Why didn't you witness no way real, show me for pirate six, specifically, you assume that he would poison 22 and a half million dollars on pirate six right. Oh, i see hell up correct and you took jack wiggum's word for it in making that assumption correct. I based it on his testimony. Yes now you never saw a contract that mr depp had for pirate six correct correct.

Oh, what is it actually guys so far as i know, guys, uh, you didn't take into consideration jack wiggum's testimony that disney was non-committal. Economic damages examiner even before the op-ed correct, correct, and you didn't take into consideration the press articles that came out prior to the op-ed suggested. He had made a decision, so he's he's going to figure out if they lost a lot of money and whatnot correct and how and how much right, and you have no idea whether pirate six will ever be made i'll watch your friends a little bit. I wouldn't know that, and you have no idea if disney has decided one way or the other, whether mr depp would be in it or whether they'd offer him a role in it.

If it is ever made correct well, my understanding is that they made a public statement that he would not okay and you have um if disney decided that he wouldn't be in it. You have no idea when they decided that correct. I know that there was a public announcement subsequent to the publication of the office. What what public health are you talking about? Uh there was an interview of mr bailey um that was published uh several days after uh, okay.

Well, that interview with mr didn't didn't say that he wasn't gon na be, in fact, if you looked at the the article that the jury saw had one for yesterday dated november 5th 2020 about mr potentially not being in pirates, if you look at that article, i Assume not no okay, um, and you didn't take into account mr dev statement that he wouldn't do higher stakes or three million dollars in a million pounds, correct uh. That sounds like i didn't take that very seriously: okay, like somebody who was a bit hurt or in pain, so as a result of the loss of the role, so with mr deputy, you because of the op-ed, but he lost it for other reasons, then your damage's Opinion relating to pirate six would drop to zero dollars correct, i believe, that's correct if it's not lost for that reason, if it's lost for some other independent reason guys considered. Okay. Thank you.

Now, let's shift gears and talk about the non-franchise earnings for a moment um you claim this number is about 21 million dollars right roughly 20.. We can we'll we'll pull it up. Um well, actually, we'll look at the chart here: 20. 20 million dollars about 20 million dollars after agent fees, correct, okay, um, and to reach that number you looked at what his historical earnings records showed right, correct, yeah! This was pretty good, so i mean watch out and you got that information from ed white's office.

Yes - and you assume that the information you got from ed white's office was accurate right, i did yes. Can you please pull up um the chart? That's in his expert report uh your honor. This is um or mr spindler i'd like you to take a look at this and confirm for the court that this is the chart. That's in your expert chat.

Can we get the other guys? Can we get the other one? It appears to be yes, you're, the broadcaster permission to publish this just as a demonstration, the published evidence all right, everybody have it. Okay hold up, please michelle, pull that up. Michelle and jack blew that up there. It is sorry i got it.

Thank you michelle. So mr spindler um, this chart shows mr depp's earnings by year. Oh wow, based on the information that you received from ed white, correct, correct from 2009 to 2020. Yes - and it shows that from about 2009 to 2019 - and i i i didn't add these up visually - but from your report you say that mr debt made about 459 million dollars correct correct now.

The two highest earning years in this time period were 2010 and 2011 right. Yes, you see that you made about 70 million dollars in 2010.. I do yeah and then the third highest year was 2014 right. Yeah, 860 million no and you'd agree that, from the period of 2010 to 2020, his annual income on average was decreasing.

Yes, but you have to take a look at the components of this right and in 2000 that i was just just wanted to get your your agreement that from 2010 to 2020, his annual income was decreasing now in 2020 he earned anything more than he did in 2016., all right on an overall basis, yes, and in 2020 he earned more than he did in 2018. Correct. Yes, just based on earnings and in 2018 and 2019 he earned an almost identical amount. Correct, yes, we're both after the publication date of the op-ed correct.

Yes, okay. Now i want to talk about some of these non-franchise earnings, because when i looked at your chart that was displayed to the jury, i didn't see anything specific listed. So, can you just confirm for me that you can't name a single lost business opportunity other than pirate six, that mr death lost as a result of the op-ed? That's correct! That's not the nature of this calculation single television, just if you could just do pretty good as best you can please. You can't identify a single television project that mr depp allegedly lost out on as a result of the op-ed correct, correct.

That's not the name can't identify a single advertisement, even if it's just or marketing opportunity, pirate six step lost with all with all the licensing and the all the deals, the merchandise and the royalties. It's a lot of money that you can't name you're, assuming doesn't matter. Pirate six that those opportunities were lost because of the op-ed correct, correct. Now you you mentioned something interesting um in your direct and in your report.

Use 2017 as the base year to calculate what you claim. Mr depps should have earned in 2019 and 20 correct correct and let's take a look at this because 2017 he made that much correct about 45 million or so yes, but in 2016 he made just a shade over 20 correct, correct 2018. He made a shade under 20. right he's, drawing a dick about sure, yes same with 2019 right, correct and then 2020.

He actually made more than he had in the prior two years or in 2016 and made about what 22 23 million or so is that right. Right, but as i indicated, this is just basically mike come on man right, so you said there are a couple interesting, just dude, please most recent that 2017 um. I want to explore why you relied on that. First of all, you you, you said that you relied on jack wiggum's testimony that 2017 was a reasonable year to use correct correct, despite the fact that 2017, he made more than twice as much as he's made in any year over the last five years.

Correct yes, but when you take a look at well, i wan na i wan na get to your thoughts, because you said that one of the reasons you used 2017 was because it was you. You said i wrote down the most recent clean year, right, correct and and and and then i think you explain - you said because the op-ed was was written in 2018 right correct, but the op-ed wasn't written until december 18. 2018, correct, yes, so the first, if 2017 was clean, then the first 352 days of 2018 were also clean, weren't. They, sir, if i may explain.

Mr wiggum testified that for the first half of 2018 um mr depp chose to take some vacation time. Uh also, he chose to go touring in the summer with his band, and then he did a film towards the end of 2018., with the publication of the op-ed in december of 2018. That would have impacted the prospects for that film. That was done in 2018., so he chose to do just the one film in 2018 and then the impact of the op-ed on that film would have meant that it was not a clean period.

You could not have looked at it, he didn't have the chance to earn box office bonuses or private participation. Well, let's go that makes sense better year to use than 2018.. Well, let's break that up. Let's break that, let's break that down a little bit.

You said that the 2017 was a much cleaner year, but isn't it also true that there were other reasons why 2018 wasn't clean? For example, the june or the april 2018 article by dan wooten, calling mr devil wife, peter correct that did occur that year? Yes, the june 2018 lawsuit that mr depp filed in the uk against the sun yeah. The idea is that he's going with, i think, he's pretty smart, yes, and how about the the october articles reporting that disney had decided to move on from mr death and not cast him in pirate six correct, i'm sorry what effect would that have happened? Well, it came before the op-ed, so it's think about it. Why 2018 isn't a clean year in your mind correct an article? No, those aren't the words other articles that he could have sued them for other people wrote pieces that were as damaging also keep 2018 from being what you would call a clean year correct. I guess right.

I've described the reasons why i believe 2018 was not a clean year. Okay, now you're aware, as we talked about that amber's op-ed wasn't published till december 18, 2018 correct correct, so mr depp could not have lost out on any opportunities as a result of the op-ed prior to december 18, 2018, correct, correct and he couldn't have lost out On any opportunities uh in 2017 as a result of the op-ed fair and he couldn't have lost out on any opportunity, he's going to project the 16-16 as a result of the op-ed, correct, correct and so in in calculating your damages, you didn't you didn't use 2016. You didn't use 2018, but you chose to use 2017 correct, yes, still made more in 2020 than he did in both 28 16 and 2018 before the op-ed was published, correct, correct and that's just based on earnings all right. Redirect yeah thanks brother um, you explained 2018.

Why didn't she use 2016? Well, first of all, 2017 was a more recent year. 2017 was a year in which mr wiggum indicated that that was a typical year. For mr depp. He had a studio film.

He had a independent film. He had an endorsement deal. 2016. Is further back in time, as i understand it, his earnings capacity for that year would have been just about the same or even higher than 2017, because there was an endorsement deal that mr deb passed on.

That would have been worth a lot of money. According to ms jacobs, so uh 2017 made the most sense. Why did you ultimately use the method that you uh did to determine the lost earnings? What because it just makes sense, it's um the correct approach to take you're, taking a look at what mr depp would have been expected to earn in a typical year and then you're, comparing that to the period of time where you're analyzing, following the op-ed from december Of 2018 through october 2020., so you're taking a look at what you would have expected him to earn it's very simple compared to what he actually did earn. No further questions all right.

Thank you. Is this witness subject to recall all right, sir, since you're subject to recall, do not discuss your testimony with anybody, but since you are giving expert testimony you're free to stay into the courtroom? Okay, sir. Thank you have a good day. Thank you very much.

All right! Happy birthday watch your step there all right. Oh thanks, jonah, uh nah. He can. I went hard all right plenty of rest all right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go ahead and take our morning recess.

It may be a little longer because i have a few uh issues to take up with the attorneys, but then uh we'll proceed after that. Okay, so please do not talk about the case and you're not doing the outside research. Okay, thank you, recession, guys what happens after another witness yeah i mean: what can you do when you get an expert in it? You're gon na you're gon na you're gon na go against the the methodology. Well, we go ahead and take our research.

Oh my god. I can entertain the emotions at the time - okay, all right. Ah now, i'm sitting down dumb judge's, not gon na scold me man she's, not even looking man she's guy she's, like a normandy, because how long is the resist for guys? What is that man? And you don't remember seeing anything right, but do you remember if she's 45? I am 45. how's.

It say that i remember okay, i'm i'm really sorry, but i remember i got ta tell the whole story how they got there before the guy. They went and get the keys, they come down and say somebody tried to get into my unit. There's scratches on my door say: hey like oh um, i'm really sorry, but who will think it's gon na get into the unit, because it saw some scratches on the door like what four inches above the door, because the dog was scratching. The door was trying to get in and they thought about someone's trying to break into the the unit.

I said on my head, i would say: you're, really, you think someone's trying to get into your numbers. There's scratches like four inches above your the floor on your door, that was the dog trying to get into the unit, and i actually when they asked me to go inside the unit just to check room by room to make sure that no one was there. So i did that. That's correct that we don't have cameras on the videos.

Um. Sorry, we don't have cameras, not the hallways. We don't have cameras on the hallway. I'm gon na show you uh what has been marked as romero exhibit number one.

It's a deposition that you was taking of you on july back at that time, two months after the incident. Yes, i don't. I remember because, like i say, hours blowing the breathalyzer to start the car, but i'm not looking to find something like like. Oh, your makeup is wrong.

Uh, you, you haven't, uh, have changed your eyebrows or your eyelashes are not even or i'm not looking for anything they're just looking at their eyes, and i look i'm not looking for anything else. But if i see something i will probably remember make sure yes yep not today, but in fact you don't recall, seeing amber most reputable amber heard. Witness i don't remember. I don't even remember what i got for breakfast: okay.

Well, let's pull up exhibit number one. Let's stay on page 17., that's a good place and who's that jesus dude best defense, witness we saw the vape one earlier, that's actually funny holy dude, that's actually funny. Okay, that was funny. I enjoyed that okay who's gon na send it go put the thing back.

One of the first two at this point, and because it seems like plaintiff, is proceeding under a theory of defamation under the pendleton case, 290 virginia 162 plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the statements at issue were designed and intended by ms heard, to imply a Defamatory meaning designed and intended to imply defamatory meaning so and to satisfy those first, two elements: publication and falsity and defamation or defamatory nature of the statements. Mr depp bears the burden of proving that by a preponderance of the evidence and to satisfy the right and show that miss hurd acted with actual malice. He has a heightened standard of proof that he must prove uh by clear and convincing evidence that misheard actually wait. Wait so just want to talk about the two: how do you prove males intense beyond the reality of a doubt, how how the you do that? Is it possible ample virginia case loss talking about how you have to view the op-ed as a whole? You have to view words in context, so these are the the statements that that read.

Then two years ago i became a public figure representing domestic abuse and then the other one says i had the rare vantage point of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of 5050. Sorry now those statements are entirely opinion, except for, according to mr depp, the discussion of domestic abuse. So the statement i became a public figure representing domestic abuse and the statement in the second sentence that mr depp was a man accused of abuse. The rest of those are inactionable opinion statements.

Now the evidence adduced thus far. Your honor shows that mr depp can't sustain a claim on these for two reasons. First of all, the statements are true on their face. I don't think that there's any dispute about that and that's been the subject of of some testimony in this case uh two years before she wrote the op-ed miss her did in fact become a public figure representing domestic abuse when she obtained a domestic violence restraining order Against mr depp and mr depp was indeed accused of abuse.

Those are facts that are true now, to the extent that mr def will argue that he's proceeding on a defamation by implication claim again, the court should grant the motion to strike, because the undisputed evidence is that he did in fact abuse amber. Now there is there's a dispute in this case, there's ample evidence that he physically abused amber, but we acknowledge that there's a dispute in this case on that. But what there isn't a dispute in this case is non-physical abuse, both mr death and his experts. Hurry have testified that abuse may come in many forms.

It may be physical, certainly, but it may also be verbal, maybe emotional, maybe psychological, you'll recall mr depp um wow. That's even kind of setting the baseline for what abuse was when he talked about the non-physical abuse that he allegedly suffered at the hands of his mother. He said it was worse than the beatings and the example he gave was that his mom used to uh used to call him one eye as an example um, because he had a lazy eye, i guess as a child. That was something that mr depp himself said was abuse his mom calling him one eye.

So we setting aside the evidence of physical abuse in this case, which is already overwhelming. These two statements should be stricken because of the ample and that's a child record of non-physical abuse by mr depp toward misheard. There's evidence in the record of recordings messages, including messages written in blood for with his finger blood and pain, vile names, shouting menacing and threatening statements, um, there's the video, the kitchen, video and sweet sir there's the audio of him, calling miss heard after having his finger Cut off numerous style names, there's the audio of him asking to her to cut him um and whether she wanted to be cut. So there's there's there's plenty of evidence out of the words or out of the mouth of the plaintiff in this case that constitutes non-physical abuse of misheard again under the standard set forth by his expert and the plaintiff himself.

Those are far worse than his mother calling him one eye when he was a child. In addition to that, your honor there's travis mcgivern's, testimony from yesterday, in which he testified that at a minimum on the night of march 23 2015, both parties were being verbally abusive to each other. Mr mcgivern also testified about mr depp quote rearranging her closet, throwing racks of clothing down onto the floor and throwing at least one rack down the stairs now in california, property damage alone can be a basis for getting a temporary restraining order under california law. So further evidence of non-physical abuse or non-physical toward misheard.

You saw the cupboards in the sweets or kitchen video and then dr laura anderson. Your honor testified that she believed that the parties engaged in mutual abuse and that that could be some of the time that that was initiated by mr death. This is all evidence we haven't gotten to see on the bed to the extent this case proceeds and that will start now. But this is all evidence that has come in while plaintiff controls the playing field of what evidence has come in, and he can't overcome that.

In this case, your honor, if mr depp abused miss, heard physically verbally, emotionally or psychologically even one time, then she wins on those claims. Then she wins, emotions it's that simple and the evidence is overwhelming and undisputed in the ways that i've just described, that that is not how that works. For that reason, your honor, those claims should be stricken and i'll just cite the union of needle trades versus jones case. This is 268 virginia 5.

12. That states, if the plan is shining in reminders of the statement by a preponderance of the evidence in chief, he has not met she's, not even listening anymore, and the trial court should strike the evidence and grant summary judgment to the defendant. That's exactly what should happen here now move on to the second issue, which is the headline containing the phrase: sexual violence that should be stricken for a couple reasons. First, your honor.

The evidence is established that miss heard didn't write the headline uh, mr dougherty, from the aclu - that that's the only evidence that's come in in this case, though, does he get strike then plaintiffs control? The up? Well, i understand, but there's also a stipulation that miss hurt. Would not be called in the plaintiff's case because they would then use her testimony for part of their case. In your case right, i'm not, and that's that's, correct your honor yeah. I agree and that's just a difference.

I'm not arguing i'm not arguing that the court should strike, because they haven't put misheard on to say to testify about the headline, but i assume part of that would be that they would what they i hope they i guess they intend to get from miss herd. Is that she she either wrote it or republished it yeah? What happened? The next day is miss heard posted it on her instagram account and said. Look what i published yesterday in the washington post, so she adopted the title and - and her name was on the article which contained the title and mr ronborn. The only reason i'm sorry to direct you only because i know that was a stipulation.

So it's hard for me to say that that's all the evidence for motion to strike if there's a stipulation that they're still going to get more evidence in on that particular issue. I think, and i'm happy that to hand the cord the transcript of the the april 8 hearing, because one of the things that we're not arguing today is that, because they haven't put in evidence of the, i think it was a tweet. But mr chu says it was instagram. I don't know whatever it was that, because there was a tweet adopting the op-ed, she published, okay before the washington post, okay, all right.

So what i'm not arguing today is that, because they haven't gotten that tweet into evidence or had ms heard say that she tweeted that that we're entitled to to summary judgment at this point. I'm not arguing that. But that's all that we discuss on april 8th and i'm happy to hand the transcript up here and we actually never it wasn't the stipulation it was simply an agreement that they didn't need to call her in there does that matter. You'd have to agree on the language of any stipulation.

They haven't proposed anything to us and haven't gotten back to us. So i think that that's generally erased basing our request for for for motion strike here on misheard, not having testified to sending that tweet. But you're saying for the motion to strike the only evidence before the court is that the washington post wrote that title correct and that's a that's, that's very different from what happened the next day. There's the stipulation didn't go toward who wrote the title.

It was amazing and it's undisputed and misheard will testify that she didn't write the title. Well, i understand that, but i think take a seat, but i i think the issue is that whether it was republication well, i know so that i'll get to that next, i know, but to see the problem is, how do i do a motion strike when that Evidence isn't before me yet well, the republication isn't so so the evidence that's before you is that the washington post wrote the headline or that miss heard didn't and that's the only evidence and that's not going to change the republi. The tweet, which was the only subject of the the discussion, the pre-trial conference, where there was no stipulation it, was just an agreement that we're not going to base a motion to strike on them, not introducing evidence of the tweet that that was what it was. I'm happy to hand the transcript up if your honor would like to see that, but that isn't actionable because under the lakova versus helper case 995 f-3134 retweeting a link doesn't constitute republication.

Now that case, doesn't it does, if you add something to it, but i just don't know the evidence. You honor very quickly. It's a judicial admission. They admitted in ms hurt's answer.

She admitted to the tweet so that establishes that she adopted the op-ed in its entirety and it was discussed. We talked about these last technicians. One was the op-ed itself, the second, and this is reflected in your honor. If i could finish my argument, i would appreciate that i can't wait to oppose this.

She agrees with them so and again we can we we can look at the transition. You understand my concern, i do understand your concern and i guess what i'm saying is that there's there's two levels: one is there's no dispute and there's not going to be a dispute that she did not write the headline. So then you look at does. Is the tweet actionable and - and the argument here is that as a matter of law, retweeting something isn't actionable, and so.

Okay, as under the lakova case, 995 f3134 in that case, dealt with hyperlinks and how those aren't actionable um, but to be very clear, nothing that was discussed on april 8th, nothing that was discussed at that pre-trial conference was in any way relating to any stipulation about Who wrote the headline? It was simply that they need not call miss heard in their case in chief, to get her to say that she sent a certain tweet and that tweet's not in evidence yet. But i assume that they'll try to put it in evidence at some point, but that's you. The tweet doesn't need to be an evidence for you to strike this. This claim on that basis, so um, even assuming um, even assuming that the headline implied certain contracts.

Mr depp can't meet his burden of proof on this. Third, your honor. He can't prove that miss hurd, acted with actual malice. Mr depp hasn't introduced evidence sufficient to permit him to meet this now again.

This is a heightened burden of proof. He has to show actual malice by clearing convincing evidence and as the bo you clicked, the mic, bro bro, she muted him or he muted himself. What a japanese you you, hello, ki estan! This hurts intent on april 8th, which, of course, we didn't, but the only evidence that has been presented in this case. Your honor by mr dougherty was that the op-ed wasn't miss heard's idea that the aclu asked her to write the op-ed and and indeed that they even wrote.

The first draft. Oh and then that the finished article with her lawyers and with lawyers from the aclu to make sure that it wasn't problematic. That is the only evidence in the record and on that evidence there cannot be a conclusion that misheard acted with the actual malice, that's necessary, particularly when you consider the heightened burden of proof um so reviewing the op-ed as a whole, with the court acting in its Appropriate function as a gatekeeper of the first amendment um, we ask that uh that the court strikes not closing it's emotional, striking award summary judgment to miss her, either in whole or in part. Thank you all right.

Thank you. Yes, sir moses strikes, please, of course thank you for playing if johnny depp it's just still morning, um your honor. If i may approach all right. Thank you.

Thank you is that what we said - nine months uh mr rottenborn, in your honor in opposition that we prepared before we had the benefit of seeing miss herd's uh affirmative motion to strike that i think we've anticipated the arguments made, such as they are. The court should deny defendant amber heard's motion to strike because mr depp has come forward in his case in chief with multiple credible witnesses, documents and authentic tape. Recordings of ms heard herself not only satisfying all of the requisite elements of his claim for defamation, including actual malice, but also going the extra mile of showing that miss hearn physically abused him she's. The abuser in this courtroom uh your honor, going back to the standard, as your honor is well aware, and considering a motion to strike the trial court must view the evidence in all reasonable, goodness is drawn from the evidence in light of the most.

In the light. Most favorable to the plaintiff any reasonable doubt as to whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of the wrong alleged must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor and the motion to strike denied unquote and that's the boeing case. I believe mr rottenborn referred to 243 virginia 81 at 81. 1992.

quote the weight and credibility of the testimony of witnesses are solely matters for the jury. The jury may accept that part of the testimony it believes and reject that which it does not. It is also within the exclusive province of the jury to draw any reasonable inferences from the evidence before it, citing rape versus minix 275 virginia 579 at 5.85. In deference and respect to the court's time, mr depp incorporates, by reference the legal analysis set forth in the court's opinion letter dated march 27 2020, overruling ms herds demurra to the three defamatory statements at issue and that letter opinion is attached, as exhibit one to mr Depp's opposition: that's where the court fulfilled its proper gatekeeping role that mr rottenborn referred to as a threshold matter.

The elements of a defamation claim are the following publication of an actionable statement with the requisite intent, citing the shaker versus from fault case 297 81.91 as to damages they are presumed here, because ms heard's false allegations of domestic abuse, sexual assault and rape constitute defamation per Se, citing the tron field case 272 virginia 709, a 713-2000 case, as the court noted at page three of this language letter. Typically, an editorial or op-ed column is ordinarily not actionable because it appears in a place devoted to or in a manner usually thought of. As representing personal viewpoints, id, however virginia recognizes that quote, a defamatory charge may be made by inference implication or insinuation, citing the carwel case and a statement expressing a defamatory meaning may not be apparent on its face, citing pendleton, with which the court is quite familiar. 290 virginia at 172..

Accordingly, in order to render words defamatory and actionable, it is not necessary that the defamatory charge be in direct terms but may be made indirectly, and it matters not how artful or disguised the mode modes in which the meaning is concealed. If it is in fact, defamatory carwill 196 virginia at seven, that's good and based on the authority and reasoning set forth in pages four through eight of the opinion letter, the three statements at issue are actionable under a theory of defamation, by implication mr depp established in His case in chief that ms heard in fact made all three of the defamatory statements at issue as the court admitted into evidence, as plaintiffs exhibit one the op-ed misheard published in her own name in the washington post on december 18. 2018. And let's take the three statements and the proof that has been induced statement number one amber heard quote: i spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath that has to change per page six of the opinion letter.

The first statement could reasonably convey the alleged defamatory meaning i.e that mr depp abused ms heard to its readers without extending the words beyond their ordinary and common accep. Acceptation see pendleton 290 virginia at 172, also citing the case resolving every fair inference in mr depp's favor. This statement could reasonably imply that the sexual violence misheard spoke up against, was in fact perpetrated by mr deb, mr depp produced several credible witnesses and documents, proving that ms heard was implying that he committed sexual violence against her. Mr depp himself testified to that, as did his sister christy dembroski mr depp's former agent christian carino testified that, as did his current with uh current agent, jack wiggum, but perhaps most convincing of all and most disgusting of all was the testimony of the aclu's terrence doherty.

A lawyer nonetheless, mr dougherty testified, among other things, uh that when the op-ed the, when they were pitching the op-ed to the washington post, they stated hey michael wondering. If we might interest you in a piece by amber hurd who, as you may recall, was beaten up during her brief marriage to johnny depp on what the incoming congress can do to help protect women in similar situations, uh, mr daugherty also testified that everybody understood as Miss heard in the aclu clearly intended that these this statement and the other two statements referred directly to mr depp quote this is an article that was in usa today and specifically ties amber's statement in her op-ed piece to johnny depp and when jessica white's, who actually Wrote the op-ed that miss heard later adopted. She says quote to mr daugherty so much for not mentioning jd, when the usa today made clear that they, like everybody else who read the op-ed, understood that, as ms heard clearly intended, it referred to mr depp, which makes her instagram post two days before the trial Began that she didn't mention, mr depp, all the more outrageous uh your your honor uh, there is um miss shulman. Also the aclu acknowledged that miss herd's op-ed referred to mr depp uh.

So it's very clear that the aclu and miss heard intended that that was the whole purpose of this, so that they could get interest in this and it would coincide with the premiere of because otherwise no one would have been interested in anything written by ms hurd. Mr daugherty also testified that ms heard only paid 1.3. Actually, she didn't even pay all that out of the 3.5 million dollars that she had pledged to the aclu and then they helped her lie about it. And it's one thing: your honor for her to stiff the aclu, which frankly played a reprehensible role in this case.

It's quite another for her to fail to honor her obligation to the children's hospital of los angeles with sick and dying children. Jesus that she failed to do as well and as your honor has mentioned, the fact that she put her name on that article means that she is responsible for all of those statements uh which she specifically adopted later and i'll go through the other two statements quickly. Your honor well, can we stay on this one. For one moment, though, because do you agree that the only evidence before that we've heard in this trial, as far as the title of the op-ed is that even mr doherty, i believe, testified to it that it was something that washington post wrote well for the for The one he's not our witness, your honor, that's a witness from the aclu understand it's the only evidence i have.

I respect that knowledge. The only real evidence your honor has is plaintiff's exhibit one which is amber heard, putting her name on the entire article, including the title. That is the only evidence before you. The aclu was a co-conspirator with ms heard and whether they say oh, maybe the washington post wrote it sure.

That's not the end of the story. All she has done is create an issue of an issue of fact as to whether she wrote the title or not so you're you're, saying just having that exhibit in evidence is enough. Absolutely your honor! Her name is on the article. What what does an average reader expect so that alone is sufficient to beat emotion to strike if they want to come back later and say gee, she didn't write the title as if that were a defense.

I i hope they make that argument. I hope they make that argument to the jury, because it's about as credible as her as her argument that, oh, i wasn't referring to to johnny depp she didn't have to and the testimony of parents doherty was very clear that when they took out the references to Johnny depp, no one was interested in this article, so she said put it back in put it back in make it more holy spicy, so people would read otherwise she couldn't get it in the washington post. It would be back in teenage vote, which is the other publication that was considering publishing it, because no one was interested in what she had to say and wish unless she was defaming mr deb. But if i could go to the second statement, i'll try to be quicker on it.

Two years ago i became a public figure representing domestic abuse and i felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out. As for the second statement, defendant called herself a public figure representing domestic abuse, which can be read to imply that she became a representative of domestic abuse because she was abused by mr deb, not because not just because she spoke out against alleged abuse. This inference can be drawn without extending the language beyond its ordinary common acceptation, citing carlisle 196 virginia at 8.. Your honor quote to constitute a publication.

It is not necessary that the contents of the writing should be made made known to the public generally. It is enough. It is said if they are made known to a single person, unquote citing schneider versus fatherly 158 virginia 330, which relates everybody, and his grandmother testified. That ms heard was referring to her bogus ex party tro.

He said what he obtained on may 27 2016, and it was interesting that mr depp's own lawyer said that she wasn't even provided notice. So miss heard made very sure that mr depp wouldn't have notice of the ex-party tro, and this heard herself the evidence shows knew that mr depp, having just suffered the loss of his mother, was already on. The other side of the country was already in new york. At the time of this tiara and was heading to europe for several weeks, so she knew she didn't need any protection from him.

This was just a scam for her to get the seven million dollars in the divorce settlement that she said she gave to the aclu. She swore she gave to the aclu and the children's hospital of los angeles, and she pocketed instead yeah zuma. That was like mr depp, mr broski, mr carino, mr wiggum and the inevitable mister, the aclu, which lent its once respected name to ms heard's defamation. So while miss heard may have avoided any direct mention of mr depp's name, there is extensive testimony and evidence in the record showing that the implication of her op-ed could not be more clear, i.e that mr depp abused ms heard during the course of their marriage under Virginia law quote: it is not necessary that the defamatory charge be in direct terms, but it may be made indirectly and it matters not how artful or disguised in which the meaning is concealed.

If it is in fact defamatory, citing carlisle, we can argue as to how artful it was, but the implication was very clear, as the court has previously ruled or not law of the case, but as the court has uh persuasively written in its opinion letter. Let's move to the falsity of ms hurt's ever evolving and ever-escalating change of ipv and sexual assault, mr depp's sworn denial is all he needs to survive a motion to strike, but there's a lot more than that, your honor and i'll try to be brief. There's more three police officers actually four, but the three who testified already officer signs, hadden and gatlin testified unequivocally. That ms heard did not have a mark on her on the evening of may 21 2016.

or on the nose either and i i could go through uh i'll, just go through very quickly officer. Hadden strike that officer melissa science on jury, trial day 10. question. Did you provide a copy of this pamphlet to amber heard answer? I did not.

I didn't identify her as a victim of domestic abuse. The next day officer, melissa, science. Okay, at this time, did you notice any injuries, misheard officer, science? I did not question. Okay, were you looking to see if she had any injuries on her at the time officer? Science? Yes, i was question, and so you were looking to see if miss hurt had any injuries and you determined that she did not.

Is that accurate officer science, correct they're, draining his jewelry okay and was the lighting good enough in the hallway for you to make that determination answer? Yes, the hallway was well lit officer. Gatlin's testimony was the same and he had the body cam officer. Hadden's. Testimony was the same.

The testimony of these names, debbie, lloyd and aaron buram, who didn't, who, like the police officers, did not work for mr da mr depp. In fact, they they work for dr kipper. Also, the lied, ms herd's false allegations of abuse, isaac, varus and alejandro romero. Both testified that they saw misheard repeatedly and in the clear life between may 21 2000 looked at her, which was the last time mr depp saw her before leaving on the hollywood.

Vampires tour. The next time he was to see her was when miss heard begged him to come, see her in san francisco, which is hardly the act of a domestic abuse victim. So we have isaac, barouche and mr romero saying that they saw misheard repeatedly in the interval of time between may 21 and may 27th when she obtained the farce x, party tro, and they saw no marks on her face and no swelling uh two witnesses. Mr varus and brandon patterson saw the video of miss heard and her sister whitney pantomiming the fake punch after this alleged uh incident of abuse.

Despicable me, kate, james and several other witnesses, including dr david kipper, saw no violence by mr depp and no injuries to misheard. Indeed, witness after witness has come forward to testify that miss heard far from being a domestic figure representing domestic violence unquote is, in fact a recidivist perpetrator of domestic violence on mr depp uh and and others we have the testimony the harrowing testimony of mr depp himself, Who described several witnesses, one as your honor will recall when he was hiding in the bathroom after escaping one of her attacks and her following claims to have hurt her foot kicking the door. Mr depp opens the door to see if she's hurt and then she kicks the door in on him and punches him. We have the incident of december 15 2015 when ms heard uh threw punches at him wildly at the back inside of his head.

Mr depp testified that he ducked and covered to protect his face. Eventually he turned around to grab her and stop her arms from flailing december 15 in the bahamas. During an argument, miss heard grabbed a can of mineral spirits and threw it at mr depp's face striking him in the forehead bridge and nose era, and the jury saw a photograph of the brew, the bridge on the bruise of his nose. We have testimony from mr and and by the way, tara roberts, who is the manager of the island, confirmed that uh the incident with the mineral spirits.

You have mr depp's testimony of what happened on april 22nd, 2016 uh and we've heard testimony uh today from aaron borem philadelphi that mr depp was very responsive. Uh was very sociable, had not uh was not in any way. Inebriated. That day, when miss heard says he was, and she and she attacked him that her face.

I don't know what she's looking she attacked him that night as well, and i and i'm getting to to to the end of this, your honor. We have um. We have ms heard's own admissions. We have her um admitting uh to hitting mr dapp, and her only contention was that she wasn't punching him.

She was just hitting him. We have testimony from travis mcgivern that uh missed on february 23rd 2015, miss heard through and hit. Mr depp, with a can of red bull and then sucker punched him with jesus throwing man. Finally, we have uh the rather stunning testimony of ben king, quite a credible witness who accompanied miss heard on the flight back from australia, where miss hurd admits to him in a rhetorical question quote: did you ever totally lose it on someone you love, which was? We would respectfully submit an admission of her severing the top or the tip of mr depp's figure a finger.

Finally, your honor statement, number three quote: i had the rare vantage point of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of abuse again, quoting very briefly from page seven of the court's opinion letter quote, drawing every fair inference in plaintiff's favor. The court can fairly include conclude the defendant's statement that she saw how institutions protect men accused of abuse could reasonably convey to its recipients that she saw how mr depp was protected by institutions that he abused her and spoke up against it. Okay, let's hear it uh your honor again, we have multiple testimony from multiple people, including jack wiggum, and all the others mentioned that this was a um reference to that um, your honor again, the the lies that have already been exposed. That ms heard has told about the charitable contributions uh the incidents in this case and again i'll just cite a couple of more uh, the testimony of isaac baroosh when mr baroos saw miss heard on june 3 after she'd gone through with the sham ex-party uh, the Tro, it's not boring he's willing, mr bruce was asked, did she say anything in response and mr burroughs testified yeah in response to that she meaning miss heard, looks at me and said i told johnny.

I don't want anything the lawyers are making me do all of this, and i you know that's what she said. Well, the lawyers are making her do all of that, and apparently she wanted the seven million dollars for herself. She even lied about the final insult left on the marital bed after her 30th birthday party, and it was quite telling that she admitted to starling jenkins, a former united states marine, that this was a terrible prank gone awry. Well, she lied about that too.

In fact she said mr depp was crazy to even allege that she could have done such a thing. Well, she admitted it uh to mr jenkins uh per tronfield, as cited earlier. Mr depp does not have to prove damages, because this is defamation per se. In fact, these involve some of the most heinous crimes any man or woman can be accused of.

However, he has done so uh jack wiggum tested yesterday that the impact of the op-ed was catastrophic. On mr deb depp's, personal and professional, i mean that it was a 22.5 million dollar loss on uh pirate six and another 20 million on others. We've had the we've had the testimony. Oh so we had mr wiggum testifying as to the 22 and a half lost on pirate six and another 20 lost on the other films, the other studio films, the indie films and and the other uh.

The other ways mr depp would have made income. We have richard martin's testimony douglas spania's testimony and the testimony of uh, michael spindler, just i feel like when he went harder here because um affirmative defenses, which would include you, know her trying to create an issue of fact on on the title. Uh can support a motion to strike as to which she bears the burden of proof of her affirmative defenses quote whether the defendants have met their burden cannot be resolved when considering a motion to strike uh siebert 243 virginia at 83 and and just to respond to. Mr rottenborn's citation to the lokova case, which we hadn't seen until he mentioned it, correct i'm going to see it.

I would only note your honor that defendant admits that she tweeted a link to the online version of the op-ed at paragraph 97 of her answer, though again, the the admission of exhibit 1 is more than enough to survive. The motion to strike and the lockover case at 995 f third 134 - holds that republishing, a hyperlink doesn't necessarily start the statute of limitations, not that a hyperlink uh cannot be defamatory. So with that, your honor, we respect all of us that the court denied the motion to strike in full and let's hear from his hurt. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, your emotion, i understand. Thank you, your honor. I i can only assume that mr chu wrote that speech for an audience outside the court, because it didn't really address my arguments. I'm going to focus on what that's weird humans are.

That is weird, like your honor. That's like seems to be sniping literally, almost 30 minutes of the court's time. That is weird disputed evidence of physical abuse in this case, which this herd hasn't even put on her case and and um, i can tell you she's, not the abuser and if the case moves forward, she and her witnesses will put on even more evidence of the Physical abuse she suffered at the hands of that's not going to fly, that's not the basis for our emotion right now, your honor. He he talks about how mr depp had a sworn denial um and that that should count he he we read his testimony.

He claims he didn't strike her, but again, that's not the basis for our motion. The basis for emotion is the clear and undisputed evidence of non-physical abuse by his definitions by his standards by the standards of his expert. There is no dispute that mr death on abused amber and therefore, if he did it even one time there is no dispute. This makes no sense at all, even under their theory of the case, the implication that they want the jury to draw from the article which again, i'm not arguing for the purposes of today, because under the legal standard, i'm not going to argue that i'm not going To waste the court's time with that, but even under their standard, the undisputed evidence is that mr depp did commit abuse against misheard and therefore that those first two statements were false.

That's that's our argument on that. There's like thanks to the headline. It's funny, mr chu. We played you know two or three hours of an aclu deposition.

Now he says well that wasn't our witness. It was his witness your honor, he just spent 10 minutes talking about what mr doherty said, and mr doherty testified that the washington post wrote the headline. That is the only evidence. Your honor, i understand he says well, exhibit one has her name on it.

Exhibit one has her name on it, but the only evidence in this case about who wrote that headline is mr doherty's testimony. It is undisputed. They could have put their headlands on, they could have called the headline, because that was not part. Isn't the main point of definition.

It's the it's the kind of the article, the tweet that we talked about she endorsed on. They chose not to do that. Now. Miss herd will testify she didn't write that headline, so it wouldn't have helped them, but that they've had three weeks to put on their case your honor they've controlled the playing field of evidence.

There is no dispute that misheard did not write that headline no dispute, simply saying well. Her name is attached to it that can't overcome the testimony of the aclu. They call them a co-conspirator. Of course, mr depp chose not to sue them um, but the testimony of terence doherty that she didn't write that headline that takes care of the sexual violence headline your honor and i'm not going to take up any more of the court's time.

Addressing portions of mr dutt or mr mr chu's argument that don't go to our motion unless your honor has any specific questions it does for this motion, i've taken the arguments of counsel and last night. I reviewed all of the evidence that has been submitted in this matter so as to the second and third alleged defamatory statements um at the motion strike at this juncture. I view the evidence the light most favorable to the plaintiff and reasonable inferences from the evidence to the plaintiff, and if there is a scintilla of evidence that a reasonable juror could weigh, then the matter survives a motion to strike in this matter. There is evidence in the case that a jury could weigh that the statements were made by the defendant, that the statements were about the plaintiff, that the statement was published, that the statement is false and the defendant made the statement knowing it to be false or the Defendant made it so recklessly as to amount to a willful disregard for the truth.

The weight of that evidence is up to the fact finder. So the motion to strike is denied as the statement two and three uh the motion to strike as a statement. One i'm going to take under advisement because um, if it's not a stipulation, i'm not sure what it is, but there seems to be an agreement that the tweet of misheard is part of the plaintiff's evidence which is not in evidence at this point. So i can't rule on that statement whether or not it is just a tweet or if it's some sort of republication.

I don't know because i haven't seen it yet so as to the motion strike on on statement, one i'm going to take an advisement because ruling out now the jury knows like because i just don't have that evidence in the case. Okay, thank you very much. Ronnie! All right since it's 12 30, we don't need one just take lunch, uh go ahead and let the jurors go to lunch and come back at 1 30.. Does that mean elon musk pays for her donation.

Elon musk buys twitter gon na remove tweets all right. Do you want to do it now? Okay, shoot the x-files theme song all right, interesting! I'm i actually enjoyed the way he did it yeah it was. It was kind of lengthy and he he uh. I think he buttered too thick right, but the fact that he was uh she was considering um.

She was considering it right. That's why he went he went above and beyond. So i think what he did is that he took um. He like dismantled it in a bunch of parts right, so every every every statement in the article and then and then he attached a case law to it and then an explanation of how these they correlate right, one after the other and then in between a bunch Of garbage, but it is what it is.

I mean a little bit of theatrics here and there a little bit of a nerd voice equals win, um voice, acting uh, even some some zoomer jokes, like everybody and your grandma uh. You know, i guys guys. I don't think it's funny, i don't think it should be in the courtroom and i i think this overall kind of doesn't doesn't go too well for them, but i mean it's: it's good memes, i don't know amber hurst lawyer. What is this nice argument? Senator? Why don't you back it up with a source, my sources that i made it the up good night,.