johnny Depp - what a nice guy he is...
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
Love this from the comments - 'She was simply pledging the ink to the paper, no biggie' 
rodericb said:
911r said:
Joey Deacon said:
I am going to say AH is going to win.
On what planet why ? In this case, Heard thought she could use it to her advantage. Failed when numerous former partners and colleagues of Depp said he was a gentleman
So…. What do the bookies have the outcome. On?
If she loses does she have the $ to pay up?
Will Hollywood reopen the doors to JD or is he finished regardless
Will AH have to face UK courts for lying on oath if found guilty and if so would said court overturn the guilty case against JD / and the compensation he had to pay the media repay those funds.
If she loses does she have the $ to pay up?
Will Hollywood reopen the doors to JD or is he finished regardless
Will AH have to face UK courts for lying on oath if found guilty and if so would said court overturn the guilty case against JD / and the compensation he had to pay the media repay those funds.
jsf said:
AH committed perjury, JD doesn't have to win for the UK courts to act, her own testimony admits the perjury.
Will the UK court system act, probably not.
So he has his career destroyed - he had to pay(?) huge sums to the media as he “lost” the UK case. But hes actually innocent. Will the UK court system act, probably not.
Castrol for a knave said:
rodericb said:
911r said:
Joey Deacon said:
I am going to say AH is going to win.
On what planet why ? In this case, Heard thought she could use it to her advantage. Failed when numerous former partners and colleagues of Depp said he was a gentleman
Welshbeef said:
FiF said:
Also wondering if the jury will use the clause available in Virginia that if they believe a person have lied on anything in their evidence they can then discount 100% of that testimony.
Do they know about it? Did the judge give them all the guidance needed"You are the judges of the facts, the credibility or the witnesses, and the weight of the evidence. You may consider the appearance and manner of the witnesses on the stand, their intelligence, their opportunity for knowing the truth and having observed the things about which they testified, their interest in the outcome of the case, their bias, and, if any have been shown, their prior inconsistent statements, or whether they have knowingly testified untruthfully as to any material fact in the case"
"You may not arbitrarily disregard believable testimony of a witness. However, after you have considered all of the evidence in the case, then you may accept or disregard all or part of the testimony of a witness as you think proper"
"You are entitled to use your common sense in judging any testimony. From these things and all the other circumstances of the case, you may determine which witnesses are more believable and weigh their testimony accordingly"
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circui...
Edited by GCH on Wednesday 1st June 00:44
Welshbeef said:
jsf said:
AH committed perjury, JD doesn't have to win for the UK courts to act, her own testimony admits the perjury.
Will the UK court system act, probably not.
So he has his career destroyed - he had to pay(?) huge sums to the media as he “lost” the UK case. But hes actually innocent. Will the UK court system act, probably not.
ACLU demands Depp should pay them $86,253.26 for 'production expenses' and haved filed a motion with the court. 
The judge has yet to rule.
The ACLU argue that JD should reimburse them for the “considerable expense spent responding to onerous subpoenas served by Mr. Depp from an underlying action in which neither the ACLU nor any of its employees are parties.”
The ACLU said they had to review over 7,500 documents and eventually turned over 2,000 documents to comply with a subpoena.
Furthermore, “the ACLU produced three witnesses—including its Executive Director—for over sixteen hours of depositions. Along the way, Mr. Depp rejected numerous compromises to minimize the burden and expense on the ACLU and its employees.”
The ACLU said it has given Depp all the documents he sought. Their lawyer argued “while they cannot get back the significant time they spent responding to Mr. Depp’s subpoenas and the disruption to their work,” they are “entitled” to reimbursements.
Jesus christ.... READ THE ROOM.
The Aclu are already getting a huge backlash for having Ms. Turd as one of their ambassadors.. they also neglect to mention they REFUSED to release and hand over any of the relevant documents and JD had to go to a NY court to get them to order their release.
What a shameless money grab.
I've donated to them before - their founding principal has always been innocent until proven otherwise - but that seems to have shifted recently, particularly since they were involved in the writing of the op-ed at the very heart of this trial. Next time I get stopped in the street by an ACLU chugger, I have my response as to why I'm not giving to them any further.
The judge has yet to rule.The ACLU argue that JD should reimburse them for the “considerable expense spent responding to onerous subpoenas served by Mr. Depp from an underlying action in which neither the ACLU nor any of its employees are parties.”
The ACLU said they had to review over 7,500 documents and eventually turned over 2,000 documents to comply with a subpoena.
Furthermore, “the ACLU produced three witnesses—including its Executive Director—for over sixteen hours of depositions. Along the way, Mr. Depp rejected numerous compromises to minimize the burden and expense on the ACLU and its employees.”
The ACLU said it has given Depp all the documents he sought. Their lawyer argued “while they cannot get back the significant time they spent responding to Mr. Depp’s subpoenas and the disruption to their work,” they are “entitled” to reimbursements.
Jesus christ.... READ THE ROOM.
The Aclu are already getting a huge backlash for having Ms. Turd as one of their ambassadors.. they also neglect to mention they REFUSED to release and hand over any of the relevant documents and JD had to go to a NY court to get them to order their release.
What a shameless money grab.
I've donated to them before - their founding principal has always been innocent until proven otherwise - but that seems to have shifted recently, particularly since they were involved in the writing of the op-ed at the very heart of this trial. Next time I get stopped in the street by an ACLU chugger, I have my response as to why I'm not giving to them any further.
Edited by GCH on Wednesday 1st June 18:40
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff