Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus

[Rightguide]

AMERICAN NEWS Jun 1, 2022 12:28 PM EST

BREAKING: Jury rules in favor of Johnny Depp in defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard​

The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million, and punitive damages of $5 million.

Hannah NightingaleWashington DC

June 1, 2022 12:28 PM

On Wednesday, a jury in Virginia determined that Johnny Depp won his libel lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard.


The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million, and punitive damages of $5 million. Notably, Virginia has a $350,000 cap on punitive damages, which the judge adjusted in Depp's case following the reading of the verdict.

The jury also awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages for the defamation counterclaim that she filed against Depp, in which Heard said that she was defamed when Depp’s lawyer claimed that her abuse allegations were a hoax.

The jury ruled unanimously in favor of Depp in his case, responding yes to every question asked on whether he had proved that Heard had acted with actual malice, and that statements made by Heard in regards to Depp were false.

In regards to Heard’s countersuit, the jury found that she had, only in some cases, proven her case of defamation against Depp.

The jury deliberated for around 12 hours over the course of three days, the Associated Press reported. Notably, Depp was not present at the court for the decision. He appeared over the weekend in the UK performing at a concert.

more here:

https://thepostmillennial.com/break...awsuit-against-amber-heard?utm_campaign=64487

After her first lie, the jury was under no obligation to believe any of her testimony that followed. They ruled, in favor of Depp in every point of his defamation suit. The other casualty in this case aside from her hapless legal team is the ACLU who wrote her defaming Op-Ed, ostensibly in exchange for her contribution without a thought of the veracity of her accusation. They stopped being a real civil rights law firm long ago.

 

[Rotadom]

If that law was applied here, your threads would have stopped being read many moons ago.

 

[pecksniff]

This topic is not really political, except for the OP's nonsensical slander of the ACLU.

 

[Rightguide]

This topic is not really political, except for the OP's nonsensical slander of the ACLU.

There's no slander involved, according to reports they wrote the Op-Ed, ostensibly in exchange for her millions in contributions. Here ya go, clown:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/0...hnny-depp-timed-release-with-aquaman-1231754/

 

[Rightguide]

She was the point of the Me Too movement spear for the time period she was lying about Johnny Depp and engineering her own destruction. The Me Too Movement is a political organization. The point of the threat title is the Latin legal phrase, "false in one thing, false in everything." In this case, it is apropos in that once she lied under oath the jury was free to disregard everything else she testified to. Kinda like how we're free to disregard all that you say.

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't have a lot to say about the merits of the case, as I seem to be one of the few people who didn't watch the trial or any of the numerous YouTubes/TikToks about it (most of the people who said they watched the trial were actually watching TikToks that were carefully curated to appeal to the huge Amber-hating contingent).

I will say I was surprised at the outcome because these things are tough to win, and Depp couldn't even win a very similar trial in the U.K., which doesn't have a First Amendment and where it's traditionally much easier for celebs to prevail in these circumstances.

I will also point out that in a world where rich people can weaponize the courts to punish people who say things they don't like, it's inevitable that someone you care about is eventually going to be on the receiving end. Don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't have a lot to say about the merits of the case, as I seem to be one of the few people who didn't watch the trial or any of the numerous YouTubes/TikToks about it (most of the people who said they watched the trial were actually watching TikToks that were carefully curated to appeal to the huge Amber-hating contingent).

I will say I was surprised at the outcome because these things are tough to win, and Depp couldn't even win a very similar trial in the U.K., which doesn't have a First Amendment and where it's traditionally much easier for celebs to prevail in these circumstances.

I will also point out that in a world where rich people can weaponize the courts to punish people who say things they don't like, it's inevitable that someone you care about is eventually going to be on the receiving end. Don't say you weren't warned.

The lesson here is being tried in the press and being tried in court are two different things. Miss Heard tried to try Depp in the press. He took her to court where she had to testify and present evidence, both of which failed miserably. She was her own worst enemy. Camille Vasquez, Depp's attorney, in a dazzling display of courtroom acumen, took her apart like a clock. So much so that I put her law firm info in my Rolodex.

 

[oggbashan]

My family solicitors, we are new clients having only been with them for 110 years, disapproves of scandal and libel cases.

But they will hire the best UK barristers for whatever case they are asked to take.

They cost about 10% more than other local solicitors but the extra is worth it. That is why they have been in business for 450 years.

 

[Rightguide]

My family solicitors, we are new clients having only been with them for 110 years, disapproves of scandal and libel cases.

But they will hire the best UK barristers for whatever case they are asked to take.

They cost about 10% more than other local solicitors but the extra is worth it. That is why they have been in business for 450 years.

Congrats to them, Ogg. All businesses, ours included, require legal assistance from time to time. The more astute of those businesses seek out and employ the most competent legal firms they can afford.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Now explain how she won the countersuit.

 

[jomar]

I don't have a lot to say about the merits of the case, as I seem to be one of the few people who didn't watch the trial or any of the numerous YouTubes/TikToks about it (most of the people who said they watched the trial were actually watching TikToks that were carefully curated to appeal to the huge Amber-hating contingent).

Was interesting what her attorney (I think was) said-that Depp's US lawyers learned from the UK trial to demonize Heard.

I will say I was surprised at the outcome because these things are tough to win, and Depp couldn't even win a very similar trial in the U.K., which doesn't have a First Amendment and where it's traditionally much easier for celebs to prevail in these circumstances.

She also said that a lot of Depp's proven abuse evidence that was allowed in the UK trial was somehow surpressed and not entered in the US trial. Would like to know more about that angle.

I will also point out that in a world where rich people can weaponize the courts to punish people who say things they don't like, it's inevitable that someone you care about is eventually going to be on the receiving end. Don't say you weren't warned.

Was a shitshow for sure

 

[oggbashan]

Congrats to them, Ogg. All businesses, ours included, require legal assistance from time to time. The more astute of those businesses seek out and employ the most competent legal firms they can afford.

Whenever, which is rarely, any company threatens me with legal action, they back off hurriedly when I mention the name of my solicitors.

 

[pecksniff]

There's no slander involved, according to reports they wrote the Op-Ed, ostensibly in exchange for her millions in contributions. Here ya go, clown:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/0...hnny-depp-timed-release-with-aquaman-1231754/

Doesn't matter. "They stopped being a real civil rights law firm long ago" is nonsensical slander.

 

[pecksniff]

My family solicitors, we are new clients having only been with them for 110 years, disapproves of scandal and libel cases.

My understanding is that it is a lot easier to win a defamation suit in the UK than in the U.S.

The only reason I can think of is that Brits place a much higher value on reputation.

 

[oggbashan]

My understanding is that it is a lot easier to win a defamation suit in the UK than in the U.S.

The only reason I can think of is that Brits place a much higher value on reputation.

It is at the moment but there are proposals to change UK laws because it seems that money can buy justice.

 

[colddiesel]

The first interesting thing about these cases is why on the basis of broadly similar facts the British court decided that Depp was a wife beater and the American court found the opposite.

The second less interesting thing is the sad fact that the courts of both countries had to waste so much time on two such worthless people.

 

[jomar]

The first interesting thing about these cases is why on the basis of broadly similar facts the British court decided that Depp was a wife beater and the American court found the opposite.

The second less interesting thing is the sad fact that the courts of both countries had to waste so much time on two such worthless people.

Heard’s attorney claimed proven Depp abuse info allowed in the UK trial was suppressed in the US trial. Curious, that.

 

[pecksniff]

Heard’s attorney claimed proven Depp abuse info allowed in the UK trial was suppressed in the US trial. Curious, that.

Again, it is a lot easier to win a defamation suit in the UK than in the U.S.

 

[colddiesel]

Again, it is a lot easier to win a defamation suit in the UK than in the U.S.

Not necessarily. The burden of proof may be lighter but rules with respect to the evidence which may/may not be admitted tend to be more restrictive in the USA. Additionally, many defamation cases in UK can be heard by a judge alone, which reduces time and therefore costs drastically for both plaintiffs and defendents. One significant difference is that in UK the Judge determines quantum, according to pre-set rules and conventions. Awards tend to be much smaller, and there are plenty of examples, where, if judges think a winning plaintiff has has their own problems, the award can be very small indeed.

 

[Rightguide]

Doesn't matter. "They stopped being a real civil rights law firm long ago" is nonsensical slander.

They only protect the civil liberties of the far left, because they are the far left.

 

[jomar]

Again, it is a lot easier to win a defamation suit in the UK than in the U.S.

He lost there with more abuse documentation allowed than in the US win. I don’t know the ins and outs of the systems

 

[pecksniff]

They only protect the civil liberties of the far left, because they are the far left.

The ACLU defends the right of Nazis to public demonstrations. They are consistent civil libertarians.

 

[Rightguide]

The ACLU defends the right of Nazis to public demonstrations. They are consistent civil libertarians.

NAZIs are National Socialists

 

[pecksniff]

NAZIs are National Socialists

Nazis are not leftists in any sense.

 

[oggbashan]

NAZIs are National Socialists

NAZIS called themselves National Democratic Socialist Workers Party.

That covered virtually everything (and did when they banned all other political parties). It was meant to be all things to all men. They were NOT Socialists and fought and killed socialists on the streets before sending them to concentration camps.