Artorias said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

On a personal note, I really do not like that neither of the parties are going to be there for the verdict

---

I'm more surprised that AH won't be there to grab some camera time. Depp? If he wins & celebrates in any way - even a grin - he looks like a jerk.

---

He looks like a jerk at this trial anyway. Amber's demeanor was worse however.

---

Anecdotal, but most commentary I have seen/heard seems to think Depp is coming out looking better, rather than worse, from this trial.

---

So many women love him

And the fact that all former partners swore he is not abusive makes her look even worse than the gold digging hussy that all assumed she was when he actually married her

Kardashians were at the Met Gala in NY when their defamation case verdict was read in LA. It happens. No real reason for them to be there in civil case as long as they can confer with their attorneys.

The ACLU is asking the court to order Depp to pay for their production costs when the ACLU was ordered to comply with the subpoena. Evidently in New York this is a thing.

ACLU refused to voluntarily hand over documents pertaining to the case, so Johnny Depp asked a judge to to legally compel them to respond ~ his motion was granted.

Now the ACLU wants Johnny Depp to reimburse them $86,253.26 for time taken preparing & submitting the docs.

Nuts. pic.twitter.com/GEt0orh3fi

— Greg Ellis 🏴‍☠️ (@ellisgreg) May 31, 2022

It's a thing everywhere to get reasonable cost to comply with a subpoena. This amount sounds unreasonable, but would have to see the cost breakdown. You don't get the cost to fight the subpoena

Quote:

---

And the fact that all former partners swore he is not abusive makes her look even worse than the gold digging hussy that all assumed she was when he actually married her

---

But did they really? In the UK trial, Ryder and Paridis filed witness statements but refused to testify at trial before the judge.

Here, Kate Moss showed up for webcam testimony which was live testimony. Barkin's deposition testimony was played for the jury. That's it.

Jury tells judge they want to go home and come back tomorrow. Just announced.

They're not suing for the cost of fighting the subpoena, just the production. I read somewhere that involved a review of 7,500 documents and was roughly 40 hours of senior associate work and 80 hours of junior associate work with some staff hours thrown in. Wouldn't be surprised if they take a bit of a haircut.

BMX Bandit said:

---

It's a thing everywhere to get reasonable cost to comply with a subpoena. This amount sounds unreasonable, but would have to see the cost breakdown. You don't get the cost to fight the subpoena

---

Saw a chart that was an exhibit on Rekieta's feed this morning. A bunch of lawyers at their hourly rate for document reviews (7500 potentially responsive, 2500 produced) and then two or three day depositions of some ACLU principals, also including top lawyers involved in crafting the op-ed.

Top lawyer had a billing rate over 900/per. Second attorneys over 850/per and two associates/paralegals at between 275-300/per.

About the only thing they didn't bill for was production of that chart. (That's a lawyer joke, BTW.)

What's going on? Adjourn for the day? I'm not watching.

GeorgiAg said:

---

What's going on? Adjourn for the day? I'm not watching.

---

I think someone said jury said they want to chill in their hotel tonight, and come back tomorrow with verdict.

Tabasco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

What's going on? Adjourn for the day? I'm not watching.

---

I think someone said jury said they want to chill in their hotel tonight, and come back tomorrow with verdict.

---

They are not sequestered. Never have been.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tabasco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

What's going on? Adjourn for the day? I'm not watching.

---

I think someone said jury said they want to chill in their hotel tonight, and come back tomorrow with verdict.

---

They are not sequestered. Never have been.

---

Just assumed. Thanks for clarification. What is your gut on this?

Tabasco said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tabasco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

What's going on? Adjourn for the day? I'm not watching.

---

I think someone said jury said they want to chill in their hotel tonight, and come back tomorrow with verdict.

---

They are not sequestered. Never have been.

---

Just assumed. Thanks for clarification. What is your gut on this?

---

If it was going to be overwhelmingly pro Depp, we'd get a verdict today. But now I think there is a split verdict.

Meaning, he loses on two of three counts. Amber's CC gets tossed, I believe.

And without that stupid CC, I think Heard would have won this case. (Well, if she was more controlled on the stand and her main lawyer, Elaine, was a better trial attorney. Had Rottenborn handled the majority of the case for Amber (without the stupid CC) she would have been in better shape.

Do you think there's a potential juror sentiment of "these two rich people fighting" and both lose?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Do you think there's a potential juror sentiment of "these two rich people fighting" and both lose?

---

I thought that before but not really now. It has to be unanimous so a pox on both their houses would be a quicker verdict, in my view.

Good point. Would have been quick verdict in that instance

what is CC

counter claim?

Tabasco said:

---

counter claim?

---

Yes. Sorry, reverted to legal shorthand there for a second.

Apologies.

Common ones are:

MTD= Motion to Dismiss

12(b)(6)= Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted

MSJ= Motion for Summary Judgment, meaning that under the facts presented, the law is against opposing party. This is a very heavy briefing motion which can be defeated if there is any question of fact involved that should be heard by a jury.

M in limine= motions before trial to determine which evidence will be and will not be admissible at trial. Many of those involve prior bad acts. Previous convictions, drug arrests or DV arrests and the like. Rule on that is whether the offered evidence is more prejudicial than probative on an element of the case.

AD= Affirmative Defense. Assertion of an affirmative defense actually switches the burden of proof to a defendant to prove that defense. Not be confused with a defense of self defense. Most jurisdictions do not treat self defense as an affirmative defense that switches the burden to the defense to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

Florida has a weird type of hearing because of their particular stand your ground procedure. It is a separate hearing before trial solely to determine if a trial on the underlying charges will even be heard. And there the defendant does have a burden of proof.

I think neither side wins anything.

But, Johnny has rehabilitated his image and I think that's all he wanted anyway.

It's been highly entertaining that's for sure.

Cepe said:

---

I think neither side wins anything.

But, Johnny has rehabilitated his image and I think that's all he wanted anyway.

It's been highly entertaining that's for sure.

---

Only men would believe that Johnny being so p-whipped by a twenty something Amber makes him "manly."

Depp will need a blood draw and a pee cup everyday he is on set for the nest five years, minimum if a big studio wants to hire him again.

Here's a fun fact: with the money he spent on all of these all as reported, he could have produced, starred in, paid for distribution for two films, all on his own. Get a few investors? He would have been working a lot. If he had wanted.

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

On a personal note, I really do not like that neither of the parties are going to be there for the verdict

---

I'm more surprised that AH won't be there to grab some camera time. Depp? If he wins & celebrates in any way - even a grin - he looks like a jerk.

---

He looks like a jerk at this trial anyway. Amber's demeanor was worse however.

---

Other than being a convicted pedo rapist there is not much of worse rap you can get in the US than being a wife beater.

Even murderers get treated better.

Even if he looks like a ***** whipped entitled ******, (which he is) that plays miles better to the public than wife beater.

aggiehawg said:

---

Cepe said:

---

I think neither side wins anything.

But, Johnny has rehabilitated his image and I think that's all he wanted anyway.

It's been highly entertaining that's for sure.

---

Only men would believe that Johnny being so p-whipped by a twenty something Amber makes him "manly."

Depp will need a blood draw and a pee cup everyday he is on set for the nest five years, minimum if a big studio wants to hire him again.

Here's a fun fact: with the money he spent on all of these all as reported, he could have produced, starred in, paid for distribution for two films, all on his own. Get a few investors? He would have been working a lot. If he had wanted.

---

Rob (Law and Lumber), who practices in Fairfax, VA, thinks Depp may have a shot at recovering attorney's fees in addition to the judgment if they win. They would have another hearing a few months after the verdict.

Does Amber even have the funds to cover his legal fees? Thought I saw he spent 8 figures. Assuming very low 8 figures, without looking it up, has to either wipe her out or come really close.

So then what happens? Does he theoretically receive some percentage of her future earnings until it's satisfied?

Cepe said:

---

I think neither side wins anything.

But, Johnny has rehabilitated his image and I think that's all he wanted anyway.

It's been highly entertaining that's for sure.

---

I think his legal team told him early on his chances of winning weren't great. But he's old and basically spent the money to put the truth out there.

In 3 years Depp will be in a final Pirate movie. His image is "restored".

Do

DP

Verdict Watch another day.





Depp is still in the UK.

Rekieta is playing commentary from so-called "attorneys" on Law and Crime and just wrecking their commentators for not even following the trial. Law and Crime commentators are discussing a non-existent pre-nup in this case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rekieta is playing commentary from so-called "attorneys" on Law and Crime and just wrecking their commentators for not even following the trial. Law and Crime commentators are discussing a non-existent pre-nup in this case.

---

Law and Crime's attorneys are pretty terrible. They're a lower budget CourtTV. The great thing about the YouTubes is that you can get something that plays to your worldview. Where Nick got the Pope hat though is the real question. If Nick has that, Hawg needs a habit with the crazy wings. We need to make this happen.

DirtyMikesBoys said:

---

Does Amber even have the funds to cover his legal fees? Thought I saw he spent 8 figures. Assuming very low 8 figures, without looking it up, has to either wipe her out or come really close.

So then what happens? Does he theoretically receive some percentage of her future earnings until it's satisfied?

---

One of the commentators was discussing this, as amber won't have the funds to pay johnny. He mentioned that Depp has some tax troubles, and that there is some way to use legal wizardry to assign court judgments to the IRS as a way of paying those taxes. I doubt it's a dollar to dollar exchange, but it would apply to his delinquent tax accounts.

Dawnguard said:

---

DirtyMikesBoys said:

---

Does Amber even have the funds to cover his legal fees? Thought I saw he spent 8 figures. Assuming very low 8 figures, without looking it up, has to either wipe her out or come really close.

So then what happens? Does he theoretically receive some percentage of her future earnings until it's satisfied?

---

One of the commentators was discussing this, as amber won't have the funds to pay johnny. He mentioned that Depp has some tax troubles, and that there is some way to use legal wizardry to assign court judgments to the IRS as a way of paying those taxes. I doubt it's a dollar to dollar exchange, but it would apply to his delinquent tax accounts.

---

Unrecoverable awards have tax implications I believe.

aezmvp said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rekieta is playing commentary from so-called "attorneys" on Law and Crime and just wrecking their commentators for not even following the trial. Law and Crime commentators are discussing a non-existent pre-nup in this case.

---

Law and Crime's attorneys are pretty terrible. They're a lower budget CourtTV. The great thing about the YouTubes is that you can get something that plays to your worldview. Where Nick got the Pope hat though is the real question. If Nick has that, Hawg needs a habit with the crazy wings. We need to make this happen.

---

The Pope hat was made by a friend of Nick's when Nick was making fun of the lawyer Popehat on twitter a few years back.

The hallways outside Judge A’s room are packed with reporters. Occasionally #ElaineBredehoft #CamilleVazquez and #BenChew walk around on the phone. #ElaineBredehof jokes “are you all around here for any reason or are you just bored like me?”#JohnnyDeppAmberHeard #lawtube

— JAMES (@jamesfromcourt) June 1, 2022

Surprised the lawyers are still hanging out in the courthouse.

So when the ruling goes in Johnny's favor, will Amber poop on the judges desk?