In matters of libel I wouldn't take the opinion of a UK court to any degree, even before their verdict in this matter.
While British judges have been reined in since the early 2000s when they were issuing proclamations that nobody on the planet was to besmirch the reputation of litigants they're still only better than they were. That's not a high bar to clear.
UK judge : "wow let's take this woman's word as proof it all happened as she said. She donated all her divorce settlement to charity, that's proof she's of good moral character! I believe her!"
Except she did not donate the divorce settlement money to charity. She lied about that too.
She won't be able to retry in the UK that may be more favourable to her as that will be trying to claim UK courts supercede US courts, NO ONE wants to open that political briefcase nuke.
So she'd have to try in the US court which, she has no chance, the US courts, unironically, got more credibility having all the case livestreamed and all the evidence heard than the UK case. To go "well this case behind close doors in a foreign country is more legitimate than the one livestreamed" is too much of an own goal that even the feminist judges wouldn't want to touch it.
They'd rather ditch the bitch and find a new way to push their agenda.
Heard has shit lawyers and her appeal doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. She also doesn't have the money to be wasting on frivolous appeals given how much she needs to be paying Depp.
The best thing Heard did for society is prove for all time "bitches lie".
One major advantage that juries have is that they're second to none at judging witness credibility, which means that they're able to sniff out a lying whore like Amber from a mile away. This actually gets the heart of why the Founding Fathers guaranteed the right to trial by jury. They were very concerned about a cabal of elitist judges perverting justice for their own ends, and we saw that in the UK.
Court shopping for the rich and powerful has always been a way for them to avoid justice. Finding an are that caters to women in court isn't all that hard either.
You can't have both a traditionalist mindset society (protect women) that also pushes for equality; it just leads to injustice for all.
No US court will give a shit. But, if one does, then if I were Johnny, I'd sue her ass in Islamic court and insist that ruling also be respected and upheld in the US and UK.
In a lengthy written document, her lawyers argued: "That holding, if allowed to stand, undoubtedly will have a chilling effect on other women who wish to speak about abuse involving powerful men."
The actress's team went on to note the previous unsuccessful libel suit the Pirates of the Caribbean star brought against The Sun newspaper in 2018, for calling him a "wife-beater" in print. Suggesting the subsequent, separate US libel case "should never have gone to trial" because "another court had already concluded that Depp abused Heard on multiple occasions".
The UK, women's choice to launder their lies and hate since 2016.
In matters of libel I wouldn't take the opinion of a UK court to any degree, even before their verdict in this matter.
While British judges have been reined in since the early 2000s when they were issuing proclamations that nobody on the planet was to besmirch the reputation of litigants they're still only better than they were. That's not a high bar to clear.
UK judge : "wow let's take this woman's word as proof it all happened as she said. She donated all her divorce settlement to charity, that's proof she's of good moral character! I believe her!"
Except she did not donate the divorce settlement money to charity. She lied about that too.
I'm all for it!
But if she loses again she should have to pay double the payout to Johnny, keep that privilege in check there missy.
And they should jail her ass for contempt if she doesn't pay.
Excellent. I hope there's a new trial and we can go through that all over again.
She'll win if she returns to the UK, we don't want her going back there.
She won't be able to retry in the UK that may be more favourable to her as that will be trying to claim UK courts supercede US courts, NO ONE wants to open that political briefcase nuke.
So she'd have to try in the US court which, she has no chance, the US courts, unironically, got more credibility having all the case livestreamed and all the evidence heard than the UK case. To go "well this case behind close doors in a foreign country is more legitimate than the one livestreamed" is too much of an own goal that even the feminist judges wouldn't want to touch it.
They'd rather ditch the bitch and find a new way to push their agenda.
Heard has shit lawyers and her appeal doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. She also doesn't have the money to be wasting on frivolous appeals given how much she needs to be paying Depp.
The best thing Heard did for society is prove for all time "bitches lie".
One major advantage that juries have is that they're second to none at judging witness credibility, which means that they're able to sniff out a lying whore like Amber from a mile away. This actually gets the heart of why the Founding Fathers guaranteed the right to trial by jury. They were very concerned about a cabal of elitist judges perverting justice for their own ends, and we saw that in the UK.
Court shopping for the rich and powerful has always been a way for them to avoid justice. Finding an are that caters to women in court isn't all that hard either.
You can't have both a traditionalist mindset society (protect women) that also pushes for equality; it just leads to injustice for all.
No US court will give a shit. But, if one does, then if I were Johnny, I'd sue her ass in Islamic court and insist that ruling also be respected and upheld in the US and UK.
The UK, women's choice to launder their lies and hate since 2016.