Correct woob
She said pledge and donate are synonymous though hahaha
Then said she didn’t donate yet because she was being sued.
More and more fabricated lies.
The whole donation premise was to try and make herself look better by not wanting the money from divorce which failed.
Something came out during the mess of a trial where Depp said she pledge or donated a bunch of money to charity but it was actually from money that Elon Musk gave her and not her own.
Every human being a collection of biases, the ability to look beyond your biases when presented when information is provided to you is what makes someone objective.
Two questions that should be answered to be completely objective in this case:
Does a pledge for a charitable donation prevent a person from being a domestic abuser?
Does substance abuse automatically make person a liar?
This judge decided yes for both questions and prevented the evidence from being presented to show would have "no" to both questions. That's not an assumption, its based on court records and judge statements from the UK case itself.
This is a civil case? These things just basiscally boil down to who can persuade the judge/jury the best. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply, and these cases aren't really the greatest as precedent in future cases.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Wasn't it proven that she didn't in fact donate any funds yet at this point, had 13 months to do so, but still hadn't? She pledged to donate though.
- Heard told the world that she didn't want anything from Depp other than just getting out of the abusive marriage she was in.
- She also told the world that she was thereby donating all of her divorce settlement to charity: 3.5M to the ACLU and 3.5M to the LA Children's Hospital (7M total).
- Depp's business manager testified in court that when he had tried to make the payments to those two charities (as was agreed to), Heard "freaked out" on him and demanded that she receive the full 7M payment herself to give to the charities. She said she "didn't want Johnny to get any tax receipts from her donations."
- Heard's lawyers asked her, under oath, if she had mad those donations. She said she had.
- Depp's lawyers, under cross examination, grilled he on that, since they already knw the donations hadn't been made, and again responded repeatedly that the donations had been made.
- When pressed further, Heard finally changed her wording to indicate she had "pledged" the donations to the two charities, and that pledging was the same as donating.
- Depp's lawyers responded that pledging is just a promise to donate, where as donating is actually paying the donation. They then changed the question to "have you paid out the two 3.5M portions, 7M total, of your divorce settlement yet."
- Heard's response was no, I haven't actually paid them yet. I couldn't because Johnny sued me.
- Depp's lawyers point out that the settlement was in 2016, and that she hadn't been sued until 2021.
Some additional facts related to the donation:
- The ACLU (one of the two charities she pledged her divorce settlement to) actually helped her write the Op-Ed that she ended up being sued for. This was another lie, btw. One of the defences on her side was the claim that she didn't write the Op-Ed and therefore defamation couldn't be proven... but as with numerous other things, she eventually broke down under cross-examination and admitted that she had indeed written the Op-Ed.
- As of Dec 2021, the ACLU had only received 1.3M in her name. It was discovered during the trial that 250K of that was from Johnny himself (he also gave the LACH 250K in her name) and the rest was from an anonymous donation in her name that was revealed to be her boyfriend (at the time of the donation) Elon Musk.
So, in summary, she kept the divorce settlement for herself. She didn't donate a dime of it to anyone, it's long been spent (she's currently "broke" - whatever that means in Hollywood), and the whole thing was just one of the public lies she told the world while trying to ruin Depp's career.
The actual in-court trial footage is all over youtube for anyone who's interested in watching the testimonies and viewing the evidence themselves.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
This is a civil case? These things just basiscally boil down to who can persuade the judge/jury the best. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply, and these cases aren't really the greatest as precedent in future cases.
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
Celebrities and people in public office have a 5th requirement, as they also have to prove the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
For the record, the jury found in favour for all 5 of those requirements (including malice) in each of the three counts of defamation brought against Heard by Depp.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Thanks FanIn80. I knew she had made the comment about using pledge and donate synonomysly, which was hilarious. It's clear she was tyring to use the "donation" as a PR stint.
I watched some of her testimony and thought it was ridiculous how with every question, she would turn to the jury immediately and answer. She was 100% performing on many of her answers.
Thanks FanIn80. I knew she had made the comment about using pledge and donate synonomysly, which was hilarious. It's clear she was tyring to use the "donation" as a PR stint.
I watched some of her testimony and thought it was ridiculous how with every question, she would turn to the jury immediately and answer. She was 100% performing on many of her answers.
I haven't been following, but I find it interesting how it has been reported. Social media posts are all about making fun of Amber 'Turd' and her lawyers, while CBC has posted the odd story highlighting her abuse claims.
The media ran cycles with the #metoo movement and used Heard as a spokesperson for abused women by men for years.
Media outlets like CNN, Vice, Washington Post, New York Times were quick to parade her, interviewing her to tell her story.
Until this court case, Amber Heard was untouchable, and Johnny Depp was seen as toxic similar to Kevin Spacey and Wennstein. Even when he was denying the accusations, he was vilified.
The problem is, Amber Heard is a fraud and was caught in a lie.
Was this court case a spectacle? Most definitely. Both live extravagantly and out of the reality of the world, and some seem to have attached their opinions on this.
But the underlying case is:
A woman, who herself was an abuser, made defamatory and serious allegations that were found to be fully fabricated with enough convincing evidence that a jury ruled against her for defamation, which is extremely hard to do in the US.
Johnny Depp was found guilty by cancel culture without ever seeing evidence or hearing his side, and without the justice system. His career was ruined because of these accusations. This is why he sued. In the UK the judge refused to admit crucial evidence and took Amber Heard's testimony as truth. In the US, evidence and testimony was allowed which was able to prove that Amber Heard in fact was defamatory out of malice.
I've watched the trial for extended periods of time from the law & crime network, and it's easy to tell who is using the narrative being received from the media, and who has watched the case for themselves.
She was caught photoshopping her abuse photos. She submitted the same picture for 2 alleged separate wine incidents twice, and couldn't say which was on which date. She was caught committing perjury on many occasions, testimony that Amber Heard contacted TMZ and used them to document her lies. Multiple witnesses refuted her claims.
Depp v. Heard Reminds Us That the Legal System Is Still Stacked Against Survivors
Yes, the media is doubling down and still passing Amber Heard as a victim of man dominated society, despite the clear fabricated and fraudulent claims by Amber Heard.
She's not a goddamn survivor, she has nothing to do with women who have experienced violent and sexual abuse, and it's humiliating to see that as the narrative supposed reputable media continue to print as they refuse to let go.
Last edited by Firebot; 06-02-2022 at 12:50 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Jesus. What happened to Time Magazine? It's almost like Nicole Bedera wrote that totally blind and ignorant to what unfolded during the trial. Wow.
You can go to the Guardian and see the same thing. Or the CBC. With a lot of these culture-war issues, the positions are staked out and the columns are written before the trial even starts. Because the particulars of the case simply don’t matter - only the narrative matters.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
And to be clear on the media claim of how this would hurt abused women from stepping forward.
She was not found to have been defamatory simply because there were no evidence to support her abuse claim. That would be wrong (and what the Time article ignorantly alludes to as a grab for outrage)
She was found to be defamatory because her own testimony and evidence was found to be fabricated with convincing evidence and testimony to support it was fabricated, to the point where her testimony can no longer be believed and where it is now believed she defamed out of malice.
There is a clear distinction, and one that played a heavy role in this case, and one that shouldn't be mischaracterized.
One case was a judge, the other a jury.
Depp had the charm offensive. I know quite a few family lawyers who watched the trial while working and noted that Depp is just too damn charming. If a lawyer could take that away from the trial, it would be hard for a layperson jury not to be captivated by captain jack sparrow.
Also, on judge rulings and issues, that is why we have appeal courts. Judges mess up all the time, sometimes they are appealed sometimes they arent. For example, the UK decision could be appealed based on the weight the judge ascribed to specific evidence etc.
All court cases should be done through virtual generic avatars, with voice re-modulated as a neutral computer synthesized output. Get rid of bias.
Many victims of domestic violence who watched this trial will likely conclude that, if they share their experiences, they will be disbelieved, shamed, and ostracized.
‘Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict
It didn’t matter what the verdict was — as one domestic violence survivor puts it, “this case is my worst fear playing out on a public stage”
You can go to the Guardian and see the same thing. Or the CBC. With a lot of these culture-war issues, the positions are staked out and the columns are written before the trial even starts. Because the particulars of the case simply don’t matter - only the narrative matters.
The media bias' may be as simple as dollars and cents. Women direct 83% of all consumption in the US and are much more sensitive to negative portrayals of their gender in media than men are. Piss-off women and you can't sell anything to anyone, but you can crap on men all day and that bottom line is barely going to wiggle. It's a safer movie to be on Amber's side up until she disembowels johnny on the street in broad daylight.
Johnny Depp was found guilty by cancel culture without ever seeing evidence or hearing his side, and without the justice system. His career was ruined because of these accusations. This is why he sued.
I think he did a fair bit to ruin his own career. Outside of the legacy franchise of Pirates of the Caribbean, he has starred in only one (barely) profitable movie in the last decade. And he's also getting sued for assaulting a location manager on one of the last movies he did do.
I think Depp is no saint here as they are both losers to me but I don't know how anyone could pay close attention to this trial and come to the conclusion that Heard is a good example of what the mee too movement should stand for.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I think he did a fair bit to ruin his own career. Outside of the legacy franchise of Pirates of the Caribbean, he has starred in only one (barely) profitable movie in the last decade. And he's also getting sued for assaulting a location manager on one of the last movies he did do.
He did a lot to destroy himself, you wont get any arguments on that one.
But being a drunk and blowhard and an all around jerk on set is a farcry from a sexual and violent domestic abuser which what was alleged.
I hate that these pre-written op-eds don't mention that it's Amber Heard that is damaging their movement by making false statements under oath. Absolutely stupid.
I hate that these pre-written op-eds don't mention that it's Amber Heard that is damaging their movement by making false statements under oath. Absolutely stupid.
This is the big problem to me, Amber Heard (and a lot of the media outlets) have dealt damage to their movement. But, IMO, this was almost inevitable after the movement became “#IBelieveWomen”. At some point, there was going to be a highly-publicized, unsubstantiated case where the woman should not have been believed.
I certainly believe that most women that come forward are victims, but it’s not 100%. The end point should never have been that all claims of abuse begin and end with the claim of the alleged victim. Those claims need to be taken seriously and investigated without bias. And the women making such claims in good faith should not suffer for bringing the claim forward.
But this is not that scenario (based on everything I’ve seen, though admittedly I haven’t followed as closely as other posters). This is not a he said, she said of conflicting testimonies. This is she lied, he said AND he had the recordings and other evidence to back it up.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to puckhog For This Useful Post:
ccording to sources speaking to the New York Post, Heard has been left “broke” by her hefty legal fees and is struggling after “lavish spending, on travel, clothes, gifts and wine.”
Insiders told the Post that Heard had to heavily rely on her homeowners insurance policy to cover the cost of her legal team in the case.
Heard is estimated to be $6 million in debt, according to the Celebrity Net Worth.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
