AQUAMAN Star Amber Heard Loses Legal Team Ahead Of Libel Battle With Ex-Husband Johnny Depp

AQUAMAN Star Amber Heard Loses Legal Team Ahead Of Libel Battle With Ex-Husband Johnny Depp

The real-life drama between Aquaman star Amber Heard and Fantastic Beast's Johnny Depp continues, with the actress's legal team dropped out of their libel battle shortly before the trial begins!

News
By Nighthawk01 - Jun 18, 2020 06:06 AM EST
Filed Under: Aquaman
Source: Cinema Blend

The ongoing legal battle between Aquaman star Amber Heard and ex-husband, Fantastic Beast's Johnny Depp, just took a strange turn. Believe it or not, Heard's legal team has split with the actress just ahead of her upcoming libel trial (which some believe could lead to jail time). 

Depp first filed a claim against Heard in 2019 for defamation after she penned an article accusing him of physically abusing her during their troubled eighteen-month marriage. Despite a delay caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the trial is moving forward minus Heard's defense team which was to be headed up by Roberta Kaplan.

Kaplan is a prominent Los Angeles lawyer who was a big part of the "Times Up" movement, but Heard is said to be on board with this change, and claims to have no problem with her lawyers dropping out. Now, she intends to use local counsel in Virginia, and among the reasons Kaplan's firm gave for dropping out were "travel and logistics" becoming "more costly."

Depp's lawyers have also responded, with his main lawyer, Adam Waldman, saying, "Ms. Heard’s lawyers, one of whom co-founded the #TimesUp Legal Defense Fund, have now apparently unhitched from Ms Heard’s long-disproven frauds. We intend to discover why."

This is certainly intriguing, and comic book fans remain uncertain whether both Depp and Heard will be brought back for their respective franchises given this legal battle between the two. 

Click HERE for more Aquaman news from CBM!

Impressive Mera Cosplay Goes Viral Following Amber Heard's Reduced Role In AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM
Related:

Impressive Mera Cosplay Goes Viral Following Amber Heard's Reduced Role In AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM
AQUAMAN: Newly Surfaced Concept Art Reveals Scrapped JUSTICE LEAGUE Cameo In 2018 Blockbuster
Recommended For You:

AQUAMAN: Newly Surfaced Concept Art Reveals Scrapped JUSTICE LEAGUE Cameo In 2018 Blockbuster

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
KWilly
KWilly - 6/18/2020, 6:17 AM


WB, recast her Mera for Deborah Ann Woll. Plz. Oh, and Ezra Miller too. Kick him out.
mastakilla39
mastakilla39 - 6/18/2020, 6:58 AM
@KWilly - lol, all of this just in time for DC's Fandome event too. They are prob going to skip aquaman 2 & flash news
KingLeonidas
KingLeonidas - 6/18/2020, 7:01 AM
@KWilly - That's actually a great replacement!
SpiderParker14
SpiderParker14 - 6/18/2020, 7:26 AM
@KWilly - What about Emilia Clarke for Mera? She and Jason Momoa shared chemistry during their tenure on Game of Thrones.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 6/18/2020, 6:20 AM
They dropped their defense of her based on "Travel and logistics" becoming more costly?

Right. Sounds to me like they finally realized she's full of crap and has no evidence to back up her claims.

What lawyers would drop a high profile case like this against an actor worth multi-millions if they were confident they had a chance of winning? Despite travel and logistics costs, they would have made ass loads of money if they won.

So again, sounds like they knew they didn't have a chance.
patgreyc
patgreyc - 6/18/2020, 7:24 AM
@CorndogBurglar - Never a good sign when you're PAID legal team drops you at the last minute.
Himura
Himura - 6/18/2020, 12:46 PM
@CorndogBurglar - her not having a chance to win doesn’t really matter. They still get paid regardless.
JustALurker
JustALurker - 6/18/2020, 9:29 PM
@CorndogBurglar - I doubt they realized anything about her, they finally realized the fans don't want her.
inkniron
inkniron - 6/18/2020, 6:23 AM
Such a shame when a bad thing like this happens to such a good woman/
Se4M4NSt4ine
Se4M4NSt4ine - 6/18/2020, 7:40 AM
@inkniron -
Origame
Origame - 6/18/2020, 6:24 AM
Its really saying something about the #timesup movement considering not only the choice to back down but the overall reason they gave. No, nothing to do with overwhelming evidence that your client was the real perpetrator of domestic violence. Just that "its too costly". Seriously, how much can it cost that heard, a successful hollywood actress, cant afford it?

Either they believe heard but are backing down the second it gets too hard, or they realize they backed up the actual perpetrator but refuse to admit it because heard is a woman and depp is a man. This is showing that this has never been about justice.
Chewtoy
Chewtoy - 6/18/2020, 6:31 AM
@Origame - You do understand that a lawyer can’t quit and say about their client “I think she’s totally guilty”, right? It has nothing to do with who is a man and who is a woman in the case. Everything they know about the case is still subject to client confidentiality.
Origame
Origame - 6/18/2020, 6:51 AM
@Chewtoy - you can just leave it as "we arent supporting heard legally at this time" and leave it at that. Regardless of reason this is true and any guess you have as to the actual reason is entirely based on that from a legal standpoint. My point isnt that they should say "heard is guilty yo". Its that they refuse to let anyone so much as think they did this because they dont believe heard so they're using this bs "cost and logistics" excuse.
Chewtoy
Chewtoy - 6/18/2020, 7:03 AM
@Origame - “they refuse to let anyone so much as think they did this because they dont believe heard”

Yes... that’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. Even leaving aside the risk of being disciplined, disbarred, or sued by their former client, future clients aren’t going to be as enthusiastic about hiring a lawyer that allowed the public to think that they didn’t believe Heard.
Origame
Origame - 6/18/2020, 7:34 AM
@Chewtoy - ...no. thats not true. A lawyer isnt getting fired just because of what the public thinks. Now again, if they arent careful with their words on why they left then they can get into trouble with the risk of disbarment but the simple act of not representing a client and leaving it at that isnt going to do that. You're not even legally required to speak to the press. Wtf are you talking about?

The only thing i can think of is that this will hurt future clientele. However considering the #timesup movement is meant to be about giving legal power to people in this situation, im pretty sure they're hurting themselves anyway by leaving the services of a wealthy client because its too costly. Not to mention lawyers arent supposed to lie about their client. They can get disbarred if they're lying about that.
Chewtoy
Chewtoy - 6/18/2020, 8:59 AM
@Origame - Nobody suggested a lawyer getting fired... I did suggest they might have trouble getting hired if they left a highly public case in a way that looked bad for their client.

There’s no legal requirement to speak to the press, but it’s a highly public case and law teams handling such cases are expected to deal with public perception.

I just don’t know what you want from the law team... you originally complained that they “refuse to admit” that she’s the perpetrator (sure to get them disbarred) and then that they refuse to let the public believe she was guilty via their silence, which would reflect badly on their ability to handle public cases.

I agree that the reasons given are almost certainly P.R. Spin... but spinning is what lawyers are supposed to do when discussing their cases with the press and public.
Origame
Origame - 6/18/2020, 9:31 AM
@Chewtoy - 1) ok that was a typo. And you can clearly tell that was a typo as i kept using disbarment.

2) and im not saying they wouldnt. Just that they dont have to and even if they did they can just leave it as the simple fact they cant represent her at this time. Nowhere is this saying the reasoning why and any assumption the public has is their assumption. And again, they cant lie about the reason why they left, so if this really was because they felt heard was really guilty, they can be disbarred for saying it was financial.

3) my point is that they wont even let you vaguely think its possible this is because a woman is guilty. What part of that dont you get?

4) that isnt spinning. Thats lying. Or are we really supposed to believe that representing a client like heard wont give you the means to handle the necessary costs? Or that logistics makes any sense considering we're talking about such a high profile case. Seriously, whats getting in the way and why is that taking priority over this case? Think about it.
KingLeonidas
KingLeonidas - 6/18/2020, 6:25 AM
Has WB fired her yet?
Thing94
Thing94 - 6/18/2020, 6:25 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

TIMES UP AMBER!
Spidey91
Spidey91 - 6/18/2020, 6:28 AM
damn. you could say she's in...hot water.
campblood
campblood - 6/18/2020, 6:47 AM
@Spidey91 -

GeneralZod
GeneralZod - 6/18/2020, 6:31 AM
"...upcoming libel trial (which, some believe, could lead to jail time)." How can a damages verdict (assuming one is rendered in Mr. Depp's favor) in a civil libel trial lead to jail time, which is the punishment often meted out from a criminal trial?
Chewtoy
Chewtoy - 6/18/2020, 6:34 AM
@GeneralZod - Yeah, a civil trial cannot lead directly to jail time. At best, revelations from the trial could lead to criminal charges being filed if any laws were broken, and *that* case could lead to jail time.
patgreyc
patgreyc - 6/18/2020, 7:29 AM
@GeneralZod - I don't think Ruby has much legal experience.
TheOtherOn
TheOtherOn - 6/18/2020, 7:25 PM
@GeneralZod - Jail time won't be just based on Depp's case. She actually faked her injuries and lied about domestic abuse. Her jail time will be for falsifying the evidence and faking those injuries.
TheOtherOn
TheOtherOn - 6/18/2020, 7:29 PM
@TheOtherOn -

"Under Penal Code 141 PC, California law makes it illegal to plant or tamper with evidence for the purpose of causing someone to be charged with a crime, or to be produced with a deceptive effect at a legal proceeding.

Specifically, 141 PC states that "any person who knowingly, willfully, and intentionally alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Planting evidence or tampering with evidence is an obstruction of justice crime and can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.1 And police officers who plant or tamper with evidence will be charged with a felony."

https://www.shouselaw.com/planting-tampering-evidence.html
soberchimera
soberchimera - 6/18/2020, 6:31 AM
Well when she's flat-on-her-ass broke, she's welcome to come stay with me...
GhostDog
GhostDog - 6/18/2020, 6:58 AM
@soberchimera - she might tune you up though
soberchimera
soberchimera - 6/18/2020, 7:13 AM
@BlackBeltJones -
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder