Johnny Depp Files Appeal Brief || Uncivil Law

The only thing factually incorrect about what they called the Depp-Waldman statement is the order of events. They roughed up the apartment and spilled the wine after the second visit from the police and obviously the second 911 call. We absolutely know this because of the body cam footage and Isaac’s testimony. We absolutely know it was a hoax and I understand there is no one who has come forward as making either 911 call.

Sorry for a stupid question, but would a scenario where you'd appeal a judgement in your favor be like if they found in favor of your defemation claim but only awarded you one dollar and could point to serious errors by the court? Or what did you have in mind for what could be a situation where you appeal a judgement in your favor?

OMG! I am laughing so hard at your Johnny Depp comments. You are just the Best Kurt!

Thank you for your video. Most enjoyable :). One thing: I know you said "3" (or 1.C) was using a kind of "reasonable interpretation" idea, which was the wrong standard, but I think part of the point there relates to the "in context" mentioned in the heading and content, as reasonable "in context" conclusions that might be made need to be considered in line with the later discussion (that the article/context was left out in error – which you did seem to think had merit as a point).

Ie, Depp's team is effectively pointing out not only was there an error in leaving out the context of the article, but it was an error that mattered in some central ways – because of the kind of interpretation a reasonable person might be expected to make given the full context of matters (which the jury was denied). It's one thing to say "Was there any conceivable path the jury could take to their result? Then that's what you're stuck with, guys" where the jury had all the relevant material, but where they don't, how a reasonable person would be influenced by the "missing" relevant material matters.

To take an extreme, if there's some kind of smoking gun evidence left out in error, the fact that a jury conceivably could have still made a conclusion contrary to it doesn't negate the issues caused by them never getting to know about it. To me it seems Depp's lawyers are trying to point out: "Here's what a reasonable person would conclude, IN CONTEXT (ie, not the conclusion found below)… Here's how the jury didn't get the required context (and should have)… See how there's a problem here?" They're trying to talk up the "smoking gun" quality of the context (making it less likely that if a "missing context" error is determined to have been made, that it will be glossed over as too insignificant to the result to matter).

Maybe it might have been clearer if these two topics were addressed side by side in the content, but I think there were other reasons for the ordering/organisation they gave in the document.

Kurt, I always appreciate your methodical approach in these analyses. Thank you 🙋‍♀️🧡🧡💐

I think the clear error argument in not admitting the article is why they included 3 (non-actionable opinion). Because of the clear error in keeping out the full article, the defamatory interpretation may be reasonable; but in context of the full article, the only reasonable interpretation is that he was presenting his client's side of the disputed story. Those two arguments work in tandem, then, which is nice parallelism for the construction of the overall argument.

Blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa.

I like your shirt Kurt!

He got Black's Law Dictionary and a magic 8 ball. Looks like he has everything he needs to become a sovereign citizen.

IIRC (from some videos by TUG) … the "secret knowledge of Waldmann" included ADMISSIONS to the alleged fact by JOSH DREW (one of the people living rent free in one of the penthouses) … and the photographic evidence of the spilled wine can also PROVE the fact, BUT these pictures were never discussed in trial.

[ MY SIMPLE ANALYSIS: One of the pictures was "spilled wine on the wall" and it was alleged that a) this came from a Magnum sized bottle, b) which Johnny was "sloshing about", c) but which wasnt seen on the elevator footage AND MOST IMPORTANTLY d) it shows only TINY ROUND DROPLETS on the wall, which prove that they hit the wall from a PERPENDICULAR angle and WITHOUT ANY HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL MOVEMENT, which "swinging the bottle" would include.

The way to create these "perfectly round spots of wine" is to a) take a glass of wine, b) dip your finger into it and c) flick the wine towards the wall. This would be somewhat consistent with the amount of wine on the wall (they dont have big streaks running down the wall, so it was "drops") AND the lack of movement in the original drops.]