Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[Ostroeuropa]

So, this trial is exposing some of the rot in institutions as well. Bonus points, as it were.

https://news.yahoo.com/stanford-law-pro ... 03279.html

This particular law professor at Stanford university has decided to weigh in on the trial - by referring to Camille Vazquez (one of Depp’s attorneys) as a “skirt” - her word not mine - sucking up to male power. She also declared that female lawyers are the worst, and says women know being a woman undermines their status as a lawyer, and sucking up to male power is how they try to prove they’re a “real lawyer”.

But she’s just a professor right? Professors can have opinions. Sure! But she’s not just a professor. From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Dauber

She is an activist against campus sexual assault. In 2011, she became co-chair of Stanford's Board on Judicial Affairs. Dauber's committee worked with the provost's office in its years-long revision of the rules. The new process included lowering the burden of proof to a “preponderance of evidence” and providing for an investigator who reported back to a trained five-person panel. The accuser and accused never had to be in the room together.[3]

This person - who doesn’t think women are real lawyers, refers to female lawyers as skirts, and indicates women who defend accused men - as part of their job mind you - should not and in doing so are sucking up to male power, is setting rules under which students will be judged.

Over 15000 students enrolled per year

Such sexism should not be part of our educational system, and even more so, we shouldn’t let such blatant sexists set the rules under which such things are judged.

https://i.redd.it/m57pp4x233591.png

The lack of institutionalized backlash says everything you need to know.

(For those who CBA, quotes from the professor not related to the trial;)

"Happy international mens day to all the misogynists who convinced women there should be a day dedicated to rapists and wife beaters.".

"It's almost as if men are rapists waiting for the chance to do it with impunity such as war"

"Is the answer stop selling tickets to men?"

"Random and irrelevant white men, only one name matters. Hillary Clinton."

"Oh she's 'nice' says the shitty worthless white man".

And so on. Said publicly on Twitter. We need an institutional purge.

[Thermodolia]

So, this trial is exposing some of the rot in institutions as well. Bonus points, as it were.

https://news.yahoo.com/stanford-law-pro ... 03279.html

This particular law professor at Stanford university has decided to weigh in on the trial - by referring to Camille Vazquez (one of Depp’s attorneys) as a “skirt” - her word not mine - sucking up to male power. She also declared that female lawyers are the worst, and says women know being a woman undermines their status as a lawyer, and sucking up to male power is how they try to prove they’re a “real lawyer”.

But she’s just a professor right? Professors can have opinions. Sure! But she’s not just a professor. From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Dauber



This person - who doesn’t think women are real lawyers, refers to female lawyers as skirts, and indicates women who defend accused men - as part of their job mind you - should not and in doing so are sucking up to male power, is setting rules under which students will be judged.

Over 15000 students enrolled per year

Such sexism should not be part of our educational system, and even more so, we shouldn’t let such blatant sexists set the rules under which such things are judged.

https://i.redd.it/m57pp4x233591.png

The lack of institutionalized backlash says everything you need to know.

(For those who CBA, quotes from the professor not related to the trial;)

"Happy international mens day to all the misogynists who convinced women there should be a day dedicated to rapists and wife beaters.".

"It's almost as if men are rapists waiting for the chance to do it with impunity such as war"

"Is the answer stop selling tickets to men?"

"Random and irrelevant white men, only one name matters. Hillary Clinton."

"Oh she's 'nice' says the shitty worthless white man".

And so on. Said publicly on Twitter. We need an institutional purge.

Well she’s evil

[Stellar Colonies]

So, this trial is exposing some of the rot in institutions as well. Bonus points, as it were.

https://news.yahoo.com/stanford-law-pro ... 03279.html

This particular law professor at Stanford university has decided to weigh in on the trial - by referring to Camille Vazquez (one of Depp’s attorneys) as a “skirt” - her word not mine - sucking up to male power. She also declared that female lawyers are the worst, and says women know being a woman undermines their status as a lawyer, and sucking up to male power is how they try to prove they’re a “real lawyer”.

But she’s just a professor right? Professors can have opinions. Sure! But she’s not just a professor. From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Dauber



This person - who doesn’t think women are real lawyers, refers to female lawyers as skirts, and indicates women who defend accused men - as part of their job mind you - should not and in doing so are sucking up to male power, is setting rules under which students will be judged.

Over 15000 students enrolled per year

Such sexism should not be part of our educational system, and even more so, we shouldn’t let such blatant sexists set the rules under which such things are judged.

https://i.redd.it/m57pp4x233591.png

The lack of institutionalized backlash says everything you need to know.

(For those who CBA, quotes from the professor not related to the trial;)

"Happy international mens day to all the misogynists who convinced women there should be a day dedicated to rapists and wife beaters.".

"It's almost as if men are rapists waiting for the chance to do it with impunity such as war"

"Is the answer stop selling tickets to men?"

"Random and irrelevant white men, only one name matters. Hillary Clinton."

"Oh she's 'nice' says the shitty worthless white man".

And so on. Said publicly on Twitter. We need an institutional purge.

It's both interesting and disturbing how jaded I've gotten regarding this specific type of bigotry.

Edit: Ah, she's using the term "pick me girl". From what I've seen, that's often used by women as an insult against one another and more or less an equivalent to the word "simp", also hurled by men at each other.

Always find it interesting to try and pick out these kinds of parallels.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

Men and women both need to seriously cut out the gender tribalism. It's getting old in a hurry.

[Infected Mushroom]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... nfair.html

Glad to see Iron Man’s on the right side of this one.

[Page]

"Random and irrelevant white men, only one name matters. Hillary Clinton."

Jeez, that's cringe. Like even if one were to hypothetically accept that all men are soulless, rapacious beasts and only women were real people, it would be no less cringe - that's how cringe it is.

I pledge to slap the person who said this. Will they ever be slapped? Nope, but I pledged it which is as good as doing it.

[The Alma Mater]

So, another odd thing. Heard’s attorney has asserted Heard doesn’t have the money to pay the judgement, and that they intend to appeal.

Slight problem with that - to appeal a civil case in Virginia the appellant must put up a surety bond sufficient to satisfy the judgement of the court (with some exceptions).

Can Depp waive that requirement? Or appeal himself?

Would be a nice powermove.

[Ethel mermania]

So, another odd thing. Heard’s attorney has asserted Heard doesn’t have the money to pay the judgement, and that they intend to appeal.

Slight problem with that - to appeal a civil case in Virginia the appellant must put up a surety bond sufficient to satisfy the judgement of the court (with some exceptions).

Can Depp waive that requirement? Or appeal himself?

Would be a nice powermove.

He would be crazy to waive it without her dropping any potential appeal.

In his shoes, I would make her pay his costs + 1 dollars. In return for her waiving her right to appeal.

[The Alma Mater]

Can Depp waive that requirement? Or appeal himself?

Would be a nice powermove.

He would be crazy to waive it without her dropping any potential appeal.

Why? He could market it as "never fear truth". And if Heard loses the appeal as well perhaps even the mainstream news outlets will stop adoring her.

[The Two Jerseys]

He would be crazy to waive it without her dropping any potential appeal.

Why? He could market it as "never fear truth". And if Heard loses the appeal as well perhaps even the mainstream news outlets will stop adoring her.

Because he already won, there's no reason to risk the appeals court overturning it.

[The Alma Mater]

Why? He could market it as "never fear truth". And if Heard loses the appeal as well perhaps even the mainstream news outlets will stop adoring her.

Because he already won, there's no reason to risk the appeals court overturning it.

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

[Infected Mushroom]

Because he already won, there's no reason to risk the appeals court overturning it.

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

It wouldn't be wise. Shouldn't tempt fate; you should take the win when you have it.

[Shofercia]

He would be crazy to waive it without her dropping any potential appeal.

Why? He could market it as "never fear truth". And if Heard loses the appeal as well perhaps even the mainstream news outlets will stop adoring her.

Nah, they won't. Once the mainstream press decided that something was the truth, they'll stick to their guns for years, facts be damned.

[Ethel mermania]

Because he already won, there's no reason to risk the appeals court overturning it.

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

"If he wins it" you never give someone the opportunity to fuck you in the ass a second time. Even if he wins he has to pay for his attorneys for the appeal, appellate attorneys are even more expensive than regular trial lawyers. it also gives her an opportunity to smear him a second time. His best outcome is she shuts up and he can go on with his life

Besides he can just say keep talking pay up. While he won't get everything she has, he can force her into a bankruptcy and get a decent portion of her assets.

[Gravlen]

So, another odd thing. Heard’s attorney has asserted Heard doesn’t have the money to pay the judgement, and that they intend to appeal.

Slight problem with that - to appeal a civil case in Virginia the appellant must put up a surety bond sufficient to satisfy the judgement of the court (with some exceptions).

Can Depp waive that requirement? Or appeal himself?

Would be a nice powermove.

Depp can appeal himself, but the appeal should be a narrow one. There would be no reason for him to request a completely new trial, just try to have the bit where he was (wrongfully) found to be liable overturned.

[The Lone Alliance]

Because he already won, there's no reason to risk the appeals court overturning it.

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

If you need anymore proof that the world would be better off if we took the vast majority of the third estate and stranded them on a deserted island it's stuff like this case.

[The Two Jerseys]

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

"If he wins it" you never give someone the opportunity to fuck you in the ass a second time. Even if he wins he has to pay for his attorneys for the appeal, appellate attorneys are even more expensive than regular trial lawyers. it also gives her an opportunity to smear him a second time. His best outcome is she shuts up and he can go on with his life

Besides he can just say keep talking pay up. While he won't get everything she has, he can force her into a bankruptcy and get a decent portion of her assets.

All Johnny has to do is give her a "shut up or pay up" ultimatum, he's holding all the cards here.

[The Alma Mater]

Half-won. Mainstream media is still inviting Heard to give interviews where she can continue to defame him - and quite a few are still showing support for her and feeding the narrative that her loss is a blow to victims of domestic violence. At the same time she whines she cannot pay the 8 million, that the trial was unfair, the jury influenced, evidence witheld etc.

Him making it possible to actually have the appeal would serve to make her whining less believable. True, it could indeed blow up in his face if he loses - but if he facilitates her appeal and then continues to win it will make it very hard for the media to still paint her as the victim.

"If he wins it" you never give someone the opportunity to fuck you in the ass a second time. Even if he wins he has to pay for his attorneys for the appeal, appellate attorneys are even more expensive than regular trial lawyers. it also gives her an opportunity to smear him a second time. His best outcome is she shuts up and he can go on with his life

Besides he can just say keep talking pay up. While he won't get everything she has, he can force her into a bankruptcy and get a decent portion of her assets.

Is this not exactly what Amber Heard wants? People believing that Depp winning the case was a fluke that would not be upheld in an appeal; an appeal which she "as a poor woman on the edge of bankruptcy and a kid to feed" cannot afford, "oh woe, there is no justice for women who go up against rich and powerful men" ?

You are feeding HER narrative now...

Why? He could market it as "never fear truth". And if Heard loses the appeal as well perhaps even the mainstream news outlets will stop adoring her.

Nah, they won't. Once the mainstream press decided that something was the truth, they'll stick to their guns for years, facts be damned.

Sadly probably true

[Infected Mushroom]

Juror speaks out, confirming that they saw through Heard’s acting.

The man, who has remained anonymous, told ABC News: "A majority of the jury felt she was more the aggressor... A lot of Amber's story didn't add up.

"The crying, the facial expressions she had, the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable.

"She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later, she would turn ice cold. Some of us used the expression ‘crocodile tears.'"

When it came to Depp's time on the stand, the juror said he had a much more "stable" emotional state.

He added: "A lot of the jury felt what he was saying at the end of the day was more believable. He seemed a little more real in terms of how he was responding to questions."

[Ethel mermania]

Juror speaks out, confirming that they saw through Heard’s acting.

The man, who has remained anonymous, told ABC News: "A majority of the jury felt she was more the aggressor... A lot of Amber's story didn't add up.

"The crying, the facial expressions she had, the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable.

"She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later, she would turn ice cold. Some of us used the expression ‘crocodile tears.'"

When it came to Depp's time on the stand, the juror said he had a much more "stable" emotional state.

He added: "A lot of the jury felt what he was saying at the end of the day was more believable. He seemed a little more real in terms of how he was responding to questions."

I was going to post this. The jury didn't believe her and thought her emotions were acting.

[Katganistan]

And she is still at it. In the interview on the today show she insists she lost because she is not a perfect victim -- when in the court she got angry and snapped that she is not, and has never claimed to be, a victim.

[Shofercia]

Juror speaks out, confirming that they saw through Heard’s acting.

The man, who has remained anonymous, told ABC News: "A majority of the jury felt she was more the aggressor... A lot of Amber's story didn't add up.

"The crying, the facial expressions she had, the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable.

"She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later, she would turn ice cold. Some of us used the expression ‘crocodile tears.'"

When it came to Depp's time on the stand, the juror said he had a much more "stable" emotional state.

He added: "A lot of the jury felt what he was saying at the end of the day was more believable. He seemed a little more real in terms of how he was responding to questions."

Great find IM! I love this part: the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable

Pro-tip: don't engage the jurors in a staring contest at your very own trial

There was a time that I thought she was smart, but she's not, she's just downright malevolent. Poor Johnny.

[Esternial]

And she is still at it. In the interview on the today show she insists she lost because she is not a perfect victim -- when in the court she got angry and snapped that she is not, and has never claimed to be, a victim.

She's not wrong. An offender rarely makes for the perfect victim.

[Katganistan]

And she is still at it. In the interview on the today show she insists she lost because she is not a perfect victim -- when in the court she got angry and snapped that she is not, and has never claimed to be, a victim.

She's not wrong. An offender rarely makes for the perfect victim.

Well, yes. Just pointing out that she basically makes up answers for whatever audience she has.

"I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER CALLED MYSELF A VICTIM!"

"I lost because I'm not the perfect victim, and he had all these people paid to testify including randos.... and his legal team was better at distracting from the issue..." (In contrast, he had many longtime friends as well as experts; she had only paid experts and her sister on the stand, and her legal team came off looking like they came out of a clown car.)

[Galloism]

Newsweek: "Therapist notes" and Amber Heard's handwriting look very similar.