VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #2

[shotgun09]

AH's first draft of her Op-ed stated " My then husband".
ACLU's attorney's wrote to AH, to change that by omitting the words " My then husband".

Clearly, with the e-mails presented so far, this is proof that AH was speaking about JD. Until the ACLU changed it....

Goodness

 

[BUF]

They just showed a close up of Heard with a look of “oh, what next”

 

[Kiranerys]

AH's first draft of her Op-ed stated " My then husband".
ACLU's attorney's wrote to AH, to change that by omitting the words " My then husband".

Clearly, with the e-mails presented so far, this is proof that AH was speaking about JD. Until the ACLU changed it....

Goodness

Oh,her goose is well on the way to being cooked methinks .....

 

[squareandrabbet]

AH's first draft of her Op-ed stated " My then husband".
ACLU's attorney's wrote to AH, to change that by omitting the words " My then husband".

Clearly, with the e-mails presented so far, this is proof that AH was speaking about JD. Until the ACLU changed it....

Goodness

ACLU attorney goes on to specifically say the article/op-Ed was considerably ‘neutered’ vis-a-vis marital details from the early drafts.

interestingly I feel like the ACLU did not respond in time to be included in the UK court case; thus this might be the first time these details are being exposed to public opinion.

 

[rebelchild]

Is anyone else picking their jaw up off the floor?

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

The added impact of referring to marriage to Johnny Depp

Changes were made to the first draft of Amber Heard's Washington Post column following a meeting between the staff member, Robin Shulman, and the actress, the court hears.

ACLU spokesman Terence Dougherty has told the court he was not involved in reviewing the article.

He says Ms Shulman discussed personal experiences in the meeting with Heard that she used to incorporate into the op-ed.

Did Heard's advisors initially revise a draft to remove any references to her marriage? Mr Dougherty is asked.

He says he recalls communications suggesting edits concerning Heard's non-disclosure agreement (NDA) signed as part of her divorce.

"Is it also true that there were some at the ACLU who expressed their belief that excising those references to her marriage and divorce fom Johnny Depp made the op-ed less impactful, correct?"

"That is correct," Mr Dougherty replies.

He says the language in the published op-ed is "very different" to previous versions as it "did not refer directly to Ms Heard's relationship with Johnny Depp".

In an email, Gerry Johnson, who at the time worked in the union's communications department, described the draft as "strong".

 

[Tippy Lynn]

This article was so political, IMO. Published on purpose, to impress Congress.....Per testimony from ACLU lawyer just now.

IMO, JD was slandered/defamed not only by AH.....but by the ACLU

This ^^^^^.

 

[BUF]

Is anyone else picking their jaw up off the floor?

As Depp’s case in chief seems to nearing an end, I was expecting something…this ties directly to that article which is why this case was allowed in Virginia.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

Capitalising on the Aquaman campaign

ACLU spokesman Terence Dougherty is now being asked about the timing of the Washington Post article.

Johnny Depp's lawyer asks if Amber Heard requested it should be published just after the release of Aquaman, in which she co-starred with Jason Momoa.

The op-ed was published about a week after the release of Aquaman in December 2018.

Mr Dougherty says he does recall conversations about timing.

We hear about an email from an ACLU staff member saying Heard had sent back the op-ed with final edits from her legal team which "neutered" much of the details regarding her marriage and domestic violence.

Mr Dougherty says he is not sure about the use of the term neutered but does know lawyers removed references to Heard's marriage and divorce.

"The goal is to get this out this week to capitalise on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman," another email says.

Asked to elaborate on this, Mr Dougherty says Heard was about to receive an "incredible amount of press" so it was a good time to help raise as much publicity as possible.

"Every step of the way we were making these decisions with Amber's PR representatives," he says.

The court hears Heard had asked if there was an "artful way" to include some of the references that had been removed.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Sky News

Capitalising on the Aquaman campaign

ACLU spokesman Terence Dougherty is now being asked about the timing of the Washington Post article.

Johnny Depp's lawyer asks if Amber Heard requested it should be published just after the release of Aquaman, in which she co-starred with Jason Momoa.

The op-ed was published about a week after the release of Aquaman in December 2018.

Mr Dougherty says he does recall conversations about timing.

We hear about an email from an ACLU staff member saying Heard had sent back the op-ed with final edits from her legal team which "neutered" much of the details regarding her marriage and domestic violence.

Mr Dougherty says he is not sure about the use of the term neutered but does know lawyers removed references to Heard's marriage and divorce.

"The goal is to get this out this week to capitalise on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman," another email says.

Asked to elaborate on this, Mr Dougherty says Heard was about to receive an "incredible amount of press" so it was a good time to help raise as much publicity as possible.

"Every step of the way we were making these decisions with Amber's PR representatives," he says.

The court hears Heard had asked if there was an "artful way" to include some of the references that had been removed.

Artful?! That’s wicked IMO

 

[shotgun09]

Artful?! That’s wicked IMO

Also called " Creative writing".....

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

'So much for not mentioning JD'

ACLU spokesperson Terence Dougherty is being taken back to Amber Heard's Washington Post article.

The online version was titled: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

Mr Dougherty says he has no knowledge of the title but thinks it would have been someone at the Washington Post who wrote it.

He is now shown an article published in USA Today which "specifically ties" Heard's column to Depp, he says.

"So much for not mentioning JD," one ACLU staff member said in an email.

In a statement by Robin Shulman, the ACLU staff member who was involved in drafting the article for Heard, the connection being drawn was described as "kind of amazing".

Mr Dougherty says he does not know why she found it amazing and that he also understood Heard to be referring to Depp and her marriage.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Sky News

'So much for not mentioning JD'

ACLU spokesperson Terence Dougherty is being taken back to Amber Heard's Washington Post article.

The online version was titled: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

Mr Dougherty says he has no knowledge of the title but thinks it would have been someone at the Washington Post who wrote it.

He is now shown an article published in USA Today which "specifically ties" Heard's column to Depp, he says.

"So much for not mentioning JD," one ACLU staff member said in an email.

In a statement by Robin Shulman, the ACLU staff member who was involved in drafting the article for Heard, the connection being drawn was described as "kind of amazing".

Mr Dougherty says he does not know why she found it amazing and that he also understood Heard to be referring to Depp and her marriage.

Sky forgot to add after he says ‘I don’t know why [ACLU staffer] would find it amazing’, the following response:

Amber Heard: looks at Attorney Bredehoft
AH: laughs

mic drop

 

[BUF]

I don’t think there is anything that Heard’s team can do with this witness to rehabilitate was information he has already given to Depp’s team…so going grocery shopping now. TIA for the updates while I’m gone.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

No indication that Heard doesn't intend to pay

After some further questioning on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) $3.5m pledge, Amber Heard's team is now taking over questioning of spokesperson Terence Dougherty.

The court has previously learned that Heard became an ambassador for the ACLU in December 2018 and that the organisation was involved in writing her op-ed for the Washington Post, the article at the heart of this case.

She also pledged half of her $7m divorce settlement to the organisation (and half to another charity).

Questioning from Johnny Depp's team cast doubt over Heard's payments and Mr Dougherty earlier told the court that the union has so far received $1.3m. He said he considered the total $3.5m to be a pledge rather than an amount to be paid all at once, but that Heard has not made any donations for a few years.

"I think that everybody at the ACLU was hoping and expecting that the full $3.5m would be paid," he says now. Heard didn't sign a pledge form which "cast some doubt", he says, and learning later that she was going through financial difficulties "we recognised that that might impact whether the full $3.5m was paid or impact whether it was paid over a longer period of time".

However, Mr Dougherty says he has had no indication to suggest that Heard does not intend to pay the full amount.

 

[shotgun09]

Sky News

No indication that Heard doesn't intend to pay

After some further questioning on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) $3.5m pledge, Amber Heard's team is now taking over questioning of spokesperson Terence Dougherty.


"I think that everybody at the ACLU was hoping and expecting that the full $3.5m would be paid," he says now. Heard didn't sign a pledge form which "cast some doubt", he says, ........"

However, Mr Dougherty says he has had no indication to suggest that Heard does not intend to pay the full amount.

RSBM
BBM

"....Sure, Jan"

 

[shotgun09]

Lunch recess. I am off to the grocery store......looking for extra money....

 

[Allabouttrial]

Sky News

Amber Heard payments stopped after lawsuit was filed

Amber Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft is taking ACLU spokesperson Terence Dougherty through the timings of Heard's payments.

As of December 2018, the actress was actually ahead of schedule if she had been donating $350,000 a year over 10 years, as previously discussed, the court is told.

Since Johnny Depp filed the lawsuit against her, the payments have stopped, Ms Bredehoft puts it to Mr Dougherty - seemingly suggesting that Heard has been hit financially by the legal dispute.

He confirms that payments stopped after this time.

We hear that Heard is still an ambassador for the ACLU.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Sky News

Amber Heard payments stopped after lawsuit was filed

Amber Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft is taking ACLU spokesperson Terence Dougherty through the timings of Heard's payments.

As of December 2018, the actress was actually ahead of schedule if she had been donating $350,000 a year over 10 years, as previously discussed, the court is told.

Since Johnny Depp filed the lawsuit against her, the payments have stopped, Ms Bredehoft puts it to Mr Dougherty - seemingly suggesting that Heard has been hit financially by the legal dispute.

He confirms that payments stopped after this time.

We hear that Heard is still an ambassador for the ACLU.

As far as her continuing to be an ambassador for the ACLU, she is still shown on the homepage of the organization.

 

[squareandrabbet]

I don’t think there is anything that Heard’s team can do with this witness to rehabilitate was information he has already given to Depp’s team…so going grocery shopping now. TIA for the updates while I’m gone.

He’s a good witness.

he could clearly give a rat’s pattootie for any particular individual celebrity the ACLU wraps up; and as a lawyer, he’s not afraid to speculate because he knows what speculation is damning in court and what type isn’t (I’m not saying all the other witnesses on prosecution side were coached; I am saying that someone clearly told them, ‘if you don’t know, don’t guess or surmise; say ‘I don’t know’.)

these people really are curious in their thought processes.

I guess nonprofit employees don’t know or care enough about celebrities to know in the first place, that Amber has done nothing noteworthy enough for someone to expect the world will care about an editorial on her DV, unless it connects to the first and only one of the two rich and powerful mates she’s ever been connected with; but it’s almost like the ACLU has never been called into court to defend themselves. I know they start enough lawsuits as plaintiffs.