Sally forth!

also fuck that entire jury for (partially) unanimously siding with an abuser in a libel trial of all things, NOT a criminal trial lmao, i hope you all also burn in hell. that woman got up there and told you about her abuse, had witnesses to it IN PERSON, was sexually/emotionally/financially/verbally abused by that sick freak and you all still claimed she defamed him with a fucking sentence that didn’t name him.

This means that if you hug a Samoyed, they are likely to just sit there and accept the snuggles.

I fostered a Samoyed. She would BREAK OUT OF HER KENNEL just to lay on me. Every. Single. Night. I couldn’t escape the love cloud. Every time I would lie in my bed, BOOM. Love cloud! Here for cuddles! We had to REINFORCE her kennel just so that she wouldn’t break out. See, this warming dog was trying to cuddle with me in 90+ F (32+ C) degree weather. It was inescapable.

notes on previous cases & the type of legal action johnny depp filed

this is not a legal proceeding initiated by AH. it was initiated by Johnny Depp.  it is not the first proceeding initiated by Johnny Depp. 

once a victim ends a relationship and cuts off contact with an abuser, it is not uncommon for an abuser to use the legal system to continue to exert power and control over their victim. it’s called litigation abuse. 

in the most recent completed legal proceeding (Johnny Depp sued a british tabloid for defamation for referring to him as an abuser), the judicial officer determined that AH had proved at least 12 of 14 alleged incidents of abuse to a civil legal standard, making it perfectly appropriate for a news organization to refer to Johnny Depp as an abuser.

this is a defamation case, not a case about abuse. its about whether or not AH defamed Johnny Depp by writing an article about *her* experience as a public figure associated with domestic violence, an article that did not mention Johnny Depp by name. 

notes on forum shopping by depp’s legal team

interestingly, this defamation case was NOT filed in California, the state where AH and Johnny Depp lived during their relationship, and was NOT filed in DC, where the WaPo, the publication that published AH’s article, is based. it was filed in the state of virginia.

you might be asking yourself why virginia, of all places?  well, it’s legal strategy from depp’s team. it’s because of the different laws in virginia. virginia has a comparatively weak anti-SLAPP law (a law that protects people from civil litigation for exercising their first amendment rights), & does not consider verbal abuse to be included in “family abuse” aka domestic violence thus mitigating some of the horrendous things that Depp’s put in writing to and about AH.

“mutual abuse”

because this trial is about defamation, not domestic violence, there has been a significant lack of expert testimony about domestic violence. let me just tell you a few things about the concept of mutual abuse.

in california, it is possible for two people to get restraining orders against each other if they have both committed acts of domestic abuse. HOWEVER, this type of legal outcome is heavily regulated because the legislature and judicial system understand that true cases of “mutual abuse” are exceedingly rare.  therefore, california law requires that a judicial officer make “detailed findings of fact indicating that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and that neither party acted primarily in self-defense”. 

in making this determination, caselaw directs judicial officers to consider the entire history of abuse in a relationship, rather than taking each incident as a single isolated event. this is because, say after 6 months of being choked, threatened with death, and having objects thrown at your head, when a drunk angry partner comes towards you, hitting them first, in and of itself, does not make you the primary aggressor. it is considered “reactive” violence, done in self defense, and can only be evaluated in taking the entire history of abuse in the relationship into account.

the fact that one party was injured during an altercation, in and of itself, does not make the injured party the victim and the injury inflicting party the primary aggressor. this is based on long established legal principals that a victim of physical aggression can employ reasonable physical force to defend themselves, even if that application of force results in injury to the aggressor

that AH admitted to striking Johnny Depp, in and of itself, does not legally mean that AH is “equally guilty” of domestic abuse, does not mean that she is not a victim of domestic abuse, and does not negate that Johnny Depp was the primary aggressor throughout the relationship

a few other notes:

johnny depp is not captain jack sparrow, edward scissorhands, or any other famous character you love. he is an almost 60 year old man with a documented history of frivolous litigation, alcohol and drug abuse, and physically violent outbursts dating back decades.

johnny depp is a cisgender heterosexual male, a multi-millionaire, a well established actor, and was in his 50s when he married a bisexual woman, an up-and-coming actress 20 years his junior.  there is an ENORMOUS power differential here.  which is not to say that it is inherently abusive, but it is context that needs to be part of the discussion.

petty but whatever, AH’s lawyer never said she used that specific makeup product brand to cover her bruises. AH’s lawyer said she used a product that did color correction, like that makeup product brand has, holding up their product for visual emphasis in the courtroom. it’s not evidence of any kind of lie and it’s extremely bad faith on that makeup brand’s part to insinuate otherwise

that lady who diagnosed AH, claimed she doesn’t have PTSD, and claimed that she has histrionic personality disorder and BPD, is NOT a board certified mental health professional, was hired by Depp’s legal team, AFTER drinking with Depp’s legal team, is paid by Depp’s legal team, and spent less than 12 hours evaluating AH in person. Not a credible reputable source of impartial, science-based evidence.