When it comes to another legal update in the dirty saga Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s Virginia libel trialI know what you’re thinking :Hhere we go again. As someone who was there to document everything court records, callous reaction on social mediaand Devour gummy bears, I hear you. Unfortunately the fight pulls.
In the last month, both Depp and Heard wanted to appeal the Verdictwho concluded that both parties had slandered each other—Heard about her Washington Post op-ed, and Depp on a statement from his attorney arguing that he shouldn’t be held responsible for defaming her. Heard’s appealsubmitted by her new representationDavid L. Axelrod and Jay Ward Brown of Ballard Spahr (a law firm specializing in constitutional law), is aptly inclined Everyone the way into the First Amendment arguments and condemning the actions of Judge Penney Azcarate.
“After Depp brought this case, in a separate defamation lawsuit brought by Depp, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Heard’s allegations of abuse were true,” the 68-page document reads. “The trial court should have given exclusive effect to this 129-page decision, which followed a three-week trial at which Depp, Heard and 24 other witnesses testified.” Although the general argument of the filing is that this case is not in court at all should have come, the document describes 16 specific court errors. The location of the process is one of the most important.
“None of the conduct relevant to Depp’s defamation lawsuits took place in Virginia,” the document said. “Depp is a resident of California. The incidents that led to Heard obtaining the restraining order happened in California, not Virginia.”
Virginia, the attorneys argue, is “an utterly uncomfortable forum with no connection to Depp or any meaningful connection to his claims.” The document also claims it played a significant role in why few people were able to testify for Heard. “Numerous courts interpreting Virginia law have concluded that the locus of wrongdoing in online defamation lawsuits is where “the plaintiff’s greatest reputational damage is done,” which is usually his “home state.”
The choice of location “suffered Heard significant prejudice” as her former team could not subpoena witnesses to testify on her behalf. Heard’s attorneys directly referred to a testimony by Depp’s attorney, Camille Vasquez, in court: “You may have noticed that no one but her sister appeared for Ms. Heard in this courtroom. Except for one witness who went to Virginia as their paid expert. This is a woman who burns bridges. Her close friends don’t show up for her.”
Heard, the attorneys continue, wrote the comment in California before sending it to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York. The ACLU then made the comment on it The Washington Postwho published it online. Their client, they claim, has never actually had contact with anyone Washington Post nor had she entered the state of Virginia, making it all the more confusing as to why the case should be tried in the state.
Other errors include excluding key evidence supporting Heard’s abuse allegations – namely, any mention of the UK court ruling that found Depp had indeed abused Heard 12 times, and devastating text changes who appear to confirm abuse has occurred, including that of Steven Deuters, Depp’s former assistant.
For those who were paying attention, both Heard’s and Depp’s appeals are entirely predictable, and in Heard’s case, defensible. Immediately afterwards, I spoke with a Virginia libel attorney about the many legal head-scratches in the process — specifically, how a process aimed at investigating a single op-ed that never directly alleged any form of abuse became a full-blown one Domestic Violence Trial.
“The whole process came across to most people, I think, largely as a question of which of these two sides is the real perpetrator,” Lee E. Berlik told Jezebel in a June phone interview. “Who is the better spouse? Who is the worst spouse? Do we believe Johnny or Amber? whose side are you on But that’s really not what this case should be about.” Additionally, Berlik emphasized the fact that the comment didn’t specifically mention Depp or anything that may or may not have happened at the time of their relationship in 2016. “This whole case and a lot of the evidence tends to revolve around all the details of what she apparently claimed back in 2016,” he said.
The essence of Heard’s calling? “This attitude, if allowed to exist, will undoubtedly have a deterrent effect on other women who wish to speak out about abuse involving powerful men.” I’m not a lawyer, but there’s no argument. Now, under Virginia law, a panel of judges will have the onerous task of deciding which appeals to allow, if any.
https://jezebel.com/amber-heard-s-appeal-lists-16-ways-the-court-screwed-he-1849853495 Amber Heard’s appeal lists 16 ways the court framed her in the Johnny Depp defamation case