r/deppVheardtrial

Jessica N. Meyers

New York

Jessica N. Meyers focuses on plaintiff-side defamation suits, with additional experience litigating contract disputes, business-related torts and bankruptcy-related claims. She was a member of the litigation team that successfully represented actor Johnny Depp in his six-week defamation trial against ex-wife actress Amber Heard, where she handled multiple witnesses’ examinations, including Johnny Depp’s. Jessica grew up in the Boston area, but has lived and worked in New York for 10 years – she considers both cities home.

What first sparked your interest in becoming a lawyer?

When I was a freshman in high school, we read “To Kill a Mockingbird” and I was enthralled by Atticus Finch. I admired, not just his fierce advocacy, but the kindness and support he provided to someone who desperately needed it – even in an environment where his efforts were unpopular and, essentially, destined to be futile.

What was the most interesting case you worked on so far in your legal career?

No surprise here: Depp v. Heard. This case presented not only fascinating legal questions in the realm of defamation, evidence and res judicata, but also intriguing factual questions in the realm of psychology, substance use and alleged domestic abuse. Figuring out how to present such sensitive and potentially divisive factual issues to a jury was one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my career.

If you weren’t a lawyer and had to choose a different career path, what would it be and why?

If I were to choose a different career path, it would be in the field of clinical or forensic psychology. I was a psychology major in college and contemplated attending a psychoanalysis program while I was in law school. I have always been fascinated by the brilliance of oddities of the human mind and genuinely enjoy speaking to people to understand how and why they think, feel and behave the way they do.

What is most rewarding to you about your legal career?

The most rewarding experiences of my legal career have been working with a brilliant, high-performing team. In my experience, people are at their best when they are a part of a team of smart, compassionate and supportive individuals – and it has been so rewarding (and impressive) to see what my teammates and I are capable of.

Describe your philosophy of client service.

Litigation is typically a stressful and unpleasant experience for most (if not all) clients – and a lack of understanding or support throughout the litigation process only exacerbates these feelings, which can negatively impact you and your client’s performance. Thus, my primary goal, always, is to educate, guide and support my clients throughout the litigation process so they can face any legal challenge as their best self.

How would you describe your style of lawyering/how do you approach your matters?

I have always viewed litigation as an extremely complex game: you need to understand the rules, the players, the board and the cards in play in order to play successfully – and, of course, all of these elements will be different from game to game. Thus, the cardinal rules that I ascribe to are: be courteous and professional, always; maintain and bolster your credibility whenever possible; and never overplay your hand.

About Brown Rudnick LLP Brown Rudnick is an international law firm that serves clients around the world from offices in key financial centers across the United States and the United Kingdom. We combine ingenuity with experience to achieve great outcomes for our clients in complex business transactions and high-stakes litigation. We deliver partner-driven service; we incentivize our lawyers to collaborate in the client’s best interest; and we put excellence before scale, focusing on industry-driven, client-facing practices where we are recognized leaders. © 2023 Brown Rudnick LLP

It’s really interesting to read JD publicist depo Robin Baum and now with additional info available we can clearly come to conclusion that AH was literally leaking info left & right and JD team had a hard time keeping up with it …there’s also new info how JD (under pressure from AH ) wrote a whole speech about journalists labelling AH as a gold digger & home wrecker during the Venice film festival in 2015 but was stopped by Christi

Also now I can understand why Jodi AH publicist avoided depo like a plague lol it would have sunk the narrative “I was only defending myself” now I m of the opinion Jodi was probably behind AH inflated ego & contributed a lot of “image obsession “..there’s a tidbit about how JD shouted at Jodi during the Toronto festival when AH pressured JD to attend her movie premier in which she had a very minor role

Really interesting of Bruce Robinson, who adapted and directed The Rum Diary, in The Telegraph from a few days ago. He’s a fascinating person.

Relevant excerpt, in case you don’t want to read the whole thing:

He points out a large painting of Keith Richards on the far wall. “That’s by Johnny Depp,” he says. “It’s painted on fag papers. He’s a very good painter, the Depp.” The two go back a while. When Robinson became disillusioned with the “awful, horrible” way he was treated by Hollywood producers while making the 1992 thriller ­Jennifer 8, he vowed never to direct again. It wasn’t until two decades later that he was lured back by Depp to write and direct an adap­tation of Hunter S Thompson’s The Rum Diary, in which the then 45-year-old actor began filming alongside a relatively unknown 22-year-old actress.

“The weird thing for me was I introduced him to Amber Heard,” Robinson says. “I mean, the stuff that was printed about Johnny is just bulls---. I’m sure there was a lot of friction in their relationship, but some of the things that were said about him are just utter nonsense. He’s one of the most genuinely nice people I’ve ever met; I’ve never met anyone who’s as generous as Johnny – yes, he’s got lots of money, but I’ve met lots of people with lots of money who aren’t necessarily generous. He was all over the British press like he was the wife-beating monster. It was hideous.”

In 2020, Depp lost his case against The Sun in the UK, after the paper labelled him thus, as a “wife beater”. But two years later in the US, Depp won a defamation suit against Heard, over an op-ed she’d written for the Washington Post. “They’re both pretty volatile personalities,” Robinson says. “I liked her. She’s very intelligent. It just wasn’t made in heaven.” He explains how a film set provides an artificial setting for an intense relationship with the other actors, “and then, suddenly, it’s gone. It’s dust.” The couple, he suggests, carried the intensity of their relationship into the real world. “It was kind of tragic that it ended up like it did,” he says. Still, what Heard wrote about Depp, he claims, was “total bulls--- … and he couldn’t accept it”.

Camille Vasquez appears on today’s episode of the podcast to discuss jury selection in Depp v. Heard, and offer thoughts on jury selection for the upcoming Trump v. New York trial.

A draft of the op-ed showed AH wanted the following included

Then two years ago, I sought a temporary restraining order against my then-husband, only to feel the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.

I remember the day I left the courtroom and walked into a pack of hundreds of photographers. I didn’t have a team of bodyguards. My lawyers used their own bodies to block out space for me to walk to my car.

The whole way there, I heard press yelling the same question in one form or another: "Is it true you're making all this up?”

_________________

To get people to believe she endured "our culture's wrath", AH lied.

To do this, she employed her classic formula of

• Denying her role in initiating the incident (walked into a pack of hundreds of photographers)

• Grossly exaggerating the situation (hundreds of photographers)

• Lying about facts to ensure she is viewed as the weaker party (I didn't have a team of bodyguards. My lawyers used their own bodies to block out space for me to walk to my car)

• Alleging she experienced mistreatment during the incident. (I heard press yelling…"Is it true you're making all this up?")

• Claiming she suffered traumatic effects from the incident. (feel the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.)

• AH exited the courthouse with an entourage made up of

1. A court employee

2. Bodyguard/security

3. Jodi Gottlieb (publicist)

4. Samantha Spector (lawyer)

5. Joseph Koenig (lawyer)

6. Rocky Pennington (freeloader)

7. Two sheriff's officers

8. Driver/security waiting directly outside the door

9. Sheriff's officer waiting directly outside the door

• As security assists AH to the car, Spector is a hindrance, not a help and Koenig is dawdling along behind.

• It took AH 30 seconds to reach the car and sit prominently in the seat closest to the open door and the press, while her security guard had to climb over her to get to a seat. (Who sits in the first seat when they know there are more people directly behind them also getting into the car?)

• She eventually moves seats, but not before allowing a full display of the "bruise.

• No one says anything even close to "Is it true you're making all this up?”

That she intentionally set him up from the very start. No, but she lied about the physical abuse and it snowballed. She didn't have to be Gone Girl

Part three just dropped on The DUI Guy

June 2017: Elon Musk donates $500,000 to the ACLU & CHLA in AH's "honor"

July 6th, 2017

The ACLU prepared a draft press statement and emailed it to AH, who subsequently forwarded it to her PR team.

Actress Amber Heard has donated $500,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union, part of her pledge to support the organization and its work to protect victims of domestic violence."

Following the review by her PR team, AH replied to the ACLU.

Stephen, thank you for reaching out...

We have a call set for an hour from now to talk about this with my PR team. Their concern is that the press could potentially spin the fact that this is an instalment and not the entire lump sum, (as you well know isn't possible due to the structure of the settlement agreement) against me in some way.

Also, we are tracking down a confirmation/ statement from Children's as well, although I don't necessarily think we should wait on that.

Stephen, I'll have my team reach out after we've spoken, if that's alright?

Thanks again.

Further internal emails between ACLU staff state:

• Amber's representatives are not interested in us doing a statement right now.

• They are, however, interested in a more comprehensive push in the near future about how her donation is being used.

• They want us to do something that would show Amber's support for the ACLU.

Following discussions regarding the possibility of a blog post or a video featuring AH, the following email is sent to the communications department:

As you know, actress Amber Heard is in the process of handing us half of her Johnny Depp divorce settlement, the other half going to the LA Children's Hospital.

Instead of doing a series of statements each time a payment installment is made (as Johnny's PR team continually pushes out stories that she's not actually making the donations while they hold up their payments. Fun.)

Anyway, she's keen to show her support and talk about her ongoing support for us in a few ways. I'm going to pitch to her PR team that she pen a blog about why she's supporting us, blah, blah, blah.

__________________

• Even though the $500,000 didn't come from AH, she’s more than happy to pretend it did.

• The only reason AH is concerned that it might prompt inquiries into why she hadn't yet donated the entire amount is because she’d deceived the public into believing she already had.

• As of the 6th of July, when AH sent her email, she had received $3 million of the settlement payment.

• Why is AH seeking confirmation or a statement from Children's Hospital? At that point, she hadn't voluntarily contributed a single cent to CHLA.

• To avoid raising questions about her donation, it’s decided that AH will pen a blog. This doesn't end up eventuating, but it shows why they appointed her an ambassador.

• By designating her as an ambassador, the ACLU had another pretext to use AH to promote their work besides her nonexistent donation.

• AH could continue to parade around as a faux victim and spout off about fake donations.

Amber sold herself as an innocent housewife deeply concerned with her husband’s sobriety.

Then why the hell is she inviting her friends and addict sister to party, drink and do drugs during the entire marriage? Her excuse for why there was a tampon applicator in a picture of cocaine was because her sister taught Johnny how to use it (again, why are you letting her live with you if your husband’s an addict?) She partied all the time and did shrooms at Burning Man. She expected Johnny to bring her wine and weed to her birthday party. She freaking had “drugs” listed as an activity for her wedding.

If I had a partner who was an addict, I wouldn’t have any drugs or alcohol in the house, period. I wouldn’t be getting loaded in front of them 24/7 and inviting addict family members to stay over tempting them into a relapse.

Even Amber’s explanations make her look like a terrible person.

Am I wrong in thinking that the #JohnnyDeppIsAWifeBeater trending on twitter and amber stans saying it's a big deal is a bit silly? Considering it's mostly the same people using it, sometimes even spamming it and other hashtags, it's not exactly real engagement/trending when it's the same people using it over and over now is it? One of them even put the # 4 times...in the same post.

feels off to me...

Why would some random actress, two yrs after all the hype of the trial now try and come out and say "Johnny was mean to me! He yelled in my face!". This was 20+ yrs ago.....

Ok, Jan...

Just watched the third part of "Surviving Amber Heard" series by Rando Productions. I found it for rent/purchase on Prime, but may be available on other streaming platforms. I would say this is the mot precise and accurate timeline of events that dispels AH's various and ever changing timelines and details of events that were discussed during the trial.

Anyone who has also seen this, what are your thoughts?

As per AH's testimony in the US trial

On the 23rd, when she filed for divorce, the media were unaware and did not report on it.

AH: So I filed for divorce on the 23rd, I believe, and… when we filed for it…it managed to stay under the radar.

You know these filings are not private. You can't make them private in California. And remarkably, it had flown under the radar. No one picked up on the fact that I had filed.

I wanted as much privacy as we could possibly get, and the filing had been missed by TMZ and…paparazzi outlets and stuff.

Similarly, when AH entered the courthouse on the 27th, the media remained unaware, and the divorce had not been reported.

AH: I walked into the courthouse. It was quiet first thing in the morning. No one knew about my divorce, so I thought it was going to stay that way, and I walked out to a sea of paparazzi and cameras, photographers.

However, the jury then heard an audio recording of AH stating that TMZ was informed of the divorce just five minutes after JD filed his response, with AH claiming that his lawyers leaked the information to the press as part of a smear campaign.

AH: I can tell the basic facts it was private for days after I filed. You did not have to file. That's not a move that the other party has to make. It's just not, and you did. Or your team did.

JD: Okay.

AH: And then, within 5 minutes, it was on TMZ. You do the math yourself without any other thing. It's very clear.

JD: Okay.

AH: I don't know if you knew that.

JD: No, I didn't know that. If that's the case, I'll acknowledge it. You know, you say you have proof, then I'll acknowledge it. Look, it doesn't shock me that the attorney would do something like that,

AH: It just makes sense.

Despite this, AH later reverted to claiming that no one knew about the divorce when she filed for the TRO on the 27th of May.

CV: Ms. Heard, you testified yesterday that when you left the courthouse after obtaining the domestic violence restraining order against Mr. Depp, you walked out to "a sea of paparazzi and cameras," right?

AH: That's correct.

CV: You testified that you were surprised to see the sea of cameras?

AH: That's correct.

CV: Because it was quiet when you went into the courthouse that morning?

AH: And the divorce had remained under the radar up to that point.

The jury then watched a portion of AH's 2016 deposition in which she lied about why she had contacted JD's security

BB: Ms. Heard, did you send a text message to Jerry Judge on May 24, 2016, telling Jerry Judge, "I'm desperately trying to reach Johnny. It's extremely important. Please tell him"?

AH: I remember sending the text message that is in front of me right now to Jerry, and I would like -- I remember sending this because I wanted to tell Johnny, or have him told by Jerry or someone who knew him or was close to him --basically I didn't want him to find out online --that I had, or was about to file - or I had already filed for divorce.

I wanted him to know verbally. So I was trying to reach him through a third party and tell him. When I say "reach," I'm specifically saying, "I would like him to know information coming from me or coming from Jerry from me, so that he finds out about the divorce filing, or my intention to do so, from some other source other than TMZ, which was alerted....

She was then forced to commit to the version she told in 2016. Thus, the story became that the press knew about the divorce before JD even knew.

EB: Let's talk about the TMZ alert. Explain to the jury what you meant by TMZ was alerted

AH: So when you make these kind of filings, meaning divorce, marriage, things like that, they are public records. And so…when I filed for divorce, I asked my team to file in the most discreet way, literally to put it under a stack of papers and file it at the end of the day, so it kind of had more of a shot of being missed by the paparazzi and by TMZ and those sorts of publicity outlets.

I believe that we had been remarkably lucky following the divorce that it wasn't picked up and that it gave me a precious few days of peace at that really fragile time.

When I found out that they were going to run the story or that they had the information, I was trying to get ahold of Johnny to clarify that I did not do this in a punitive way. I didn't want him to be mad at me. I didn't, you know, I didn't want him to find out in that sort of context online.

The DUI Guy is playing the entire documentary on his channel, with permission.

I encourage everyone who hasn't watched it yet, to listen to it. It's the best documentary on this case.

Part One:

part two :

In the final episode of his podcast Alexi Mostrous states

"In the recording, Amber tells Depp, 'I can't promise I won't get physical again.' For Depp's fans, this is the proof they've been waiting for that he is the real victim.

And I should say, it is something that gives you pause. Amber appears to admit to hitting Depp across the face. It's quite a shocking admission.

When she appeared on the stand, Amber explained that she sometimes hit Depp in self-defence. But I have to reiterate that I'm not trying to re-litigate the case.

The fact is, a British judge found that Depp had abused Amber on a dozen occasions and that 'no great weight was to be put on Amber’s alleged admissions'.

A US jury reached a different conclusion.

By quoting the UK judge, Mostrous is intentionally downplaying the significance of the audio recordings, hoping that people will overlook their importance.

The audio recordings are the primary reason the US jury, and the global audience, arrived at a different conclusion.

Mostrous then goes on to speak about by Incredibly Average, whose real name is Brian McPherson

McPherson's video gets six million views on YouTube, and many more millions see his content on other sites. It has a huge impact on how Amber is seen online, but here's the thing: it was manipulated.

Let me play you a bit of McPhersons recording

JD*: If things get physical, we have to separate. We have to be apart from one another. Whether it's for fucking an hour or 10 hours or fucking a day. We must. There can be no physical violence.*

AH: I can't promise that I’ll be perfect. I can't promise you I won't get physical again.

Pretty damning, right? And Amber did say those words. It's the truth, but it's not the whole truth.

Between Depp’s line “There can be no physical violence” and Amber’s line “I can't promise you that I'll be perfect. I can't promise you that I won't get physical again” there are seven minutes of tape missing.

In reality, this is how Amber responds to Depp “I agree about the physical violence,” but McPherson cuts that critical line.

In his version, it seems like Depp is pleading for the violence to end and Amber is saying as a direct reply, I can't promise it won't.

There's something else, too. Depp's words themselves are edited. He doesn't just say, 'There can be no physical violence.' There are three words missing: 'There can be no physical violence towards each other.'

Somewhere along the way, this very sensitive piece of evidence was altered in favour of Depp.

People never figured out that these were acts of disinformation. They just took them at face value and they shared them and they reacted to them.

The sole reference Monstrous makes to excerpts of the audio being released by before Incredibly Averages’ video is when he falsely states, 'Just before Macpherson posts his video, the Mail Online news website publishes a two-minute snippet of it.'"

In fact, The Daily Mail released excerpts from the audio, totalling 10 minutes and 8 seconds. Among these excerpts is the segment containing the very sentences that Monstrous is quibbling about.

JD: If things get physical, we have to separate. We have to be apart from one another. Whether it's for fucking an hour or 10 hours or fucking a day. We must, there can be no physical violence towards each other.

AH: I agree about the physical violence, but separating for a day, taking a night off from our marriage?

___________________

This is a pathetic argument by Monstrous in an attempt to discredit what’s captured in this audio.

The jury in the US trial was provided with the complete audio recording, capturing of disturbing verbal abuse, explosive anger, and DARVO tactics by AH.

JD*: If things get physical, we have to separate. We have to be apart from one another. Whether it's for fucking an hour or 10 hours or fucking a day. We must, there can be no physical violence towards each other.*

AH*: I agree about the physical violence, but separating for a day, taking a night off from our marriage?*

And several minutes later

AH*: I can't promise you that I'll be perfect. I can't promise you that I won't get physical again*”

AH is heard badgering and harassing JD to get him to promise that under no circumstances will he “split” again.

Even though she can’t promise not to physically assault him again, she nevertheless demands JD promise not to leave.

She does, however, promise not to use the word divorce and, therefore, she insists JD make the same commitment.

It's a disturbing and manipulative argument, wherein AH expects JD to promise not to leave, even in the event of physical assault.

If she does physically harm him again and he chooses to leave to escape the abuse, she will manipulate him into believing that he is to blame for breaking his promise not to “split”

_______________

It's hardly unexpected that Monstrous avoids mentioning the audio recordings until the final episode, and even then, attempts to downplay their significance.

The audio recordings will continue to haunt AH, and despite her efforts to ignore or alter the narrative they convey, she will never succeed.

Here is the apology as it appeared on Megan Kelly's show.

Here are some takes on it. Andy and Stef do not accept the apology one little bit

Blackbelt Barrister has a more nuanced opinion pointing out that acknowledging he was wrong could open things up for the existing UK verdict

Personally, I wondered if this was an attempt at PR and aligning himself with JD as a victim of a toxic ex, (assuming he IS a toxic ex) which feels disingenuous to me for all sorts of reasons.

In the podcast Alexi Mostrous states

In her counterclaim, Amber alleges that Depp's team “created, coordinated, controlled, and/or manipulated social media accounts specifically for the purpose of targeting Ms Heard”. In other words, it accuses Depp of orchestrating a bot campaign against her.

But this part of the counterclaim is problematic. As evidence of this supposed campaign, Amber's lawyers list out a whole bunch of Twitter accounts that they say are bots.

When I look at some of these accounts online, I find that many seem to be real people. I feel pretty certain that the counterclaim gets a lot of stuff wrong, and it seems to have confused Depp’s super-fans… with bots.

Monstrous is referring to the Twitter accounts named in the following paragraph of the counterclaim

“As examples, these inauthentic accounts include the following:

ReemDepp, MyGrindelwald, Mderndarkwizard, Pomta5426, depp_soldier, PerspectiveDepp, depphead_, RayRayDepp, Depplyyours, ILoveGellert, Jackiedepp1963, JDeppS_ girl.

Investigation has revealed hundreds of others.”

Ron Schnell’s Deposition

“…data and found that there were a large number of screen names that produced the negative tweets.

I thought it would be best to then request that counsel subpoena Twitter to get more information about these many screen names so that I could get things like IP addresses to further inform my opinion about whether I could say with certainty that these were bots.

I have not received any results from Twitter at this time, so I thought it prudent to not opine about bots at this time because I just wanted to close that one last loop”.

____________________

• The accounts listed in the counterclaim are directly sourced from the list of over 200 accounts for which AH (on the advice of Ron Schnell) subpoenaed Twitter to obtain information.

• Given that Ron Schnell conducted the investigation that identified the accounts listed in the counterclaim, it's quite amusing that AM now asserts that the 'counterclaim gets a lot of stuff wrong'.

• Nevertheless, Alexi Mostrous still goes on to use the information gathered by Ron Schnell for his investigation aimed at identifying bots.

SOURCES

What exactly happens with JD and Vanessa?

Did Johnny really cheat on Vanessa with AH? I also heard he was bored in the relationship and wanted to get out. What do you think about this?

Everyone only talks about TMZ covering her TRO walk out but there were other outlets and that ex TMZ guy never said it was an exclusive tip for TMZ ..in the video there were many news outlets with journos holding their mic out for her to speak sort of like they thought she was going to give some statement outside shouting her name ..the few channel name I could make out were ABC , Fox 11 and something with 7 ..and these were separate outlets owned by separate orgs ..so I m confused by why only TMZ getting dragged for it ??

So these are the articles that appeared on TMZ on 27th May most of them seem to be from her side because they have exclusive pics & info

This is the first article that comes up mentioning DV in TMZ and it has so much info including the card the cops left and an exclusive pic ..it was posted on 9.36am

( I think this was the article AH was talking about in that phone conversation with JD about how she was in the courthouse and TMZ had already wrote a article and they have provide cops card as a proof )

This one was posted on 12.30pm and has even more pics plus some not all info directly from legal docs

The last one was posted on 1.28 pm probably when she finally exited the courthouse after getting her TRO and this one has the video of her exiting too

Edited : sorry I m just updating it in btw breaks

This one is from variety who seems to have gotten direct info from LA courthouse and was posted on 10.33am

Soliciting info on this claim from Amber.

He was my friend and he lived next door, quite literally next door, and I had frankly exhausted my support network with my usual friends and was happy to welcome as much friendship at that time as I could possibly get.

James Franco had a place in LA which was listed in 2017 per .

With some searching I believe this to be house.

The distance to the Eastern Columbia building appears to about about 20 minutes per .

Any other info on James Franco's domicile(s) is appreciated!

Quote from

It’s worth remembering the fallout after Heard publicly came out as bisexual in 2010, a decision that riled many in Hollywood.

“Everyone said there has never been another working actress who did this, a female lead – you will lose everything,” she recalls.

Did that scare her? “Of course. This is my life, my livelihood. I supported my family… I was scared to death.”

Amber Heard now campaigns for LGBTQ rights.

_______________________

Quote from

Everyone on my team said I would never work as an actress again. My own lawyer told me l would be blacklisted...

Was I afraid? Terrified would be a better word. I believed I might lose my livelihood and my ability to provide for my family. No studio stood behind me, fighting to make a multimillion-dollar franchise work.

Amber Heard is an ACLU ambassador for women's rights.