5 ms·

The article's phrasing is a mischaracterization: Depp and Musk made donations on behalf of Heard, the ACLU didn't go after them to "collect".

_ktx2 4y ago
> When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. It doesn't really specify what the ACLU said or did to get that money. I'm curious what those methods were and if Depp (or Musk) were aware of the ACLU's involvement or the pay to play relationship between Heard and the ACLU.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  In Depp’s case, he paid the first $100,000 of the $7M divorce settlement directly to the ACLU — and she flipped out and demanded the money go to her, rather than directly to the charities she pledged it to: the ACLU and a children’s hospital. Heard never donated the balance of her divorce settlement she publicly pledged.
colpabar 4y ago
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification! That actually makes it kind of funny. I guess there's the possibility of some kind of blackmail, but I don't think musk would let himself be blackmailed quietly. But still, it doesn't seem like the ACLU should be involved in this.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  The ACLU was trying to cash in on #metoo (which was timely, when this was published) — and published Heard’s defamation of Depp, apparently ignoring the numerous flags everyone else could see that Heard was the one abusing Depp. But during the height of #metoo, we weren’t “allowed” to ask those questions because we needed to “believe all women”. Institutional misandry strikes again.
  - tallytarik 4y ago
    > Heard was the one abusing Depp This seems to imply that Depp did not abuse Heard, which was not the view of the judge in the UK defamation trial (he ruled that 12 out of 14 incidents of abuse perpetrated by Depp had been proven to a civil standard). It looks like Heard also abused Depp on at least a few occasions. But there seems to be this online sentiment at the moment that Heard is a compulsive liar and that she did not suffer abuse at all. There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary. I would encourage you to examine the evidence. Heard’s claims weren’t critically examined in the UK — who took her statements at face value while discounting both physical evidence and testimony of others. By contrast in Virginia, where Heard is the subject of forensic analysis, both forensic psychologists have stated that Heard abused Depp — while there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly. There is only evidence that Heard abused Depp. A lawyer on YouTube has been streaming the Virginia trial and posting daily recaps, LegalBytes. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQVtXJ42xmgG9Q7cJI-F6lU4G9aEBMIi https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQVtXJ42xmgG9Q7cJI-F...
      - tallytarik 4y ago
        > there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly. I'm a bit confused about this point - didn't Depp & his witnesses go first? I'd expect the majority of Heard's evidence in this trial to come out (and be examined) over the next couple of weeks. If she calls witnesses that corroborate what you call her 'wild claims', would that change your opinion?
        sumnuyungi 4y ago
        We already have the witness list and know roughly what to expect. The main thing going against Amber is that we've heard from the officers that responded to a couple incidences and each officer has testified as to not observing any injuries nor any damage to the penthouse. There are also zero medical records reporting the injuries she claims to have sustained. Her witness list does not include anyone that will refute those points and is mainly filled with people whose only account of what happened between Johnny/Amber is what they've heard from Amber. Just a sample of her claims thus far: > Walked across a tile floor covered in glass shards from broken bottles and wine > Sexual assault with a (potentially broken) wine bottle > Thrown across a room by the neck > Beaten on top of a bed so forcefully as to have broken the timber bed frame
wdb 4y ago
It's a mess. Looks like that Miss Heard promised $3.5m to ACLU and $3.5 to a children hospital but didn't pay anything to the hospital and only donated like $350k herself to the ACLU. It's pretty wild when Miss Heard told on public television that she donated the full $7m to both parties (in 2018). You wonder what else she is lying about.
- maccolgan 4y ago
  Three and a half dollars?
  - wdb 4y ago
    Sorry, I meant $3.5m for the hospital. The amount that Amber received was $7m tax free that would be split between the two, $500k for attorney fees, and ~$14m communal labilities to be paid by Depp. $7m + ~$14m + $500k + taxes is quite a lot for a 15 month long marriage

_ktx2 4y ago

> When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. It doesn't really specify what the ACLU said or did to get that money. I'm curious what those methods were and if Depp (or Musk) were aware of the ACLU's involvement or the pay to play relationship between Heard and the ACLU.

zmgsabst 4y ago
In Depp’s case, he paid the first $100,000 of the $7M divorce settlement directly to the ACLU — and she flipped out and demanded the money go to her, rather than directly to the charities she pledged it to: the ACLU and a children’s hospital. Heard never donated the balance of her divorce settlement she publicly pledged.

colpabar 4y ago

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification! That actually makes it kind of funny. I guess there's the possibility of some kind of blackmail, but I don't think musk would let himself be blackmailed quietly. But still, it doesn't seem like the ACLU should be involved in this.

zmgsabst 4y ago
The ACLU was trying to cash in on #metoo (which was timely, when this was published) — and published Heard’s defamation of Depp, apparently ignoring the numerous flags everyone else could see that Heard was the one abusing Depp. But during the height of #metoo, we weren’t “allowed” to ask those questions because we needed to “believe all women”. Institutional misandry strikes again.
- tallytarik 4y ago
  > Heard was the one abusing Depp This seems to imply that Depp did not abuse Heard, which was not the view of the judge in the UK defamation trial (he ruled that 12 out of 14 incidents of abuse perpetrated by Depp had been proven to a civil standard). It looks like Heard also abused Depp on at least a few occasions. But there seems to be this online sentiment at the moment that Heard is a compulsive liar and that she did not suffer abuse at all. There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary. I would encourage you to examine the evidence. Heard’s claims weren’t critically examined in the UK — who took her statements at face value while discounting both physical evidence and testimony of others. By contrast in Virginia, where Heard is the subject of forensic analysis, both forensic psychologists have stated that Heard abused Depp — while there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly. There is only evidence that Heard abused Depp. A lawyer on YouTube has been streaming the Virginia trial and posting daily recaps, LegalBytes. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQVtXJ42xmgG9Q7cJI-F6lU4G9aEBMIi https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQVtXJ42xmgG9Q7cJI-F...
    - tallytarik 4y ago
      > there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly. I'm a bit confused about this point - didn't Depp & his witnesses go first? I'd expect the majority of Heard's evidence in this trial to come out (and be examined) over the next couple of weeks. If she calls witnesses that corroborate what you call her 'wild claims', would that change your opinion?
      - sumnuyungi 4y ago
        We already have the witness list and know roughly what to expect. The main thing going against Amber is that we've heard from the officers that responded to a couple incidences and each officer has testified as to not observing any injuries nor any damage to the penthouse. There are also zero medical records reporting the injuries she claims to have sustained. Her witness list does not include anyone that will refute those points and is mainly filled with people whose only account of what happened between Johnny/Amber is what they've heard from Amber. Just a sample of her claims thus far: > Walked across a tile floor covered in glass shards from broken bottles and wine > Sexual assault with a (potentially broken) wine bottle > Thrown across a room by the neck > Beaten on top of a bed so forcefully as to have broken the timber bed frame

wdb 4y ago

It's a mess. Looks like that Miss Heard promised $3.5m to ACLU and $3.5 to a children hospital but didn't pay anything to the hospital and only donated like $350k herself to the ACLU. It's pretty wild when Miss Heard told on public television that she donated the full $7m to both parties (in 2018). You wonder what else she is lying about.

maccolgan 4y ago
Three and a half dollars?
- wdb 4y ago
  Sorry, I meant $3.5m for the hospital. The amount that Amber received was $7m tax free that would be split between the two, $500k for attorney fees, and ~$14m communal labilities to be paid by Depp. $7m + ~$14m + $500k + taxes is quite a lot for a 15 month long marriage