputation of an innocent man.

 

Forgive me if I dismiss their ridiculous editorial pieces. Their opinion on Depp's future career and Heard's career as an 'activist' are irrelevant. She'll be lucky to escape perjury charges after lying about donating her divorce settlement to charity.

Lord Archer did 4 years for perjury, she should get the same.

[proton]

3 hours ago, Tarteso said:

Heather Mills 2, only with both legs

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

I am very pleased with this statement. For JD but also certainly for us men as a whole. As we know we are abused almost daily and no one stands up for us.
 

Maybe it's just my YouTube feed. But it seems more and more men are fed up with this and they stand up and don't accept all the MeToo c r a p anymore. 

[peter zwart]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am sure feminist could win over lots of people if they would admit that not all men are wife beaters and not all women are innocent.

And that they are in this world to prepare a tasty meal, to provide a pleasant stay in bed, to give birth to children and to go shopping. With that they win a lot of men's hearts. Oops, I sound like a sexist.
 

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

nonetheless, he lost

True, but looking back at that verdict, I can't quite believe that a judge made some of the statements that he did.

 

For instance, the UK judge stated that:

 

Quote

"Taking all the evidence together, I accept that she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Mr Depp in Australia."

Now, I watched some parts of the latest trial and when it came to the Australia incident, even Amber Heard's own lawyers could provide no evidence of Depp assaulting her, apart from her own testimony. There were also multiple witnesses (albeit mostly employees of Johnny Depp) who testified under oath that Depp never assaulted Heard in Australia. 

 

Justice Nicol seems to have simply accepted Amber Heard's word, for everything. In fact he pretty much stated that was what he was doing, as follows:

 

Quote

"I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her."

I actually agree with Depp's lawyers that it is "perverse" that a supposedly experienced jurist could simply accept one person's version of events without corroboration, in what was obviously a, "He said, she said" situation.

 

The judge seemed to have been strangely swayed by the fact that Depp scrawled angry messages all over the walls using his own blood (and then paint) but this, while it might be evidence of some kind of mental breakdown or aberrant mental behavior is not evidence of him having physically assaulted Heard.

 

The judge actually said that this was "a sign of the depth of his rage," but as far as I can tell it could just as easily be a sign of his mental anguish when after a lengthy and emotionally abusive argument he had the tip of his finger severed by a vodka bottle thrown at him by Amber Heard (if Depp's version of events is true).

 

In any event I still can't quite figure out why the judge would blindly accept Heard's version of the events in Australia over Depp's.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

She could have just taken the 7 million divorce settlement 

She was supposed to donate the $7 million between the ACLU and a children's hospital. Instead she only donated less than half of the $7 million. This was well covered in the trial in a cross-examine of Amber. So she breached the settlement agreement.

 

Likely she planned on using the undonated portion to pay attorney fees in her Depp defamation lawsuit.

She had purchased a $5 million estate after divorce so some of those funds may have been used as collateral.

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

True, but looking back at that verdict, I can't quite believe that a judge made some of the statements that he did.

 

For instance, the UK judge stated that:

 

Now, I watched some parts of the latest trial and when it came to the Australia incident, even Amber Heard's own lawyers could provide no evidence of Depp assaulting her, apart from her own testimony. There were also multiple witnesses (albeit mostly employees of Johnny Depp) who testified under oath that Depp never assaulted Heard in Australia. 

 

Justice Nicol seems to have simply accepted Amber Heard's word, for everything. In fact he pretty much stated that was what he was doing, as follows:

 

I actually agree with Depp's lawyers that it is "perverse" that a supposedly experienced jurist could simply accept one person's version of events without corroboration, in what was obviously a, "He said, she said" situation.

 

The judge seemed to have been strangely swayed by the fact that Depp scrawled angry messages all over the walls using his own blood (and then paint) but this, while it might be evidence of some kind of mental breakdown or aberrant mental behavior is not evidence of him having physically assaulted Heard.

 

The judge actually said that this was "a sign of the depth of his rage," but as far as I can tell it could just as easily be a sign of his mental anguish when after a lengthy and emotionally abusive argument he had the tip of his finger severed by a vodka bottle thrown at him by Amber Heard (if Depp's version of events is true).

 

In any event I still can't quite figure out why the judge would blindly accept Heard's version of the events in Australia over Depp's.

Honestly, the whys and wherefores are of no interest to me...he lost the case and won this one. 

 

Decider to come I imagine...

[Srikcir]

I believe Depp could appeal the $2 million. 

 

Typically, the appeals cannot contest facts in the Lower Court but only issues of law.

 

The jury held that Depp's former attorney acted as Depp's agent, thereby making Depp responsible for the attorney's public statements regardless whether Depp knew of the statements in advance. 

Depp's counsel argued in rebuttal that the attorney was a contractor and under state law Depp was not responsible for his attorney's private statements. So the jury's decision might have been illegal.

Albeit Amber in the alternative could have sued the former attorney directly but when asking for $100 million, it would be senseless.

 

Depp might also sue his former attorney and friend 8h turn for the $2 million if his attorneys were correct on the law. But Depp netted $13 million in his award, his former personality made whole. 

[Srikcir]

12 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I am wondering if Depp can now sue all the media that smeared him as a wife beater? Certainly these sort of false allegations caused him material losses of income due to him being basically unemployable. 

No, not in the current case.

Amber wrote the op-ed and The Post published it.

 

An op-ed is a personal opinion that is not normally affiliated (like related parties) with the publication's editorial board. The Post can simply say that the op-ed was newsworthy regardless of any accuracy so long as The Post had no malice or collusion in the op-ed.

Albeit, the Post might have invited a written counter-response from Depp. 

 

According to court testimony the ACLU reviewed Amber's op-ed in advance of publication and supported its publication. As such it might have had shared responsibility for the op-ed. 

[Smoothsailing1]

This is a great push back against the "believe all women" which ruined men's lives. Someone called it a Jussie Smollet moment for "me too", referring to the hate crime hoax which was exposed.

 

 

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

But Depp netted $13 million in his award

Nope he got $10 million $350,000 as punitive damages are limited to 350k..

[Adumbration]

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

$10M 350k to him, $2M to her ...... win for him.

Wrong.  The jury found that the title and all of the references to him in the OP Ed were defamatory.  They awarded him 10M compensory damages and another 5M punitive damages.  The jury found that only one of the statements by Johnnys lawyer was defamatory and it was nothig to do with DV.  It was the one that said Turd and her friends called the police to the penthouse and then when they left, they roughed the place up some more then called them back again.  Jury awarded Turd 2m compensory damages but no punative.

 

But there is a massive elephant in the room and and am still trying to find an answer.  In most proceeding the phrase "costs in the cause is used".  That means who ever loses has to pay both their and the winning parties legal costs.

 

Given the size of Depp legal team and the duration and complexity of the trial, it would seem feasible that their bill could well be equal (or more) that the amounts awarded to Johnny by the jury.

 

Turd is out of pocket 13M on the verdict, but if she has to also pay Depps legal fees she is likely in the hole for 20+M.  Amazing that none of the MSM has mentioned this issue.

[arithai12]

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

$10M 350k to him, $2M to her ...... win for him.

And especially win for the lawyers on both sides, the only ones sure to see their money.

 

[Hummin]

The concerts with Jeff Beck are selling out in hours now. 

Oslo sold out today after a few hours

 

Gateshead sold out to

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/jeff-beck-gateshead-tickets-depp-24119483.amp

[Meat Pie 47]

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million dollars in punitive damages. The jury awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages and no money for punitive damages.

 

Excellent outcome, and perhaps a shot across the bow of Me Too. So many accusations, and so little in the way of proof. He did this, he did that. Ok, if he did, prove it. Show us something. Anything. 

Amber Heard’s lawyer says there was “so much evidence” the jury in her defamation trial didn’t see, including a text message from Johnny Depp’s assistant saying her ex-husband was sorry he “kicked” her.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/amber-heards-lawyer-reveals-the-evidence-to-support-her-claims-that-the-jury-didnt-see/news-story/d8f4a5b60c43bce247449fbeca2d67de

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Nope he got $10 million $350,000 as punitive damages are limited to 350k..

Did he get those 10 million? Will he ever get them? It seems Amber has money problems and it doesn't seem to me that she will make much money in the future.

[gargamon]

51 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did he get those 10 million? Will he ever get them? It seems Amber has money problems and it doesn't seem to me that she will make much money in the future.

Depp wanted $1 to be the penalty. He doesn't need or want the 10 million. It was all about getting the legal victory.

[IAMHERE]

19 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'm guessing the talk shows will be wary of defamation actions.

What else could she talk about?

How to spin yarn; or is it how to spin a yarn?  Hope she makes money though so she can pay Johnny Depp the money. I'm betting she moves to Florida near O.J. so they can't get at her money.