Coffee & Cursey Words | Amber Heard & Johnny Depp Appeal!?!?



#JohnnyDepp #AmberHeard

New filings from Johnny Depp & Amber Heard. Let’s take a look!

The Docket
0:00 Welcome
11:07 Amber Heard Sets Her 16-Point Grounds for Appeal
22:18 Side Bar
29:11 Appellant’s Designation of Assignment of Error – Amber Heard
46:16 Appellant Johnny Depp Assignments of Error
54:15 Q&A

Resources
https://twitter.com/aburkhartlaw
https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/post/2876133/youtube-strikes-again

**Connect with me**
Email Me: [email protected]

Join the community for exclusive content: https://www.LawNerdsUnite.com

**Looking for MERCH! : https://www.LawNerdShop.com **
TEXT ME: https://www.TextEmily.com
MAIL TIME: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin Tn 37067

**My Favorite YOUTUBE TOOL VidIQ https://vidiq.com/LawNerd
WHAT I USE TO STREAM: https://www.emilydbaker.com/streamyard

SHORTS & Clips? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7pGyYaOMsJv1tlPNBgAG2Q

My TedTalk → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBXkN9sQELk

Shop for makeup and support Emily at the same time! Visit our friends at Gerard Cosmetics → https://gerardcosmetics.com/?rfsn=5277986.4c1afa and use code LAWNERDS for 30% OFF

Join me on Social @TheEmilyDBaker
https://www.Instagram.com/TheEmilyDBaker
https://www.Twitter.com/TheEmilyDBaker

Follow My Cats on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/fredandgeorge_cat/

Emily’s glasses lenses are Irlen tint https://www.irlen.com

My coffee mug, streaming setup and the things I am loving right now!
http://www.Amazon.com/shop/emilydbaker

Hey! I have a podcast — The Emily Show is on your favorite podcast player or here http://www.emilydbaker.com/podcast

*This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. These videos are based on publically available information unless otherwise stated. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2022 Baker Media, LLC*

source

28 thoughts on “Coffee & Cursey Words | Amber Heard & Johnny Depp Appeal!?!?”

  1. The thing that caught me, and Im shocked more people didnt catch it, is during the shitfest that was Amber Heards testimony, at one point she says (I dont have the exact quote cus I was at the dr listening in), but she says thats why she wrote it about him and his power (admitting its about him), then later says its just about men and their power which are men like him (sort of side ways affirms it). So her trying to say it isnt about him — i mean she SAID IT.

    Reply
  2. 14:23 Most articles are generally pro Heard. This for several reasons. Not the least of which is that Heard's PR team is literally paying for pro Heard articles to be written.
    Plus you are reading from Vanity Fair. They have always been extremely pro Heard. I'm not complete sure, but I'm pretty sure that as soon as Heard lost, they publish an article 'explaining' why Heard's appeal was definitely going to win.

    Reply
  3. How did Waldman say it was a hoax? What if he heard the recording in which she admitted to creating the hoax. She was talking to someone saying she would keep detailed records of abuse and use texts and conversations as proof. Many people forget about that because it wasn’t in the trial.

    Reply
  4. Emily you should NOT be surprised by the one sided pro Amber MSM coverage of the appeal! The media doesn’t care that Johnny Depp is the victim.

    Reply
  5. Regarding point 8, I actually re-watched the part of JD's testimony that I think they're referring to. I'm fairly certain this is the exchange they're talking about:
    Rottenborn: To your knowledge, the words that Ms. Heard used in this article about getting a restraining order against you in 2016, those are true, correct?
    JD lawyer: Objection, misstates the document.
    Judge: Sustain the objection.
    Rottenborn: The statement then two years ago Ms Heard became a public figure representing domestic abuse, that is true, isn't it?
    JD lawyer: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.
    Judge: I sustain the objection.
    Rottenborn starts to argue, but doesn't go to sidebar.
    Judge: I sustain the objection.

    In the full context of the cross, it's obvious that Rottenborn tries to be sneaky and wants him to say that she became a figure of domestic abuse because she made the allegations, whether they're true or not doesn't matter, and therefore they're not defamatory. Considering the judge sustained the objection twice and he didn't go to sidebar about it, it doesn't feel like it's their strongest point but it'll be interesting to see how it will play out with the appeals court.

    Reply

Leave a Comment