#johnny depp verdict

[moerusai]

Friendly reminder that Build Jakapan is an abusive, rape-apologist, homophobic piece of shit who leeches off everyone he knows and shits on them behind their backs.

This post documents the newest evidence of his behaviors. Trigger warning for violence, domestic abuse. Please heed the warnings.

[lookmyskinisfallingoff]

Johnny Depp Vs. Amber Heard Settlement Agreement 2022.

On December 19, 2022, a settlement agreement was agreed on from Amber Heard’s team. Her insurance (still in legal suit against another insurance co. Amber had) has agreed to pay Depp $1 Million, finally settling the long, tedious legal battle that finally came ahead during 2022 this summer in Virginia.

 Both Amber Heard, her team and Johnny Depp and his legal team have dismissed their appeals after the settlement agreement. I saw a lot of twitter threads and articles for some reason marketing this as a win for Amber Heard, that the verdict was thrown out because of the settlement and that Amber is free to speak the same defamatory statements she’s made on Johnny in the 2018 OP from The Washington Post and it’s clear that people are purposefully lying to their followers and readers on the facts of this announcement for the settlement, what it means for this case and the current and final verdict for the defamation trial that took place this year in Viriginia.   

For those that still believe Amber and are still for some reason thinking she actually won the trial, she didn’t. This case cannot be re-tried, and the current verdict stands that Amber defamed her abuse victim, Johnny Depp and did so with malice. She cannot repeat any defaming statement she’s made on Depp in the past, if she does then she’s opening herself to another lawsuit for another defamation trial, so if she repeats her false statements in the press, on social media, in literature, in interviews, etc then she can and will be sued again. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences; it does not cover you when you purposefully lie on someone publicly and in doing so ruining someone’s reputation. She lost her defamation case due to actually defaming her victim and doing so with malice.  

Her paying out the settlement that her insurance agreed to does not vacate the verdict in Virginia, so please do not believe fake attorney’s and fan pages that can’t take 5 minutes to google what a verdict is and how settlements work or what they mean to the winning party. 

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-order-6-24-2022.pdf

[thescoopess]

Jonny Depp vs Amber Heard Trial on Netflix Docuseries Watch the Trailer

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s trial captivated the world, and now it’s making a comeback on Netflix. Scheduled to be released on August 16, 2023. Depp V Heard, a three-part documentary series, is set to reexamine the infamous lawsuit between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Heard and Depp do not appear to have participated in the series. The “Depp v. Heard” Netflix trailer leans on televised footage…

[room42]

Amber Heard appeals 'chilling' $10M Johnny Depp verdict

Amber Heard appeals ‘chilling’ $10M Johnny Depp verdict

Amber Heard has filed an appeal after losing her legal battle with her ex-husband Johnny Depp. Depp successfully sued his ex-wife for defamation over a 2018 opinion piece for the Washington Post in which she wrote about being a victim of domestic violence with a court in Virginia awarding him a $10.35million pay out — and now Heard’s legal team has filed a 68-page appeal against the verdict. In…

[skippyv20]

Actress Amber Heard has appealed the $10million award she was ordered to pay ex-husband Johnny Depp following a defamation trial held earlier this year

Heard's attorneys argued in a 68-page filing that significant evidence was excluded and that the trial was held in the wrong state

The trial was held in Fairfax, Virginia, because that is where The Washington Post website houses its servers

Depp sued Heard in 2019 for $50million over a Washington Post op-ed written under Heard's name in which he was accused of domestic abuse

Depp's attorneys have also filed an appeal of the $2million he was ordered to pay Heard for a single count of defamation of which he was found guilty

[justiceamberheard]

Do you remember this mess of a movie that came out right after the verdict? Well, according to the actress that was cast as Amber, said Johnny Depp apparently had a watch-party of this movie. Now tell me, do you really think that any victim of abuse would ever try to relieve the abuse they suffered by watching a movie about it???

[timetravellingkitty]

This is a Johnny Depp hate account. This account stands with Amber Heard and the other countless victims of domestic and gendered violence. This account believes that mutual abuse does not exist, for there will never be "both sides" to an abusive relationship. To claim otherwise is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of abuse.

We are in the midst of an anti-feminist backlash, a backlash that is only going to grow stronger. The verdict of the Virginia trial set us back a hundred years. It showed us that it's okay to punish women for speaking up about the abuse they've endured.

We've learnt nothing from MeToo.

[pronoun-fucker]

(Open letter linked below)

“More than 130 people, including Gloria Steinem, and organizations in the field of women’s rights advocacy and domestic violence and sexual assault awareness have signed an open letter to support Amber Heard, who lost a defamation suit this year brought by her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, for an op-ed in which she said she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”

The letter, which was exclusively shared with NBC News ahead of its public release Wednesday, was signed by groups like the National Organization for Women, the National Women’s Law Center, Equality Now and the Women’s March Foundation. It was written by a group of people who identify as domestic violence survivors and supporters of Heard.

Heard filed a brief last month laying the groundwork to appeal a seven-person jury’s decision in Virginia’s Fairfax County Circuit Court to award Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages in June. Heard, who had countersued, was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages but nothing in punitive damages.

Although The Washington Post essay never mentioned Depp by name, Depp’s attorneys said it indirectly referred to allegations Heard made against him during their 2016 divorce. During the trial, she testified in graphic terms about a sexual assault she alleged, as well as allegations of incidents of physical abuse. Depp denied all allegations of abuse.

The letter, which denounces the “rising misuse” of defamation lawsuits to silence people who report domestic and sexual abuse, is one of the biggest public shows of support for Heard after months of silence from many groups after the verdict.

Representatives for both Depp and Heard declined to comment.

The jury’s decision was a legal vindication for Depp, who lost a libel case in the United Kingdom two years ago over claims that he had physically abused Heard. Justice Andrew Nicol ruled against Depp in 2020, saying a British tabloid had presented substantial evidence to show that Depp was violent against Heard on at least 12 of 14 occasions.

After the June verdict, activists called out other groups, like Time’s Up, asking why an organization that had championed victims at the height of the #MeToo movement was now silent. Many who did speak out in support of Heard, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, were met with ferocious backlash from Depp’s supporters online.

A spokesperson for the group behind the letter, who asked to remain anonymous because of the online harassment she has faced for posting in support of Heard, said she believes that after the trial “individuals were afraid to speak out because they saw what was happening to the few who had.”

The letter says the “ongoing online harassment” of Heard and her supporters was “fueled by disinformation, misogyny, biphobia, and a monetized social media environment where a woman’s allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault were mocked for entertainment.”

The vilification and harassment of Heard and her supporters were “unprecedented in both vitriol and scale,” the letter says.

Kathy Spillar, the executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said her organization signed the letter after it observed what she called a “growing backlash” against women who speak out against perpetrators of sexual assault, domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

“If this can happen to Amber Heard, it will discourage other women from speaking up and even filing reports about domestic violence and sexual assault,” Spillar said.

The letter says the verdict and the online response to Heard “indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of intimate partner and sexual violence and how survivors respond to it.”

In addition to two dozen feminist organizations, more than 90 domestic violence experts and survivors’ advocates from around the world signed the letter to “condemn the public shaming of Amber Heard and join in support of her.” They include doctors, lawyers, professors, authors and activists.

Others who signed the letter echoed their concerns that reaction to the trial on social media was harmful to everyday victims of domestic violence.

“They see the environment that this has created, and they feel even less safe than before to come forward and speak out about the abuse they suffered,” said Elizabeth Tang, the senior counsel for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center.

Tang said abusers can use defamation suits to “silence their victims” or as retaliation against their victims for speaking out.

Tang said that among the “reasons we felt it was very important to join this letter” are that “when courts do not dismiss these defamation suits in early stages, it creates a lot of trauma for victims to have to go through a very long, drawn-out and invasive process just to prove that the things they said are true or that they did not defame the person they reported.”

Christian F. Nunes, the national president of the National Organization for Women, said she hopes the letter is a reminder that the court system should never be used to strong-arm victims to recant statements about their abuse.

“We cannot silence victims by using courts and lawsuits as a way to retraumatize them, because this is what’s happening,” Nunes said. She said she hopes the letter raises awareness of new tactics some abusers use against their victims, such as social media campaigns.

Since the trial, there has been more public support for Heard on social media, the spokesperson for the group behind the letter said. She and other anonymous Heard supporters had been “working to combat disinformation for months” when they joined for the open letter initiative.

Experts said they had a unanimous message they hoped to send to survivors who read the letter.

“It is also a way to speak to all survivors and tell them, ‘You are not alone,’” Tang said.”

Article Link | Archived Article Link

Open Letter Link | Archived Open Letter Link

[warningsine]

Just over a year ago, a woman told a crowded room that her ex-husband had kicked and slapped her. She described him throwing a phone at her face. She described him penetrating her with a wine bottle. “I remember not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken,” she said. “I didn’t know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.” While she said all these things, people laughed. People called her a whore and a liar. People cheered for her ex-husband, and made posters and T-shirts emblazoned with his face.

Only about 14 months have passed since Amber Heard was mocked and shamed on a global stage. But, apparently, that means it’s now high time to relive it. This week, a new three-part series from director Emma Cooper drops on Netflix (UK viewers can also watch via Channel 4 on demand). That’s right folks, we’re back in the hellscape that is Depp v Heard.

There are certain legal cases that transcend courtroom drama to become full-blown ‘where were you when’ cultural moments. Usually, these ‘trials of the century’ are criminal trials. Charles Manson in 1970; OJ Simpson in 1995. But, occasionally, a different calibre of case will grip the public consciousness – one that spins around sex and humiliation; one that strikes to the heart of how contemporary culture understands gender and power. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked as an adviser to him. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas’ nomination, while Hill received death threats. Just a few years later, as the new millennium swam into view, another sex scandal rocked American society. This time, the main characters were President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite Clinton eventually admitting to having had an affair with Lewinsky, for many years the court of public opinion was clear in its verdict: Monica Lewinsky was either a whore, or a liar, or both.

In a sense, the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, which took place from April 11 to June 1 2022, in Fairfax County, Virginia, combined elements of all of these previous ‘trials of the century’. As with Clinton and Lewinsky, a relationship between a younger woman and an older, more famous and more powerful man was under the microscope. In an echo of Hill v Thomas, during which lawmakers accused Anita Hill of suffering from a ‘delusional disorder’, a psychologist hired by Depp’s legal team ‘diagnosed’ Heard with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Like Charles Manson, the man at the centre of proceedings was also the figurehead of an obsessive fan club. And if that fan club grew to resemble a cult, in its slavish devotion to Depp against all reason, it’s largely because, like Simpson’s trial, the whole thing was televised.

However, one key difference between Depp v Heard and these other previous high-profile trials, is the influence of social media on public opinion. The trial was not only ‘televised’ but also TikToked, live-streamed and memed. The tagline for Cooper’s three-parter Depp v Heard even bills the trial as ‘the first trial by TikTok’.

The show opens with the Hollywood sign flickering into Amber Heard’s face on a red carpet. There’s old footage of Depp and Heard on the Hollywood walk of fame, at a dinner, and stepping off a boat in Venice glitch and distort into shots of Los Angeles freeways. News anchors read headlines about the couple, and about the trial. The screen glitches again, into a tree lined highway in Virginia. More clipped footage, more contextualising news clips. Then one anchor raises an important issue – a crucial factor in the trial proceedings that, a year on, often gets lost in the heady internet fog of misinformation, conspiracy, clout-chasing and PR campaigns. Why was the whole sorry spectacle staged in Virginia, when neither Heard nor Depp live or work there?

Well, the ‘official’ reason Depp was allowed to sue in the state is because the news outlet that ran Heard’s article, The Washington Post, “houses its printing press and online server in Fairfax County.” Yet, it’s also because, under Virginia law, the trial judge can decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Heard’s team tried to exclude the cameras from the trial. At a pre-trial hearing in February, attorney Elaine Bredehoft noted there was already a huge amount of media attention on the trial, as well as scrutiny from what she described as “fearful anti-Amber networks”. “What they’ll do is take anything that’s unfavourable,” Bredehoft said, “they’ll take out of context a statement, and play it over and over and over and over again.” Depp’s team, on the other hand, wanted the trial televised. “Mr. Depp believes in transparency,” his lawyer, Ben Chew declared. It should have been a sign of what was to come that the judge sided with Depp. “I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Penney Azcarate, the chief judge of Fairfax County, announced. Others saw it differently. “Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School said in May 2022. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

One of the ramifications of Judge Azcarate’s decision is that Depp v Heard is now on our screens. But, none of those quotes from various legal professionals are taken from the series. Indeed, there are no expert voices at all. There is no narration. No one who was involved in the trial is involved in this directly. There is no ‘broad view’, or ‘behind the scenes’, or ‘recontextualising with the benefit of hindsight’. This is a documentary in the loosest of senses. Early takes from the other side of the pond have been split – some critics have suggested it “casts the trial of the decade in a new light”, while others have deemed it “nothing more than a tactless win for pro-Johnny fans”. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the trial itself was so notoriously divisive. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Audra Heinrichs of Jezebel, who described the docuseries as playing “like a highlight reel from hell”. 

If Depp v Heard suggests anything, it’s that people consuming the trial were biased. Well, that’s hardly a scoop, and to my mind, it’s certainly not worth the full, three-hour docuseries treatment. The series doesn’t dig into the motivations of the anti-Amber content creators or their backgrounds. For example, one prolific poster and top Depp stan who is featured extensively but anonymously in Cooper’s three-parter is Andy Signore. Not long before the Depp v Heard trial began, Signore had been fired from Screen Junkies, the YouTube-focused company he founded, for a variety of sexual misconduct allegations. Having set up his channel Popcorned Planet after being dismissed, Signore now posts livestreams about ‘daily news’ and ‘pop culture justice.’ Mainly, he covers what he characterises as the injustice of the #MeToo movement. Signore more than doubled the following of his YouTube channel during Depp v Heard. He made more than 300 videos about the trial, ratcheting up millions of views as he built a new reputation as a crusader for ‘justice’ and, crucially, making money in the process.

All the content creators immortalised in this series, and many more besides, were making money – but this also isn’t discussed or made explicit in Depp v Heard. Cooper presumably believes this allows the content to speak for itself, and lets the viewer weigh up their own thoughts, becoming another member of the public jury. But the true effect is just blur – an endless stream of stuff. Just how much money were all these #JusticeForJohnny content creators making? Was there a coordinated and well funded online PR campaign for Depp throughout the trial, fuelled by bots, as many alleged post-trial? Depp v Heard has no answers, just more clips. He said, she said. No thoughts, just vibes.

I wrote about Depp v Heard last year as the trial was ongoing. Then, I felt like I had to maintain some semblance of neutrality in my discussion of the ‘facts’ of the case itself. The piece wasn’t about who was ‘right’, or who was telling ‘the truth’ – it was about how strange the spectacle of the case had become, and how dangerous a precedent it seemed to set, if trials about intimate partner violence could be spun into comic TikTok clips. I didn’t want to come down on one ‘side’. I wrote that “treating an ongoing defamation trial, featuring graphic and distressing testimony about physical violence, coercive control, and sexual assault, like […] Netflix’s latest true crime documentary series is, at best, distasteful and, at worst, actively dangerous.” Now, as Netflix’s latest documentary series opens up the can of worms again, the only true takeaway is how little we’ve learnt since then.

[maaarine]

Support Of Amber Heard Alongside French Feminists & Cinema Figures (Melanie Goodfellow, Deadline, June 05 2023)

"Nobel Prize-winning writer Annie Ernaux has signed an open letter in support of Amber Heard, decrying “the vilification” and “ongoing online harassment” of the actress.

Ernaux won the Nobel Prize in Literature in October 2022 for her work charting the lives of women in France from the 1960s onwards, including abortion drama Happening, which formed the basis for Audrey Diwan’s 2021 Venice Golden Lion winner of the same name.

She is among a group of 68 French feminists and cultural figures to have signed the online letter in an initiative coinciding with the first anniversary of the actress’s defeat last June in a highly-mediatized defamation trial brought by ex-husband Johnny Depp. (…)

The letter does not question the verdict but rather voices concern over the “vilification” and “ongoing online harassment’ of the actress; the way in which the trial became a media circus and the implications of how she was treated for other women and vulnerable parts of society.

“Much of this harassment was fueled by disinformation, misogyny, biphobia, and a monetized social media environment where a woman’s allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault were mocked for entertainment,” reads the letter.

“The same disinformation and victim-blaming tropes are now being used against others who have alleged abuse,” it continues."

[mafaldaknows]

The media is being pressured to #believewomen or risk being automatically canceled for misogyny even though the women exploiting this fact have no problem with their own pernicious misandry.

[originalleftist]

Reminder that Johnny Depp isn't just a court-proven domestic abuser and r*pist (#UKVerdict), he has been getting in legal trouble for violence assault for as long as I've been alive (I'm in my mid-30s), pretended to be Native America and acted in Brown Face, promised to buy Wounded Knee for indigenous people and never gave a cent, went shopping for Hitler memorabilia with Marilyn Manson, and is close pals with the ruler of Saudi Arabia Mohamed Bin Salman, aka Prince Bone-Saw.

Oh, and his fixer Adam Waldman is a (former?) lawyer for Russian oligarchs/government officials who was neck-deep in Trump/Russia.

[catatonicreality]

Anti woman society

The creator I'm currently completely obsessed with is Medusone, who made long detailed, well elaborated videos on the Depp v Heard case. Today (20th Sept 2023) she posted on her YT channel a new, "shorter" but no less pointed video about the newly unsealed court documents. I call the unsealing of the court documents by the Johnny Depp stans an ongoing public harassment of Heard aided by the silence of content creators that jumped on the band wagon last year and failed to follow up. After the verdict was read many just moved on, despite new developments in the case, case in point post verdict settlement prompted by Amber's appeal.

Now we have a new band wagon, the accusations against Russell Brand. The knee jerk reaction on so many sides is "trial by media" and "why come out to the media and not report it to the police?".

Amber tried to go about this quietly. As Medusone points out in her video, they literally forced her to re-live her SA on the stand while her testimony was broadcast. Amber was against cameras in the court room. Amber didn't want any of her suffering to be publicized and broadcast, Johnny Depp did. His lawyers wanted the cameras in the courtroom,...to humiliate her. Amber never sought out publicity about her divorce, she followed the NDA after the divorce. She obtained a restraining order against him. She went to the police, she did what she knew how to do, best to her abilities and mental state and taking in account that he's an insanely well known person and she's virtually a nobody in comparison. So all I can say about the public's reaction to the Brand accusations is: fuck all y'all who expect victims to act a certain way after being abused and letting abusers off the hook because the victim wasn't perfect. Do you know how insane that is?!

The four women approached the media because they instinctively knew all this, yet here we fuckung are. No matter how much evidence is produced nothing will be enough for most of society short of a gruesome video of the assault and even then many would find a way to put this on the, in these cases female victims.

This society hates women, plain and simple.

[anthroxlove]

AMBER RESTARTS X FROM ITALY After a long silence, Amber Heard returns with a film, presented at the Taormina Film Festival. At the center of the plot is a woman who is not believed. Just as it happened to her, who narrated domestic violence and was the subject of a hate campaign during the trial pitting her against ex Johnny Depp, triumphantly welcomed at Cannes only a short time ago By Enrica Brocardo

A little more than a year after the end of the defamation trial that had seen Amber Heard and ex-husband Johnny Depp confront each other in the courtroom in Fair- fax, Virginia, and ended with the star's victory, the actress chose the Taormina film festival for her first public appearance. Her new film, In the Fire, or In the Fire, premiered June 24, accompanied by Heard, who walked the red carpet that evening. Last May, on the other hand, it had been Johnny Depp's turn to indulge in a crowd at the Cannes Film Festival, where Jeanne du Barry - The King's Favorite, in which he plays France's King Louis XV, had been chosen as the opening film. Awaiting him was a winner-take-all reception, where it was the seven-minute standing ovation at the screening rather than sympathy for Amber that weighed in. Yet this collective takedown somewhat contrasts with the entire court story, which actually ended in a draw of sorts. It is true that, in America, she was found guilty of defamation for an editorial she wrote in 2018 in The Washington Post newspaper in which she spoke about the harassment and violence she had suffered (but never mentioned her ex-husband's name). But it is also true that Depp had lost his previous lawsuit against the British newspaper The Sun, which, again in 2018, called him a "wife beater." Many wondered why two such similar prosecutions could end with two opposing verdicts. One of the reasons, according to an analysis by British lawyer specializing in Media Law Mark Stephens, is that while in Britain the decision was made by a judge, in the United States it was a people's jury that convicted Heard. "It reflected the judgment already made by the public opinion, which, from the very beginning of the trial, had stood up for Depp," the expert explained. Another reason would be that the judge in the trial against the Sun had defused the strategy of the plaintiff's lawyers, namely to prove that Heard had lied on a few occasions in order to undermine his credibility, and had focused rather on the evidence of the incidents of violence against his wife. In Fairfax, conversely, Depp's lawyers had a free hand in discrediting Heard. Moreover, not only in the eyes of the jury, but of the world inter- not because the trial aired live on the web, resulting in a hate campaign against the actress that, a few months later, prompted her to leave Hollywood and move with her 2-year-old daughter Oonagh to live in Spain. Meanwhile, late last year, the two exes reached an agreement whereby she would no longer have to pay over $10 million in compensation, but "only" $1 million, which the actor, in turn, said he would donate to charity. At the same time, alongside the actress, associations against gender violence and feminists lined up with an open letter (see opposite page) also signed a few days ago by French writer Annie Ernaux, who will be awarded the Nobel Prize in 2022. In the Fire, which will hit theaters in the fall, is a supernatural thriller of sorts: the story of a psichiatrist who in the late 1800s is called in to take care of a child that people believe possessed by the devil. She tries to pit science against superstition but, even as a woman, is not believed. A more muted return to the scenes than that of Depp, who also recently signed a contract with a luxury brand. In short, refinding her place in Hollywood, despite the release of Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom next December, promises to be more complicated for Heard. [ The open letter supporting Amber can be read here. ]

[bebx]

good morning.

today’s beautiful reminder: you can’t keep a good man down.

the verdict stands.

justice is served.

Johnny Depp is finally free.

he won. ❤️

[justiceamberheard]

undefined

Don't miss to watch documentary TONIGHT on @France5tv which will analyze the treatment of the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial on social media and how the propaganda spread by alt-right misogynists swayed public opinion as well as the verdict of the jury.

a thread of the interview regarding Amber/Depp case.