Amber Heard wanted Johnny Depp's name added BACK to op-ed alleging abuse: Lawyer

us for weights on December 11th continuing on to the next or strike that let's go to the email on the last line Jessica weitz's email she says team timestamp because they're all what's the time stamp on the email that you're referring to uh I'm sorry this is December 11th email at 11 05 a.m okay um Jessica weeks you see that okay and she says Amber sent back the op-ed with final edits from her legal team which specifically neutered much of the copy regarding her marriage in the domestic violence do you see that I do is that consistent with your recollection I'm not sure about the use of the term neutered here um but I do know that her lawyers um removed references to her marriage and divorce and then she writes the goal is to get this out this week to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman what does that mean that means from the aclu's perspective that Amber is about to receive an incredible amount of press and be in the public eye so what what better a time would it be than now to put out this op-ed so that it generates significant readership about our issues and Amber agreed with the ACLU on that point correct I believe the answer is yes every step of the way we were making these decisions with um Amber's um PR Representatives involved okay let's move back to um an email in the middle of 257 okay and uh it is from Jessica Wheats uh time stamped 1109 a.m on December 11 2018. okay Robin her lawyers omitted the below but Amber would love to see a way to have that part in bold somehow put back in is there an Artful way to do that otherwise she is okay with the final uh two years ago I sought a temporary restraining order from my then husband Ellipsis was changed to two years ago after successfully acquiring a temporary restraining order but still not cleared by her lawyers do you see that I do because that uh consistent with your understanding about what Ms heard's desires what were yeah yeah I I trust Jessica White's relationship with Amber so that when Jessica told Robin that that was something Amber wanted I have no reason to think that that's not correct okay and finally let's look at the beginning um the first email exhibit 41 from Stacy Sullivan to Jessica Wheats there's yes and I need to read the latest version and Robin told me Amber's lawyers took out some of the stuff that made it really powerful so let me look to see if I think it's strong enough for top tier um what did she mean by top tier I think from Stacy's perspective the more powerful a document is the more likely it will go into a top-tier news outlets such as the New York Times or the Washington Post you know that sort of descending tiering that was in Jerry Johnson's email okay and as exhibit 41 kept in the ordinary course of the aclu's business yes was it prepared in the ordinary course of the aclu's business by people having knowledge and done so contemporaneously yes okay thank you let's move ahead to 43. yes sir standby okay um [Music] directing your attention to the first page in exhibit 43 from Jessica weeks to Sean Waltz Who's Sean Walsh um Sean Walsh at www.arkconsulting.com I don't know who that is this is an email that includes in it people other than ACLU employees and ACLU Consultants so I'm assuming it's somebody relating to um you know one of Amber's Representatives that I don't know for sure uh do you know who Eric George is and George BGR firm yes Eric George was one of Amber's attorneys and uh she's announcing to the group that it's going to the Washington Post a triple exclamation points correct take it the ACLU was pleased that it was placed in the Washington Post correct and I believe you testified earlier but I just want to confirm for the record the ACLU uh took on the responsibility of attempting to place the op-ed correct correct and why the ACLU instead of Amber or her PR team um placing um op-eds about matters such as this is the kind of thing that is the bread and butter for the ACLU and so um I don't recall if a conversation happened about whether her PR people are rpr people should Place uh should be in the ones that do the work to place this but it is fully consistent with how we do our work that we place this one all right let's go back to uh exhibit 42 if you don't mind Mr standby have you ever seen this document before Mr Doherty I am um familiar with this document uh is this one of the documents you reviewed in preparation for this deposition today yes was it made in the ordinary course of aclu's Business by people having knowledge and doing so contemporaneously correct yes was it maintained by the ACLU and the ordinary course of business yes uh would you please uh direct your attention sir to page Bates number 1181 in the middle of the page reports to be an email from Stacy Sullivan Michael larabee uh and others at the Washington well I'll just say Michael larabee who is Michael larabee um Arabi appears to be a person who is a contact that Stacy Sullivan had at the Washington Post and so she sent she reached out to him first about placing the ad and then because she received a bounce back out of office from Mike larabee she sent the um her original request to Michael Duffy and Mark Laswell also and what was the purpose of her sending them this email this was her attempt to get the op-ed placed and she writes hey Michael wondering if we might interest you in a piece by Amber Heard who as you may recall was beaten up during her brief marriage to Johnny Depp on what the incoming Congress can do to help protect women in similar situations did I read that correctly yes you read it correctly all right let's look please let's turn to exhibit 73 . let's stand by [Music] yeah Doherty have you ever seen this document before yes is this the online copy of the op-ed that the ACLU placed yes directing your attention to the title Amber Heard colon I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's Wrath that has to change who came up with that title based on my investigation I'm not aware of any um any uh I'm not aware that the Asylum had any role in um writing the name of the op-ed piece and my understanding of how op-ed pieces work is that it is the um the in the the the media so the in this case The Washington Post would have drafted the um the name of the the title of the op-ed and not and not the person who wrote the op-ed did the Washington Post uh seek the aclus or misheard's approval of its title I believe the answer to that is no there's nothing in the evidence that shows that they reached out to us to do that and it is inconsistent with my understanding in that they do these news outlets do not usually ask for the permission um of the author of The op-ed to um for you know for when they come up with the title hello Mr Doherty would you please or would the technician please call up exhibit 45 . Mr Doherty have you ever seen um latest exhibit 45 which is Bates number ACLU 623 um hold on I'm just making it a little bigger okay yes um I've seen this document and this is one of the documents where you reviewed in preparation for your deposition that's correct and what is it this is an article that um was in U.S today and um specifically ties Amber statements in her op-ed piece to Johnny Depp and when Jessica White says so much for not mentioning JD what did she mean I speculate that she was um saying that um there was significant efforts made by Amber's attorneys to take out the references to Johnny Depp in her marriage um and yet nonetheless people made that connection and in particular the reporter for the USA Today took her to be referring to Johnny Depp when she spoke of being the victim of domestic violence correct correct is this was this document prepared in the ordinary course of the aclu's business uh contemporaneously by people having knowledge yes it was it maintained by the ACLU and the ordinary course of business yes and would you please move ahead now to exhibit 46. so standby Mr Doherty have you ever seen exhibit 46 which is ACLU page number 1287. yes what is it this is a um statement by Robin Schulman saying that um that the article that they're referring to basically um you know recasts everything that is said but but ties it to Johnny Depp so miss Schulman is agreeing with Mrs White's characterization that uh the USA took Mr Ms heard to be referring to her allegations of physical violence by Johnny Depp correct yes and she says it's kind of amazing that they just grabbed the entire op-ed and rewrote it using Johnny's name Why was it amazing I don't know why she found it amazing that was consistent with your understanding she was referring at least in part to Johnny Depp correct now based on my review of Prior drafts of the op-ed I knew that they were that that she was referring to Johnny Depp in her marriage physics was exhibit 46 prepared in the ordinary course of business uh by people having knowledge contemporaneously yes was it maintained in the ordinary course of the aclu's business yes okay let's move to exhibit 59 please which is Bates numbers ACLU 2614 through um 2616. okay [Music] have you ever seen this document before um foreign to the beginning yes and what is it this is a conversation among acellular employees regarding what were the amounts contributed to the ACLU that were connected to our relationship with Ms heard and it's this exhibit 59 kept in the ordinary course of the aclu's business um and it was prepared contemporaneously by people with knowledge in the ordinary courts of the ACLU species correct correct and looking at the chart on ACLU 2615 this is the same contributions chart that you testified about earlier from Salesforce correct correct and again as in the prior exhibit this chart or Ledger does not reflect the hundred thousand dollar contribution from Johnny Depp and Amber heard's name in August of 2016. correct correct and you still can't account for why that wouldn't have been included we assume that there was an error made in not including that in Ms heard's account uh you know the where we keep the records of her in Salesforce um although Anthony as you see then raised the very question what about the hundred thousand dollars and directing your attention to the first page in this exhibit do you see the email from Mr Romero to Mr Moresco subject a quick question Mr Romero asked did elon's other gifts come from Vanguard what does that refer my personal knowledge is that Anthony was just asking whether um other gifts from Elon Musk had been issued from recommendations he made to Vanguard regarding his um his donor advice funded Vanguard and Mr maresco then responds one of them yes is five million dollar gift in February 2017 was from Vanguard do you see that I see it and if you look at the next page Vanguard was the same entity that made the soft credit contribution in Amber heard's name to the tune of five hundred thousand dollars correct correct and he says in any case my understanding was that the five hundred thousand dollars from Vanguard was recommended by em you see that guess and EM stands for Elon Musk correct correct and also in that email above that Mr marescos uh states that Mr musk one million dollar gift in May 2018 was from Fidelity do you see that yes he must have either that means a separate donor advice fund he has a Fidelity or from Fidelity um you know in direct investment accounts he has a Fidelity I'm assuming the former but I don't know and if you look at the next page in the Salesforce chart the second payment credited to Ms heard for 350 000 dollars as of December 11 2018 came from that same Fidelity correct I don't know the answer to that question I know that um it came from fidelity Donor advised funds the 350 000 but I don't know if it is Elon musk's Donor advised fund at fidelity but it could be okay let's move thank you on to uh 61 please which is Bates number ACLU 1669 through 71. directing your attention to the last email in this exhibit from Jill Sergeant to Inga Sardis Sorensen and Tyler Richard who were Inga Sardis Sorensen and Tyler Richard um Inga and Tyler are both um senior Communications Department strategists in our Communications Department and Miss sergeant from Reuters asked I'm preparing some material while awaiting a verdict in the Johnny Depp libel trial in London and wanted to fact check Amber heard's current previous links with the ACLU do you recall that miss Mr Depp's uh definitely that this is a reference to Mr Depp's defamation case in the UK against the Sun it appears to me that that's the that's the trial she's referring to okay directing your attention please to page number ACLU 1670 the email from Jessica whites to Tyler Richards do you see where Miss White's writes the answer is yes she's still an ambassador that's a reference to Ms heard still being an ACLU Ambassador correct correct and Miss White's writes quote she donated her full settlement to charity 50 to the ACLU and 50 to another organization that's a reference to Ms urge representation that she donated the full amount of her divorce settlement from Johnny Depp to trap to uh charity correct correct and that statement was not true she had not donated the full amount of her settlement seven million dollars to the ACLU or the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles correct at the time that Jess whites wrote this in July of 2020 Miss heard had not donated her full settlement to the to the ACLU and I'm not aware of what she did to the other organization at the time Miss weitz wrote that the the ACLU was still 2.2 million dollars short even if you credit Miss heard with the hundred thousand that Johnny Depp gave to the ACLU correct at the time that she wrote this there we had received the 1.3 so yes 2.2 million of the full 3.5 million we had not received was 60 exhibit 61 kept in the ordinary course of the aclu's business yes was it prepared in the ordinary course of the business by people having knowledge contemporaneously yes okay let's move to exhibit 62 please have you seen this document before yes what is it this is um Jessica White's reaching out to the Communications Department in order to um come up with a correct statement that we could make in response to the Reuters article and she comes up with recommended language on this um that she then wants to confirm with our development department so she is doing diligence to ensure that anything we say to the media is going to be correct let's move ahead to exhibit 63. do you have that in front of you I'm just thinking it larger right now it just arrived you ever seen this document before yes what is it this is um back and forth between Richard Tyler in the Communications Department Jessica White's and another Communications Department Junior person Ava Lopez um and in all concerns what we can say to what we should say to um Reuters in response to their question about Amber and her contributions to the ACLU and this was prepared in the ordinary course of the ACL youth business correct correct and it was uh prepared and maintained in the ordinary course of the ACL youth business truth true correct let's look at the second page of the exhibit an email from Tyler Richard to Jessica White's who is Tyler Richard it's Richard Tyler and he uh and no it's Tyler Richard that's right Tyler Richard and he is a senior person in our Communications Department uh and Mr Richard says Amber Heard is an ACLU Ambassador for women's rights since 2018. she has she also pledged her full settlement to charity do you see that I do um and Ms White's response yeah I think that's safer I had nightmares about this last night I'm very upset do you think this is okay why was Ms White so upset about the characterization of Miss hurt's charitable donations or lack thereof my understanding is that as a Communications Department professional uh Jessica was concerned about these um news articles that were appearing and what impact they would have on um you know the the the how the ACLU and his work with Amber has seen she was concerned that the ACLU was not telling the truth about Amber's paying the 3.5 million correct I don't see it that way I see it as her doing everything she can in order to produce a correct statement to the Press wouldn't the correct statement to to the Press be uh that she's short a 2.3 million dollars as I testified earlier that's not the kind of thing that we would ever say about a donor to the ACLU instead we would um especially when it isn't the fact that there was any specific time period by which we were supposed to have received um you know any specific amount of money um considering that she didn't sign the pledge agreement and therefore um it it you know there's an attempt so as an organization we attempt to work with our donors who are having financial difficulties in order to receive um you know the funding from them that they want to give to us so no I don't see this I don't know we would in in that sort of scenario we would never say she's short anything um directing your attention to the email um at page number ACLU 1700 okay from Miss weitz to Mr Richard uh dated July 31. she says I'm just stressed about her and the difficulties with all this who is her assume that is Amber Heard why was Miss White's stressed about Amber hurt because this is a stressful thing to have these kinds of news reports out there um and in particular about an ACLU Ambassador what kind of news reports are you referring to what I believe the Reuters article um from the the Reuters article and what did the news articles say that was distressing I think it was it was the um tie between um the attempts to make these heard um uh look poorly in the Press regarding her donations did you talk to Ms White's in preparation for this deposition yes I did what did she tell you about the donations and and how she was stressed about Miss hurt um Ms White's um didn't say anything specific about that didn't ask her about why she said she was stressed about Amber Heard and the difficulties with all this I believed in reviewing the documents that I had an understanding of why this was a difficult situation for um many people so the answer is you didn't ask her about that did you I did not ask her that question I guess we'll have to uh did you ask her about the nightmares she had about Amber Heard and why she had what what the substance of her nightmares were about Amber Heard no I did not uh your honor uh Council for Miss Hurd is now taking over the question all right thank you

Channel: LiveNOW from FOX

Views: 412,593

Keywords: johnny depp, amber heard, johnny depp amber heard, johnny depp net worth, pirates of the caribbean, johnny depp trial, amber heard johnny depp, amber heard elon musk, johnny depp kids, defamation, depp vs heard, johnny depp trial live, depp trial livestream, depp trial live, shannon curry, shannon curry johnny depp, dr shannon curry, shannon curry psychologist, alejandro romero, christian carino

Id: bG9eUYeGRKI

Length: 30min 20sec (1820 seconds)

Published: Thu Apr 28 2022