Thread by @roaringrapids22

This thread will pertain to Mr. Depp's Opposition to Ms. Heard's Supplemental Plea in Bar & Mr. Depp's Motion for Sanctions Relating to Ms. Heard's Supplemental Plea in Bar.
Opposition: fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/…
Motion: fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/…
Hearing: July 22, 2021

🤣I've been wanting to read Mr. Chew's response & it doesn't disappoint at all.

It clearly shows the desperation of Ms. Heard & her legal counsel. I'm glad Mr. Depp is asking for sanctions, as well.

So here we go...

"Ms. Heard's Plea is her 3rd baseless attempt to dismiss Mr. Depp's defamation claims & avoid a trial on the merits. Ms. Heard contends that the 11/2/20 [UK Judgement]....bars Mr. Depp's defamation claims against her...under the doctrines res judicata, issue preclusion & comity."

"Ms. Heard, however, cannot cite a single authority that supports her Plea that this court dismiss Mr. Depp's defamation claims, based on a judgement in a different country, w/ different disclosure, & evidentiary rules..." She wasn't a party, subjected to disclosure.

"...the timing & procedural history of the UK Action disproves Ms. Heard's contention that the UK judgement was rendered after 'full discovery' into the veracity of Ms. Heard's claim that Mr. Depp abused her...thus, already 'had' his 'day in court' to disprove this claim."

Mr. Chew notes discovery in the US case was ongoing at the time of the UK trial, is still ongoing; that this ongoing discovery revealed that Ms. Heard lied under oath in her UK witness statement.

The UK Court of Appeal also noted Ms. Heard lied.

"Ms. Heard's Plea, unsupported by any apposite authority, is nothing more than a last-ditch effort to avert further discovery that could reveal Ms. Heard's claims to be false & avoid a trial of Mr. Depp's defamation claims against her on a truly full & complete record."

"Ms. Heard's protests of 'predatory libel tourism' & a parade of horribles that would result if the preclusive effect of the UK judgement is not recognized are merely strawman arguments propounded to distract from the fact that her argument that the doctrines of comity ...

res judicata, & collateral estoppel bar Mr. Depp's defamation claims against her is legally & factually meritless."

Ms. Burkhart's written a few threads on this, I encourage you to read, if you have not done so, yet.

"...It is Ms. Heard, not Mr. Depp, who stands to benefit from the timing & legal framework in the UK Action."

Mr. Chew mentions she was a 3rd party witness; not subject to compelled disclosure; she was able to cherry-pick evidence

"This flies in the face of US public policy..."

"Ms. Heard...misstates VA defamation law, erroneously claiming that it is Mr. Depp's burden to prove by 'clear and convincing evidence...that her claims of domestic abuse are false, to bolster this contention."

"Mr. Depp can absolutely prevail on his defamation claim against Ms. Heard w/ the benefit of discovery devices & expert analysis unavailable to Mr. Depp in the UK Action."

"Mr. Depp is entitled to a full & fair opportunity to try his claims against Ms. Heard on a complete, fully-vetted record."

Mr. Chew asks the Court to deny Ms. Heard's Plea & to sanction her for "wasting the Court's time & resources w frivolous defenses...."

"...Ms. Heard [in the UK Action] waited to disclose critical, & seemingly incomplete or modified, audio recordings, photographs, & text messages until the eve of trial...& in some instances, after the UK trial was underway."

Mr. Chew notes Mr. Depp attempted a "3rd part disclosure application against Ms. Heard [2 weeks prior to trial] to test the authenticity & completeness [of the late submitted evidence]....The UK denied Mr. Depp's request...."

In the UK Action, "Ms. Heard also submitted 2 additional witness statements on behalf of the UK Defendants just days before the UK trial commenced, wherein she commented on the evidence in the 'trial bundles' for the UK trial."

"In connection w/ a dispute over whether Ms. Heard could sit in the courtroom for the presentation of all evidence, the UK Court again acknowledged [she wasn't a party to the litigation]."

In the US, "Mr. Depp was aggressively pursuing party & nonparty discovery....Ms. Heard fought tooth & nail to thwart disclosure of the donation related discovery...filing a motion in Limine...to exclude evidence...& [objecting/opposing]...efforts to compel discovery...."

Mr. Chew notes these efforts by Ms. Heard to thwart discovery @ the donations led Mr. Justice Nicol to believe if she'd donated the money, she couldn't have concocted an abuse hoax, nor was she a gold-digger; he cites the 11/2/20 ruling, noting she LIED to the UK Court.

Mr. Chew mentions Judge White's January 4, 2021 ruling dismissing "all of Ms. Heard's Counterclaims, w/ the exception of the portion...based on 3 statements made [by Adam Waldman] w/in the 1 year statute of limitations.

"Contrary to Ms. Heard's prior public statements & [a UK witness statement], the production revealed Ms. Heard had not donated 'the entire amount of [her] divorce settlement...."

Again Mr. Chew notes Ms. Heard LIED to the public & under oath in the UK Action, via her WS.

"...The UK Court of Appeal recognized that Ms. Heard has misled the UK Court by testifying in her witness statement that her entire $7M divorce settlement 'was donated.'"

Mr. Chew notes Mr. Depp is still seeking to Compel the ACLU @ the donations & their involvement in the Op-Ed

Mr. Chew mentions discovery continues until March 2022, w/ the trial commencing April 11, 2022; says in addition to the ACLU discovery; over 20 depositions remain to be given; responses to Mr. Depp's 4th set of interrogatories & her counsel refuses to Meet & Confer; ...

the production of documents & materials requested by Mr. Depp's 7th set of requests, "which seeks, among other things, access to Ms. Heard's devices for a forensic analysis of ESI produced by Ms. Heard to date; & all expert discovery."

"...the Court denied Ms. Heard's request to stay discovery & cautioned Ms. Heard that her proposed arguments on the supplemental plea in bar, which are now reflected in the Plea, appeared futile & could be sanctionable Ms. Heard, nonetheless, proceed to file her [Plea]."

"...Ms. Heard erroneously claims that Mr. Depp's burden in the [UK] Action is to demonstrate falsity by clear & convincing evidence...however, Ms. Heard conflates the burden for proving the falsity w/ the burden of proving actual malice."

"A statement must be both false & defamatory in order to be actionable under VA law...."[Mr. Depp] must prove [Ms. Heard] acted w/ 'actual malice....[&] must be proven by clear & convincing evidence, [but] only falsity by a preponderance of the evidence."

"...the true difference of burdens of proof in the UK Action & this Action is that, the UK Defendants had to prove that it was more likely than not that Mr. Depp abused Ms. Heard...in this Action [he] must prove it is more likely than not Ms. Heard lied @ the abuse."

"In this Action, Mr. Depp can actually compel discovery Ms. Heard, depose Ms. Heard in advance of trial, conduct far more expansive 3rd party discovery, & present expert testimony concerning the authenticity of Ms. Heard's evidence, [which he couldn't do in the UK].

"The UK judgement doesn't bar Mr. Depp's defamation claims against Ms. Heard pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel b/c the parties to this Action are not 'the same or in privity' w/ one another."

"Ms. Heard has no valid basis to claim privity w/ the UK Defendants, she is left to argue mutuality among parties is no requirement at all....[she] doesn't contend & presents no evidence...of [a] legally recognized relationship w/ the UK Defendants..."

"...the burden of proof on the veracity of Ms. Heard's claims of abuse in the UK Action was not so elevated as compared to Mr. Depp's burden in this Action."

"...Mr. Depp is not estopped from litigating his defamation claim against Ms. Heard b/c Ms. Heard's status as a nonparty in the UK Action hindered Mr. Depp's ability to have a 'full & fair opportunity...evidentially' to litigate the validity of Ms. Heard's claims of abuse."

"Ms. Heard has not even alleged, much less demonstrated, any such privity-like relationship or special circumstances here that would warrant...res judicata or collateral estoppel to the UK judgement in the absence of mutuality."

Ms. Heard's "argument is baseless....The UK Court held on multiple occasions Ms. Heard was not a party to the UK action & did not treat her as such."

"...Mr. Depp could not compel discovery from Ms. Heard in connection w/ the UK Action & could not test the evidence Ms. Heard voluntarily & selectively provided."

I'm taking a small break to watch a film w/ my wife & children. I'll commence after & finish this last thread tonight.

"...Ms. Heard's res judicata defense suffers from another fatal flaw: the UK Action & this Action do not arise from the same conduct, transaction or occurrence; [they] arise from the publication of different statements by different Defendants, at different times."

"...Ms. Heard's [comity claims suffer] from the same infirmities as her arguments for the application of res judicata & collateral estoppel. The factual circumstances & applicable law simply do not warrant granting comity to the UK judgement."

"...Mr. Depp was hamstrung in vetting the evidence Ms. Heard selectively fed to the UK Defendants by Ms. Heard's status as a nonparty to the UK Action."

"...US courts, as well as the authorities Ms. Heard relies upon, hold that a foreign judgement should not be afforded preclusive effect under principles of comity if the foreign judgement would not operate as res judicata or collateral estoppel."

"...The UK Judgement does not operate as res judicata or collateral estoppel w/ respect to Mr. Depp's defamation claims against Ms. Heard b/c the requisite mutuality or privity among the parties to this Action & the UK Action is missing."

"...Many of the authorities Ms. Heard relies upon in support of her request that this Court grant comity to the UK Judgement are distinguishable from the circumstances...b/c the parties to the domestic & foreign actions in those cases were the same or in privity."

"...Ms. Heard's alleged defamatory statements were not made on the basis of, or reliance in, a determination in the UK Judgement, which was rendered long after her Op-Ed was published."

"Ms. Heard & Mr. Depp are the only ones that truly know whether Ms. Heard's claims of domestic abuse are true or false & it is in this Action, to which they are both parties, that this factual issue should be adjudicated."

"Ms. Heard does not cite a single case that supports her apparent position that she, as a nonparty, can enforce the UK Judgement; a judgement dismissing Mr. Depp's claim against the UK Defendants...in VA."

"Mr. Depp's initiation of the UK action in the UK & this Action in the US is not an example of 'predatory libel tourism' but rather the consequence of the unique statements from which each action arose & basic principles of civil procedure."

"The idea that Mr. Depp's position in this Action & the UK Action constitutes or encourages 'predatory libel tourism' is preposterous."

"...Ms. Heard's assertion that declining to recognize the UK Judgement...'would effectively overrule & invalidate the UK Judgement, create 'litigation havoc'...& 'free speech' are false & overwrought."

"A determination by this Court that Ms. Heard lied @ the abuse & defamed Mr. Depp would not change that. The only thing that would change is that Mr. Depp would be vindicated & Ms. Heard could not continue falsely accusing Mr. Depp of domestic violence."

At the May 28, 2021 hearing Judge Azcarate said, "...if it does come after everything & that I am right, that it is futile & not based on any sound legal basis, I mean, it will be sanctionable. I just want to make sure we all understand that."

IMO This is futile/sanctionable.

Pages 30-37, Mr. Chew attaches Ms. Heard's UK Third Witness Statement, which you can also read via Nick Wallis' website here: …3-4488-b369-fe3934b0504a.filesusr.com/ugd/5df505_460…

Pages 38-39, is an excerpt from the UK hearing, February 26, 2020.

Mr. Sherborne: @ the UK Sun article, the changing to the 'wife b*ater' headline, the misquoting of Katherine Kendall, her 'furious' texts to Dan Wootton.

Mr. Wolanski: @ a protective order, disclosures, Ms. Heard selecting what evidence to provide to the UK Defendants & attempt to say Mr. Depp's w/held evidence, Mr. Depp's medical disclosures, forcing Mr. Depp to provide records.

Pages 40-54 are Rulings by Mr. Justice Nicol dated 3/6/20, 7/2/20 & an Order dated 7/6/20; an excerpt of Lord Underhill & Lord Dingemans 3/18/21 COA Judgement.
You can read the Rulings in full here: bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_s…
The COA Judgement here: judiciary.uk/judgments/john…

Pages 55-64 is an excerpt of the May 28, 2021 hearing before Judge Azcarate in VA.

I'm just going to post the highlights of this hearing as their is irrelevant parts, unnecessary parts @ Court business.

🙄Ms. Bredehoft accuses Mr. Chew of misinforming the court, goes off & insists on reading emails aloud to Judge Azcarate, when in fact if you look at Mr. Chew's response discussed in this thread the Court cases she cite are irrelevant to Ms. Heard's Plea.

Judge Azcarate: "When I look at the motion...[it] does appear to be futile...." She rules to allow Ms. Heard to proceed w/ her Plea. She then says, "...I will note...if it does come after everything...it is futile...it will be sanctionable."

Judge Azcarate: "As far as discovery, the rule does give the court discretion, & there's no basis to stay discovery, so discovery will be ongoing while we prepare for this motion."

Pages 65-69 are attached emails. I will address these as I have in the past, w/ a summation for each & a SS of the email, w/out the private information of those involved.

From Ms. Bredehoft to Mr. Chew, CC'd to members of both Mr. Depp & Ms. Heard's legal counsel. She mentions the Meet & Confer requests, his agreeance/disagreement to the Plea & staying of discovery, & Mr. Depp's Motion to Compel.

From Mr. Chew to Ms. Bredehoft, CC'd to members of both Mr. Depp & Ms. Heard's legal counsel.🤣He mentions her consistent "putting the cart before the horse;" the current dismissal attempt; schools her in res judicata/collateral estoppel/comity; a history of the case lesson.

From Ms. Bredehoft to Mr. Chew, CC'd to members of both Mr. Depp & Ms. Heard's legal counsel. She asks @ a potential call on Monday; @ 4th RFPs; motions in the que; Mr. Depp's agreeance; disagreement of the Plea & stay of discovery.

"Plaintiff [Mr. Depp]...hereby moves this Honorable Court to impose sanctions against Defendant Amber Heard based on improper filing of her Supplemental Plea in Bar."