Johnny Depp suing Amber Heard for 50 million? Amber Heard counter suing for “100 MILLION DOLLARS”

I am totally willing to believe that someone doing a fair minded legal analysis of the verdict
would conclude that Heard should have won.


but imo it's clear nobody really cares about the strict legal analysis.

people feel like
Amber Heard lied and exaggerated too much to be considered a victim
given her mutual participation in an abusive relationship

and she deserves to be punished.

right or wrong that's how people feel.
and even if she technically didn't meet the criteria for defamation.


so even if she wins on appeal, and she never pays him a dime, it doesn't really matter.
Johnny Depp has won.
Why do you think she technically didn’t meet the criteria for defamation?
 
Why do you think she technically didn’t meet the criteria for defamation?

Im not a lawyer, so I really can't say.
I've read compelling arguments both ways.


the problem is the pro heard arguments i've heard rely on detailed parsing of her original statements.

which is fine in a court of law. but public opinion doesn't operate by those rules.
people think she's a liar, and deserves to be punished.

and you aren't going to changed their mind by saying, well if you look at the requirements needed to classify speech as defamation
and you analyze the original op-ed line by line

well it technically can't be defamation.


even if that's true nobody cares,
it's not going make people who think she's a liar, change their minds.
 
Im not a lawyer, so I really can't say.
I've read compelling arguments both ways.


the problem is the pro heard arguments i've heard rely on detailed parsing of her original statements.

which is fine in a court of law. but public opinion doesn't operate by those rules.
people think she's a liar, and deserves to be punished.

and you aren't going to changed their mind by saying, well if you look at the requirements needed to classify speech as defamation
and you analyze the original op-ed line by line

well it technically can't be defamation.


even if that's true nobody cares,
it's not going make people who think she's a liar, change their minds.
Didn’t even finish the article. Clicked off when author tried to say Heard didn’t write the title. It was already established during trial that Heard republished the article and title on twitter. Then tried to say it only meant she “spoke up against sexual violence” and wasn’t accusing anyone of sexual violence. That claim doesn’t work either bc the only time she had ever come out about sexual violence was when she accused Depp of doing so. She also admitted under oath that the article was about Depp.

The ONLY person that won on a technicality was Heard. Depp’s legal team couldn’t prove that he had nothing to do with his lawyer’s statements because of attorney/client privilege. They also couldn’t prove that Heard’s friends were in on the hoax. We all know damn well her and her friends tried to frame Depp but it couldn’t be proven so she got a small win on a technicality.

I tried to hear you out, but that article is opinionated and not based on the legal facts. Might as well watch TMZ.
 
Didn’t even finish the article. Clicked off when author tried to say Heard didn’t write the title. It was already established during trial that Heard republished the article and title on twitter. Then tried to say it only meant she “spoke up against sexual violence” and wasn’t accusing anyone of sexual violence. That claim doesn’t work either bc the only time she had ever come out about sexual violence was when she accused Depp of doing so. She also admitted under oath that the article was about Depp.

The ONLY person that won on a technicality was Heard. Depp’s legal team couldn’t prove that he had nothing to do with his lawyer’s statements because of attorney/client privilege. They also couldn’t prove that Heard’s friends were in on the hoax. We all know damn well her and her friends tried to frame Depp but it couldn’t be proven so she got a small win on a technicality.

I tried to hear you out, but that article is opinionated and not based on the legal facts. Might as well watch TMZ.

your are very confident an article you didn't read offers zero reasonable arguments.


you're trying to argue with me about the law
my point is it doesn't matter.

we don't need to play sneaker forum law review.
 
your are very confident an article you didn't read offers zero reasonable arguments.


you're trying to argue with me about the law
my point is it doesn't matter.

we don't need to play sneaker forum law review.
The article is trash. As I stated previously, once I saw the terrible arguments for the headline, there was nothing more that needed to be read.

You were the one that originally brought up the law. Stating that there was an argument that legally Her article was not defamation. I really wanted to know why you thought so and you post somebody’s opinion that had the wrong facts from the word go.
 
The article is trash. As I stated previously, once I saw the terrible arguments for the headline, there was nothing more that needed to be read.

You were the one that originally brought up the law. Stating that there was an argument that legally Her article was not defamation. I really wanted to know why you thought so and you post somebody’s opinion that had the wrong facts from the word go.
Your responses are proving osh kosh bosh osh kosh bosh 's point
 
926F27EB-6AC1-49F2-A893-23956A6A0E5D.jpeg


💀💀💀💀💀
 
Read that the NBC interview did poorly in the ratings and lost out to shows that were on reruns.


Disney about to drop that bag to Johnny
 

It's wild that this could even happen

Her lawyer earning that check
 

It's wild that this could even happen

Her lawyer earning that check
It can’t. :lol: at Yahoo running this trash article
 

It's wild that this could even happen

Her lawyer earning that check
All this means is we get to see more Camille😍 with her thick sturdy chin lookin ***.
 
Back
Top Bottom