The #MeToo movement took center stage on the 12th day of the Johnny Depp V. Amber Heard trial. The defamation suit that Depp filed against Heard centers on her article in the Washington Post. Previous testimony has revealed that it was written by four ACLU lawyers on Heard’s behalf. Depp’s legal team argued that he lost the job due to the publication of the article that mentioned Heard’s abusive marriage. Depp claims that he has lost the iconic Captain Jack Sparrow role in Pirates of the Caribbean just two days after the Op-Ed was published.
Richard Marks, an entertainment lawyer who has worked in Hollywood for 50 years, was today a witness for the plaintiff and testified that Depp’s career was ruined by the Washington Post article.
He said, “The family-friendly companies such as Disney are at the pinnacle of insensitivity.” “They are especially sensitive, not in general but in a particular way.” Heard said that when asked about the reception of the Washington Post article in Hollywood, Heard’s lawyers objected to expert testimony, claiming that it was “personal testimony.”
Nick Rekieta is an attorney and runs the Rekieta Law YouTube channel. He said that there is no difference in the expert testimony of the expert. Heard’s lawyers reacted furiously to Marks’ testimony and tried to stop him from answering the question. Judge Penney Azcarate overruled this objection. “This op-ed was published for the first time in a major publication, the Washington Post.” Marks responded by pointing out that the paper is a well-known journal. We’re not referring to a trade paper. We are not referring to a newspaper. Marks said, “We’re talking about The Washington Post.” He then pointed out that the article was written to benefit Hollywood executives. Marks stated that the article was geared towards Hollywood. Heard actually addressed Hollywood executives directly and accused them of protecting her ex-husband in the following passage from a Washington Post article.
Two years later, I was made a public representative of domestic abuse and felt the full force our culture’s wrath at women who speak up.
My friends and advisors said to me that I would not be allowed to work again as an actress. My role was recast in a movie to which I was attached. After having just completed a two-year campaign for a global fashion brand as its face, the company fired me. There were questions about whether or not I could keep my Mera role in “Justice League” or “Aquaman”.
I was able to see in real-time how institutions protect victims of abuse.
Imagine a strong man sailing a ship like the Titanic. This ship is a massive enterprise. It strikes an iceberg and there are many people aboard, desperate to repair the damage. They don’t believe in the ship or care about it, but their fates depend upon the enterprise.
Marks pointed to this passage and said “It says two years ago”-referring to Depp’s divorce date. “Amber Heard is saying….’Hollywood, you stood up for my abuser. Heard’s lawyers tried to interrupt this horrific testimony, but Marks continued his testimony before the jury.
“Amber Heard called out Hollywood for supporting her abuser since 2016, and she felt the wrath of Hollywood,” Marks said, referring to the editorial’s disputed claims. He pointed out that Amber Heard was calling out Hollywood to do something in The Washington Post on the eve of her biggest movie. There was a lot of news and publicity. This was her peak fame, and she used it at the moment to call Hollywood out,” He said. Heard’s lawyers tried to find another way to object but failed to do so. Marks said, “They heard that plea loudly and clearly.”
This is the core of this case. This case is not about who peed in which bed, or whether someone threw their phone up on a balcony, threw clothes down the stairs, or kicked some cabinets during a temper tantrum. The trial is about Depp’s claims that he was a victim of Heard’s spousal abuse allegations. These were published in Washington Post and amplified and amplified through the #MeToo movement. This movement has immense power in Hollywood. It has decimated many careers due to abuse allegations. Some have been confirmed, while others have been denied or not confirmed. It was a terrifying time for due process, and the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” (You’ll find my book “Believe Evidence” here.
Heard’s allegations set #MeToo in high gear. All the pieces fell exactly where activists wanted them to regardless of the truth. Depp’s side was not what anyone wanted to hear. Depp was canceled while Heard’s career took off in Hollywood and the activist sphere. She became a spokesperson at L’Oreal’s “Women of Worth”, an “Ambassador for the ACLU in gender-based violence, and a UN “Human Rights Champion”. She was flown around the globe to advocate and speak. Heard was like Angelina Jolie who works for refugees through the UN. These opportunities would not have been possible without Roberta Kaplan, her ex-attorney and founder of Time’s Up and the ACLU; and other prominent #MeToo activists who helped her rise to prominence based on Depp’s allegations.
Jack Whigham, Depp’s manager, testified Monday that Depp had lost all major film development after the Washington Post article was published. Whigham, who testified that the Washington Post article had been “extremely influential”, testified that all studio jobs were gone between December 18, 2018, and October 2020. Whigham learned from Disney executives that Margo Robbie was being considered for the role of Pirates of the Caribbean 6. Whigham stated, “It became obvious they [Disney] had gone in a different direction.”
Whigham’s testimony further showed that Whigham failed to convince Disney executives to reconsider their position. Whigham said, “I wasn’t successful in saving Pirates for Johnny.” “It was impossible to get him a film in a studio after the op-ed.”
The chances of Depp winning this case are greatly increased if Depp’s team can bring home these losses to jurors. The claim of defamation must be proven that there was financial damage. So far, the harm seems obvious. Heard’s defense is yet to present its case and will start as soon as Tuesday.
Heard’s team is having trouble influencing public opinion. Heard actually fired her PR staff just days before she was due to stand. According to the New York Post, she fired her PR staff because of negative headlines about her. PR firms don’t have the ability to make the most damning testimony under oath disappear. You can see the NY Post article explaining Heard’s decision in my live stream from Monday’s trial. You can join me on YouTube as I cover the trial in detail. Mega-pints are shared and live chats take place, and everyone has a great time (except Amber and her PR staff, I imagine).
