@k4mil1aa Or they will pretend to be surprised to save face about the fact they looked at the evidence and ignored it cus of a rich, famous actor they liked
Instead of saying Amber Heard is a victim of misogyny, say:
It's not ok for a woman to harrass, hit, stalk, threaten, slap, insult, demean and abuse her partner. If they restrain you or leave, it's their right as an abuse victim to protect themselves. It doesn't victimize her.
Just wrote this piece for @eviemagazine
Heard's legal troubles won't end. She is being actively investigated for perjury in Australia which carries a penalty of up to 14 years in Queensland. Read to find out how this could impact appealing the UK verdict
https://t.co/DwbVuNBjYw
"A spokesperson for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment told Law & Crime that it was 'investigating allegations of perjury by Ms. Heard during court proceedings for the 2015 illegal importation of two dogs into Australia.'"
https://t.co/ZJPFqtStqy
❣️ CHARITY UPDATE ❣️
Johnny Depp’s Never Fear Truth NFT sale was always intended to benefit charities and we are pleased to be able to confirm that nearly $800,000 in total donations have been contributed to the following organizations:
"...the media persists w/ their disingenuous coverage of the [Depp v Heard] trial & verdict, neglecting to place the blame on the deserving party – Amber Heard. The corporate mainstream media also demonized [Johnny] Depp supporters as toxic."
https://t.co/leAnTQkhjp
@sajidjavid Thank you for saving us from the threat of Corbynism? What would that have entailed exactly? Rising real wages? Housebuilding? Cheaper rail fares?
Scary stuff.
In conclusion, Elaine’s argument to reduce damages or set aside the evidence is the typical ranting recitation of her own contentions as fact that ignores inconvenient evidence and law that we have come to expect from her. (See her opening statement for another example.)
Elaine makes several convoluted arguments here, woven together into a tapestry of bullshit held together by the soft glue of case law that doesn’t say what she wants it to and dusted with the patina of inconvenient facts.
It’s been a while since I did a full legal review of one of Elaine’s briefs. She’s still up to the same old tired tricks! This will be a long thread; if you'd rather wait for the video version, it's in the editing bay and should be ready tomorrow morning.
🧵