Thread by @TSGoggles

Let's read Amber's brief 🙌 I'll post the parts I find most interesting as I do!
🧵📒

Right out of the gate, they mention that Depp's court-shopping should had been the first non starter for this whole thing, and that it makes no legal sense that he would choose to do that, exposing it as a strategy.

Then, we move on to mentioning that her statements were never defamatory in the first place, and that the mere fact they were considered enough so to go to trial, represents a risk to all women who wish to speak up against powerful men.

Following, another reason why this case should've never gone to trial at all: Depp had already been proved by a court to be an abuser, therefore, how could Amber's statements, even if linked to him, be defamatory? The court erred in dismissing a 129-page decision by a UK judge.

Moving on, this case was about defamation. So, if the jury did not reach the conclusion that Amber had intentionally lied, and intentionally spread misinformation about Depp, how could the court accept their judgement? Their result is incongruent with the trial at hand.

The court excluded several, extremely important, pieces of evidence, while allowing completely irrelevant, and prejudicial, ones, showing bias, and irrevocably harming Amber.

It is also ridiculous that one of the statements (the title) which she did not write herself, was not taken out of the judgement, when she had not chosen, or published those words, herself.

Amber's team requested that the jury be instructed on what proof of malicious intent really means (probably bc they knew the trial would be twisted), the court, for no logical reason, simply refused to do so. As a result, the jury had no idea what they were actually ruling on.

Here, what we've been talking about since this verdict came out: It makes no sense that the jury would find in favor of both. It further proves that the jury did not understand what they were ruling on. If they found that Amber did not lie, then she cannot have defamed Depp.

If they didn't exclude the trial altogether in face of the UK judgement, then at the very least, the court should have allowed that judgement to be brought up during the trial, for the jury, they did not.

The court also refused to accept medical records, and communications between Amber and employees, friends, and family, where she talked about the incidents of abuse, when they were happening, and how she feared for her life. It makes no sense that these weren't allowed.

If the defamation case is about how Amber's op-ed supposedly ruined Depp's reputation, why wouldn't her team be allowed to show evidence of what reputation he had before and after said op-ed? It literally goes against the reasoning for the case to exist in the first place.

Depp does not need to be a lawyer, or draw a legal conclusion, to answer if a situation that he was privy to, was true or not. And it is offensive that he was allowed to argue the jury could rule over things that Amber did before the op-ed, since that was never on trial.

By allowing Depp's team to argue to the jury that her op-ed was the same as her court given TRO, the VA court is allowing TROs to be weaponized against victims, and distorting the supposed goal of the trial. Is the trial about the op-ed, or about her TRO?

Depp had to prove that Amber not only implied he was one of the abusers she was talking about in her op-ed, but that she did so with intent and malice. If she purposefully hired a consultant lawyer to look over the op-ed to ensure it was not defamatory, +

+ how does it make any sense that he could prove, in any way, that she intended to defame him? The jury very obviously did not understand this, as shown, again, by their irreconcilable verdicts.

If Depp lost "nothing less than everything" why would he accept posting a joined statement saying "Neither party lied for financial gain"? If he was so harmed, why was he okay with this, AFTER their relationship was over, meaning he would had been free to make his own choices?

Depp had 16 months to prepare for the UK trial, but that was still not enough to win a case in which the burden of proof was NOT even his. The Sun was the one who had to prove they were telling the truth, and in a 129-page judgement, Justice Nicol decided they were right.

Reminder: Justice Nicol not only ruled that 12 out of 14 allegations of abuse were essentially true, but also that he accepted that Depp had put Amber in fear of her life.

The UK ruling came out in November 2020, Depp appealed until March 2021, when he was told he could no more, and the ruling would stand.

Reminder of the reason why Amber even wrote the op-ed in the first place. She did not simply decide to write about this. She did not do it to spite Depp. She did it to advocate for the protection of female survivors of gendered violence, and she did so at @ACLU 's request.

Amber's team tried to get the trial dismissed 3 times. One for court-shopping, two for defamation not being evident, three when the UK judgement was final, arguing he shouldn't be allowed to litigate her allegations of abuse a second time. Judge Azcarate overruled all of those.

Judge Azcarate did not allow Amber's team to bring up nearly any evidence that would defend her from the relentless credibility attacks by Depp's team, while at the same time, allowing his team to bring up all sorts of irrelevant evidence to attack her.

Once the trial was over, Amber's team filed post-trial motions, based on many of the grounds above, but not only did judge Azcarate deny them, she did not even give a reason as to why she was denying them.

Argument 1 Reasons why this case should've been dismissed before it ever got to trial:
A. Court-shopping
B. The op-ed lines are expressions of opinion and therefore shouldn't be actionable ("sue-able")
C. The op-ed lines can't possibly constitute defamation by implication by law.

D. The court should've considered the "the doctrine of issue preclusion" meaning Depp should not have been able to sue a second time while contesting the truth of Amber's abuse allegations, after the UK judgement. The UK judgement should not have been dismissed.

Argument 2 Depp was unable to prove actual malice, which was the crux of it all, n which means that the whole verdict should have been tossed. Not only does it make no sense, it goes against the crux of the trial itself + the whole supposed reason why Depp sued in the 1st place.

Depp was required to prove Amber had knowledge her statements weren't true or was reckless abt them, he also had to show she intended to defame him, or knew this would defame him n did not care. By letting the verdict stand, the court "eviscerates the 1st Amendment protections."

The trial did not prove that Amber's 3 lines on the op-ed had the "intent" of accusing Depp of DV. It was, however, proven at trial that the objective behind the op-ed, as per ACLU's proposal, was to talk about how Trump's administration had made things even worse for survivors.

@ACLU was the one who wrote the first op-ed version. It concerned Amber, so she reached out to her lawyers, and following their legal advice, she made several edits to the piece, to remove any and all references to Depp or their relationship. That shows caution, not recklessness.

Which means that instead of showing malice and intent, the goal of the trial, what was actually proven at trial, was how cautious and conscientious Amber was. Just on this basis alone, the verdict is ridiculous.

Even if they HAD proved that she knew readers would make this conclusion, they still also failed to prove that she lied, or even came close to lying in her op-ed.

They had to prove not only that he'd never abused her, but specifically that Amber had never had reasonable grounds for believing he'd abused her. Her allegations were physical, verbal, emotional, n psychological, all of which Depp's team conceded to constituting forms of abuse.

The trial record contains endless evidence as to why Amber would have believed Depp had abused her when she published the op-ed. Including:
i. Depp demanding she cut him with a knife and threatening self harm if she didn't.

ii. Depp being violent around her, destroying their joint and her exclusive properties.
iii. Depp's jealousy and constant accusing her of cheating on him and of being "promiscuous," which led him to even FORBID her from taking acting jobs or take meetings about prospect jobs.

iv. At least ONE violence incident which Depp admitted to on tape, where he headbutted her.
v. Depp saying on tape that he left because he "couldn't take the idea of more physical abuse" between them.

All that means that whether or not the jury believes this to be abuse is actually irrelevant. The ruling was over whether or not AMBER believed this to be abuse, and had reasonable grounds to, neither of which Depp was able to disprove, which also speaks to no proof of malice.

Argument 3 Reasons why the court should've tossed the verdict and granted a new trial:
A. The court made numerous errors on what evidence to include and what evidence to exclude, which were specifically harmful to Amber.

The court simply screwed up when it comes to Amber's medical records, they simply should've been allowed. The fact they were not was not only a mistake by judge Azcarate, but that mistake was then used as attack by Depp's team.

Camille Vasquez said "Ms. Heard has told you that she has mountains of evidence of abuse, but there are no medical records reflecting she sustained any injuries from this abuse she claims." She was allowed to argue this, despite knowing FULL WELL that Amber HAD medical records+

+which had been simply excluded by Judge Azcarate. Both the exclusion and allowing this arguments, seem like pretty big and cruel mistakes to me. "That statement is unequivocally false." Depp's lawyers are liars, and actually maliciously so, as they knew the truth. Irony.

Break! We're almost done, and I'll be back in a couple of hours to finish up the arguments.

VA's hearsay rule DOES NOT apply to medical records, so by striking those, judge Azcarate went against state rules, and made a grave mistake, when that was later allowed to be used as proof of NO medical records, by Depp's team. This is revolting.

It is a "well-established legal rule that is no longer subject to reasonable dispute" that statements admitted as evidence of one's state of mind are not hearsay. Meaning, the court had no right to discard texts and messages Amber had sent to others at the time of the abuse abt+

+her state of mind. SPECIALLY SO when her state of mind was the whole point of the trial, which would or not prove malice. This was an error.

"Evidence that she subjectively believed she was a victim of abuse was critical." And yet, judge Azcarate did not accept it.

These medical records show clearly the absurdity of this entire case. To believe Depp, you have to believe that Amber methodically and deviously reported each incident of abuse on his part to medical professionals, friends, and family, through YEARS, with the sole intent of what?

She refused the money. She sought legal advice not to defame him. She made an agreement with him not to talk about each other on the press, an agreement she upheld and he did not. She focused fully on her work and her own life. Throwing seemingly years of plotting down the drain.

"The court improperly prevented the jury from considering several separate instances in which Heard reported Depp's abuse to a medical professional." Among them:

Aug 2012, Depp in a rage, accused her of cheating, threw a glass at her head and missed.
Sep 2012, Depp ripped her nightgown, through her on the bed, tried to "have sex" (force himself on her) and couldn't get it up, so he became even more furious.

Nov 2012, she said "sometimes he becomes verbally and sexually abusive after spending time with father,"
Dec 2015, Depp pushed her down.
Dec 2015, Depp headbutted her.
May 2016, Depp hit her in the face.

And more. ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THE JURY DID NOT GET TO HEAR OR SEE DUE TO JUDGE A EXCLUDING IT FROM TRIAL ON BOGUS BASIS OF HEARSAY. Get it? The jury did not hear ANY of this. What they DID hear was Camille Vasquez accusing Amber of having NO medical records, when+

+she damn right knew that was a complete and total lie. The jury did not hear the fact that in 2015 Amber discussed Depp's violence in COUPLE'S THERAPY, in FRONT of him, and he never contradicted her to the doctor. Do you understand?

All of these statements demonstrating consistent and repeated abuse were thrown out of the trial. Amber was not allowed to show a pattern of abuse, because her evidence was all excluded. When it should never have been, by law. And when her state of mind should had been the most+

important thing on the jury's ruling, something they didn't even know they were supposed to even consider, due to the court refusing to instruct them.

If this sort of unlawful exclusion of evidence becomes a pattern, this will make it more difficult for all abuse victims to prove allegations and even deter them from speaking up.

Statements by party's agents / employees, made during the time of allegations, are an exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, Stephen Deuters texts, where he tells Amber that Depp cried when he was told he kicked her, should had been included. The jury did not get to hear this.

The judge allowed the UK trial to be mentioned, but it did not allow the outcome to be mentioned. How biased do you want to be? Yes. At every turn, the only person harmed by the rulings, was Amber.

Judge Azcarate did not allow them to tell the jury that Depp was found to have abused Amber in 12 different occasions, Depp used that to his benefit to imply that HE had been the one to come out on top, re-writing history. Not only that, but judge Azcarate DID allow Depp to read+

+a headline of an article that said "Johnny Depp was the victim of abuser Amber Heard, London's High Court told." Read it again. Judge Azcarate did not allow them to tell the jury that Depp lost the UK trial, she DID ALLOW him to read a completely bogus article title to them.

Depp's own decision to sue The Sun did have an impact on his reputation, and yet, though this whole trial was about his reputation, Amber could not bring this judgement forward. How could this be called justice?

When Amber's team asked Depp if he thought it was false that "Amber had become a public figure representing domestic abuse," if this, in itself, was a lie, judge Azcarate said he did not have to answer, even though this was the whole point of it all.

The lawyers here call it what it was, the judge abused her discretion. By law, "whether a statement of fact is true or false is not a conclusion of law." Therefore her ruling on this was bogus.

If Depp had been forced to answer that it was true that she had become a public figure representing DV, then that statement (at least one of the three) would had had to be stricken off the case, which is likely why he was protected from doing so.

The judge, however, did allow Depp to enter irrelevant evidence to the trial, which was entered just to attack Amber's character, even though the rule of law says "evidence that is not relevant, is not admissible."

VA's own rules say that a party does not have the ability to introduce extrinsic evidence to attack a witness's credibility. One example of this, was their focus on Amber's pledge to donate her divorce settlement, even though she was keeping up with payments just fine, and this+

+had absolutely nothing to do with the trial at hand.

Not only was Depp's team allowed to talk about this, they were allowed to bring in "collateral evidence" ie witness testimony, with the sole purpose of painting Amber as the wicked witch doing harm to little children.

Depp's lawyers knew full well what a pledge was, and that Amber had been keeping up with payments, but they were allowed to outright call her a liar in front of the jury, for an incident that happened 2 years before the op-ed, and had nothing to do with abuse.

"Again, none of this related to the op-ed or whether Depp abused Heard."

Depp should had never been allowed to bring in a cop to testify about dropped charges more than a decade earlier. They were allowed to ask her, and once she denied the claims, that was to be the end of it. And yet, they were allowed to bring in witnesses from a completely +

+ different instance. "The court's decision to admit Leonard's testimony regarding an incident that occurred nine years before publication of the op-ed served no legitimate purpose."

Whether or not articles about Depp before the op-ed were true, has no say in what they show of his reputation. How can a judge not understand that? How can a jury asses if Depp's reputation was harmed, if Amber wasn't allowed to show what that reputation was?

Not only were they forbidden from talking about the UK trial results, and Depp was allowed to read bogus articles to the jury, but also they were forbidden from even talking about what The Sun's article WAS that Depp sued them over. If The Sun had already "harmed his reputation"+

+then how could the op-ed 2 years later, have harmed it again?

AGAIN. Judge Azcarate did not let Amber's team tell the jury that Depp lost the case in the UK, and more than that, she didn't even let Amber's team tell the jury WHY DEPP HAD SUED THE SUN IN THE FIRST PLACE. All the while allowing Depp to read the jury an article that was a lie.

A lie about that same UK trial. Is she not embarrassed? I'm embarrassed and I'm not even American, much less a judge.

"by November 2, 2020, the world already saw him as a domestic abuser. Nonetheless, the trial court kept that critical information from the jury." How could Depp's reputation have suffered significant reputational harm from the op-ed, when he was already seen and proven as a +

+wifebeater 2 years prior?

"Thus, while the jury was allowed to hear testimony of Depp's harm as far back as 2016, the jury was not able to fully asses the reputational harm unrelated to Heard's op-ed, or the impact of a judgement that found Depp to have committed acts of DV, including sexual violence."

Depp did not prove that Amber was responsible for the title of the op-ed, and yet, somehow, for some reason, judge Azcarate did not strike that line from the trial or the verdict.

"Courts consistently have held that providing a hyperlink does not constitute republication, even in a tweet that favorably references the article."

Reminder, were still in Argument 3 Reasons why the court should've tossed the verdict and granted a new trial. This is 3.C, expanding on the fact judge A refused to instruct the jury on what consists actual malice, which should require a new trial by itself.

And D, the jury verdict that they defamed one another is inherently and irreconcilably inconsistent. Meaning, it makes no f*ckin sense, and therefore cannot stand.

E, judge A had the duty to cut down the damages awarded to Depp, even more, as per Supreme Court instructions. Amber's lawyers argue that as the instructions say, a judge should set aside a jury ruling that is "so excessive that it creates the impression the jury was influenced+

"+by passion, corruption, or prejudice," or that the jury "misconceived or misunderstood the facts of the law," or that "the award is so out of proportion to the injuries suffered as to suggest that it is not the product of an impartial decision."

Even Depp's expert, that Depp brought forth to analyze the impact on his reputation, could not give a straightforward answer as to how his reputation had been affected by the op-ed alone, without bringing it back to the 2016 TRO.

CONCLUSION: Amber's team requests that either Amber be given the judgement, or Depp's claims be dismissed, meaning his trial be tossed as it should had been. OR that a whole new trial happens, as this was not a fair, proper, or lawful trial.

The link, once more, for whoever wants to read the original:
online.flippingbook.com/view/620953526/

*threw her on the bed🤦‍♀️ tired brain making sound associations on its second language.