Oh - and I love the boxes you add on screen with definitions etc. I rarely, if ever, say this but you genuinely seem to make perfect choices, I love the answers you give on Twitter, just everything about you is refreshingly brilliant. I’m not a stalker or weirdo by the way, 😂, I sound like such a fan girl here - I’m actually 46 and of completely sound mind, lol. I just think credit should be given where it is due.
Totally agree with you BLOSSOM .. Andrea is the only one with a great handle in explaining and she doesn’t make hour long videos .. that drives me nuts .. some of the hours long videos are good but should be put in parts (my opinion only)
I agree, the girl has class. Thanks for writing that, Andrea is a great narrator, everything about her makes it easy to understand & pleasant. I LOVE how she speaks her mind in such a classy way.
I love watching Andrea and EDB my 2 favorite lawyers on the tube. I love your comment on not being a stalker when your picture is your eye 👁️ 😂. I get it though it’s sometimes hard to convey thoughts and feelings through text
I appreciate that you treat your viewers as intelligent people who are here for more than lurid details of the trial. I watch this channel to LEARN something and I always do! Thank you🌻
I also listen to Crime talk there basically is no judgement just telling what the legal aspects of the case are! No extended talk no opinion basically just the legal aspects & what it means as far as the law!
Well maybe or spell check it has a tendency to change things hard to say! But, crime talk is a good pod cast very straight forward & to the point! Yeah just went to correct it it's spell check!
You are so thoughtful in your explanations, it is wonderful for those of us listening! I personally think this has become much bigger than the trial itself. It seems to have become a wakeup call for common sense and a branch of institutional trust issues in general. I really hope the higher courts get it right. The difference between "personal truth" and "the truth" (collectively reasoned) is an important one for society in general, and "innocent until proven guilty" needs to be reaffirmed, imo.
Absolutely. This trial has opened my eyes to so many things. Especially how our media skews so much! It's really appalling. What I saw in that trial and what was presented in the media were like 2 different trials. Also, the depths a human being will sink to in order to further their "cause". Politicians are not the only ones. All on lies.
Why was no one punished for submitting false photos and metadata faking? Does that not set a precedent for others to fake photo s/meta data? Why is the judge not punished for allowing Fake / fraudulent photos/data?
Can’t prove it’s fake! Even tho to everyone It seems so obvious there something fishy, unless an expert can say without a doubt what is fake and how it was edited there’s just no case and nothing the judge can do but trust the jury’s decision!
Because if they addressed the actual crime of "Photoshopping" and altering images and videos? Then the government wouldn't be able to do it anymore... Especially those pesky politicians and billionaires...
@@davecooke7868 Recordings of Heard admitting assault , perjury, submitting fraudulent evidence and witness testimony against her a case for criminal defamation is possible.Willingness from Depp isn't required, charges can be brought for each offence separately. Pending investigation it's all down to the Fairfax DA Steve Descano, I think.
My fingers and toes are crossed that the verdict stands! JD deserves this, and AH needs to be held accountable. Hopefully holding her accountable will make her think twice before she sets out to try and destroy another persons life with lies!
The question of whether it would have *mattered* seems like it'll be particularly important for these. When the core result of the trial was "the jury doesn't believe Amber", it seems like it'd be particularly difficult to say "if Amber could have just brought in that one new thing it would have made a difference".
If there was one thing that would convince me, it would personally be hospital records Especially for the "sodomy via vodka bottle" incident Like bro you don't get sodomized with a bottle without hospitalization, it's both as painless and sanitary as rubbing a rusted cheese grater on your genitals Ain't nobody gonna stand up fine and punch someone the morning after, but never mind the infections from cuts + the bottle itself, or the pee seeping into the cuts afterward - you'd need a lot of treatment for that
@@Necroxion This was the basis for my disbelief in AH's Australian story plus the pictures of her getting off of the plane in LA in high heeled shoes and skinny jeans. There is NO WAY that ANYONE that had been abused in the way AH is adamantly claiming that she would be able to wear either one of those things. Besides that there were medical personnel at the scene less than 24 hours after this so called rape/batter/major glass cuts to her body scenarios. You would think that that many injuries to AH would have not only been noted but sent to the hospital for treatment. The only thing she was treated for at the time was extreme anxiety. There are no hospital treatment records to back up anything that she has said that has happened over the years that AH and JD were together. There are pictures of JD has cuts, abrasions and several black eyes.
Thanks Andrea, I believe you have covered this question previously and gave a few, based on facts presented. Viewers, please check out the other videos they are really informative.
Was it perjury for AH to claim that she had not “donated” the “pledged” funds to charity because JD had sued her and she had to spend millions defending herself? Elaine also reiterated the same claim to the Court. Then we find out post trial that AH’s legal bills were being footed by two insurance companies and not paid at all by herself. Can such direct misleading of the trial court become an issue during the appeal?
And of course the fact that there was over a year between receiving the full 7 million and the lawsuit happening, yet she didn't spend a cent in between.
This would likely be seen as not relevant to the case. It was mostly important for building Heard's character to the Jury, but a Judge similar to Mr. Nichols might disregard that part What CAN be claimed as Perjury though was the initial argument of "oh I didn't write the Op Ed"
She signed a witness statement in the UK. Signed under penalty of perjury, stating she donated the whole amount. Not she opened up a pledge for the full amount.
@@linzi94 who does that sort of thing when, as you rightly say, “under penalty of perjury”? I’d say that a person must be toxic, in major ways, to consider it, totally betraying their honour which is a critically important attribute.
Andrea, do you think that...on the flip side, her winning the one claim of Adam Waldman's (which imo, there was flimsy evidence that it was actually JD's statement) statement would give JD a possible chance, bc they don't want a NEW legal precedent that a lawyers statement can be used against clients???
I appreciate all the work you put into your streams. It is so easy to go back to sections and re-watch to really let the points sink in. Thank you for making the 'legal' info to be broken down into segments so easily understood by all.
Thanks for not talking as if you were addressing lawyers this is one of your most interesting and understandable shows you have given. Much appreciated.
Well, it will be an interesting scenario to follow. I will be sitting on the edge of my seat for your next breakdown, as always. Thank you, Andrea, for your expert analysis.
Andrea Burkhart's legal analysis and presentation is Superb. Also, love the way you offer a 'timeline' (min:sec) and disclosed what topic is covered. So many people don't understand that an Appeal is not a re-trial. And, it's not an opportunity to introduce 'new evidence'. The Appellate Court as you explained so well, is going to determine whether or not there was an error in judgment by the lower court on the application of procedural laws. (And, not rehash 'he said vs. she said'.)
[re.] Amber's potential success of winning an Appeal, one ruling by Judge Penney A. that seemed questionable (to me) which her Appellate Team should cite, because it did have an impact (allegedly) on whether Team Amber had the opportunity to put forth their best case is 't. l.' (An abbreviation was intentional.) It is not my intent to help Team Amber perfect their appellate case arguments, since the correct verdict was reached in 'Depp vs. Heard'. However, I believe the Jury got it wrong on Amber's counter suit 'Heard vs. Depp'. Holding Johnny accountable for what another person (his lawyer Adam Waldman) said was an error.
Why do courts not get mad when lied to? Based on the idea that the lies could destroy somebody or businesses way of life, if ruled wrongly during the court process, shouldn't there be punishment? Is it safe to assume, that if caught, that would result in being a different case needed filed?
Thank you so much Andrea for going to the trouble to explain everything to us, and keeping us up to date. You are terrific. You explain things so clearly, and include everything we want to know, and are so interesting. You make it all very interesting and easy to understand. And I love your approach and attitude. I love watching and listening to you. Thank you. And you always look so lovely.
Andrea thank you so much for being a good lawyer and telling us the facts. Now we wait for November 2nd. Your videos are so well made and easy to understand. When there is nothing new, you do not speculate for hours like some other channels. I hope this chapter is over soon so all other issues can be solved finally. The Australia dog process has not started yet. The English process has to be reviewed as judge Nicol was biased and not correct.
"Her Truth" is just another "alternative facts" way of saying more media-sponsored lies from Amber, because she attracts tribal feminists by repeating their talking points. Having her appeal glorified is just giving an excuse to try to relitigate a loss, because the jury found her completely non-credible. In other words, they decided she's been lying, so they'll criticize their reasoning. It's just a revisionistic narrative, rather than a legal argument or basis for a valid appeal. Frankly, it's irresponsible of an appeals court to even hear her case, it's groundless.
I really appreciate how educational this channel is. The US court and justice system seems to have more complexity and special contingencies than the English language itself 😊 We will wait to be either surprised or amazed with the following legal processes, and of course your excellent breakdown of it. Would love to hear your take on the JD appeal…
Why do they have to search it? It has nothing to do with the case and both are different cases. Palin sued the newspaper while Johnny sued Amber so the standard of defamation is different
I feel she has a n uphill climb. I just don’t believe she going to win. Judge Azcarate did her job in the realm of the law. AH first Amendment was not violated. Jury made a judgment off of evidence and testimony given. ❤ thank you Andrea always insightful. ❤❤❤
@anita capilato It seems to me she's now in a self created prison, hiding away, trying to avoid anyone but her stooges. 330 million people watched the trial, and all but the most dedicated of heards toadies saw what a unpleasant manipulative bullying liar she is. A gilded cage is still a cage.
God help us all if AH doesn't get what she wants (and she probably won't) she'll drag this up to the Supreme Court (if they'll EVEN take it) and this could go on for years!
I don't know how she can ask for an appeal after she had lied over and over and turned in fake evidence so many times on top of her mountain of evidence it was all fake I hope and pray the judges look at this and throw it at her
That is the most amazing painting behind you. The way the colour moves as the fish move towards the light is magical. The fish themselves are both beautiful and humorous. Thanks for the explanations. I never understood before why the British Court reuling was being argued as making this case illegitimate.
Have you heard that she’s trying to get Angelina Jolie on her side?! Thank you so much for the incredible content you make and the simple yet effective way you do it. It’s nice to be able to just focus on what you are saying rather than keep stopping for super hard, shout outs etc. An occasional live is fine but honestly, your production choices are total YT goals for me. Thank you so much. PS you are so pretty and have a beautiful voice.
@@patriciarockwell2227 Ok. I always heard it as 'pound sand.' So I'm not sure if you meant it as a pun. Because Jolie starred in a movie called, "Salt."
@@m.w.976 iirc she basically predicted exactly what would happen. And she was pretty adamant in support of JD, and her disbelief of AH's claims, from start to finish. I think she saw right through her.
Judge Askarati followed the laws to the letter , she was more than fair to both parties , more so did not punish nor rebuke incompetant lawyers in a way to discredit them , she also followed with the questions to the jury with those chosen by Ambers team , the only option is freedom of speach but that does not and would not change the outcome of the trial when they followed it to the letter such in existence now .
I would argue that, if anything, Judge A leaned towards Team AH in a lot of her rulings during the trial. A lot of Judges would have been a lot harsher with Elaine, too. Overall, Judge A seemed remarkably fair. I find it hard to believe that Judge A's rulings outside the eyes of the public would be any different.
Thanks for this. The next question I have is "what would a victory for Amber Heard's appeal mean?" Could it reverse the verdict and find Johnny guilty? Lessen or erase the damages? Order a retrial?
maybe they can reduce/remove what she have to pay, they can't reverse the verdict without a new trial and retrial its almost impossible, i think JD have much more chance to remove 2 milion he have to pay than her; on appeal you have to work on the proof presented on the trial she can't bring new "evidence"
Watch the trial again. Every day. Do you see a mistake made by judge Azcerate? There will not be a retrial because judge A made no mistake. It is all on tape.
It's my understanding that the Appellate Court can reverse the entire judgment and send it back to lower court for new trial. They can affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment and sent it back to lower court for a new trial. So there's no finding JD "guilty" in either of those scenarios.
@@jmason1770 it can orden a new trial but like i said its almost impossible in this case there are no element for new trial...the proof are overweelming in his favour...just think that JD presented 10 years of texts message while she presented zero of her text message
Well, Heard's appeal motion documents are now out. I wonder if Andrea Burkhart has read them yet. There did not seem to be arguments about 1st amendment/malice issues as Mr Burkhart had been saying she thought Heard's lot would go with. Given that Heard's appeal lawyers are meant to be heavy weight, I thought the motion seemed weak. It pretty much just said...everything the Judge decided that Heard didn't like was wrong, everything the Jury decided that Heard didn't like the Judge ought to have said were wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AH team prevented Stephen Deuters from giving testifying as well as his wife (by presenting fake evidence to the judge), but desperately tried to include an email that he allegedly sent Amber regarding a plane incident, which kept getting objected to successfully as hearsay. And then they accused JD's team of shady tactics!
Legally she stands slim to no chance and a lot of what's being put out seems to be more about the press then court. She stands a fair chance of losing the 2 million judgement as it was against a person who was not an employee of Dep so him being held accountable maybe in question. In the end she likely to be even worse off when all said and done.
What are the opinions on Johnny Depp's appeal re: Adam Waldman's statement? IMO, he's being erroneously held responsible for Waldman's statement (via the $2 million trial judgement), not to mention there were actual truths in the statement - law enforcement & their body cam didn't see/record any damage when they went to the penthouse, not once but twice. Is his appeal winnable? Thoughts? Please. Thank you!
Can the appeal judges view depositions to compare for confirmation? Eg. The trip up about TMZ? Or just the fact, she avoided answering questions directly, just as she did on the stand?
@@dima6580 I didn’t just mean this video, I mean all of them. Andrea is incredible and I feel like AH would be stoopid not to have watched her and taken notes. Just my thoughts 👍
I really appreciate this totally unbiased view of this “nightmare’. I am some what concerned about the new lawyers approach of “free speech” issue. I don’t think she has a chance but… Anyway love your info!
@@vikkideanegomez well shucks Vikki…I absolutely will agree with that! Those guys are the red headed step child of news organizations. Nice call! Your absolutely right.
Today Friday 14th it was announced AH lawyers are putting 16 points forward for the appeal could this make a difference and will you please look at these and do a video explaining what and why it could change the jury's outcome.
Andrea always has a choice of relevant words, her explanations are clear, her videos are reflective, she perfectly masters pedagogy! And I love her slides where she uses the definition of legal jargon to facilitate our understanding. And above all his voice and tone are perfect even for non-Anglophone like me.
I love the way you speak to your audience. You never talk down or over-explain. And you make SO much sense! Always refreshing.
She is actually a hypnotist that uses her head motions and tonal inflections to mesmerize us and convince us she is a lawyer. 😉
@@notsofresh8563 😂
@@notsofresh8563 hahaha what did she say. yes or no?
Oh - and I love the boxes you add on screen with definitions etc. I rarely, if ever, say this but you genuinely seem to make perfect choices, I love the answers you give on Twitter, just everything about you is refreshingly brilliant. I’m not a stalker or weirdo by the way, 😂, I sound like such a fan girl here - I’m actually 46 and of completely sound mind, lol. I just think credit should be given where it is due.
Totally agree with you BLOSSOM .. Andrea is the only one with a great handle in explaining and she doesn’t make hour long videos .. that drives me nuts .. some of the hours long videos are good but should be put in parts (my opinion only)
I agree, the girl has class. Thanks for writing that, Andrea is a great narrator, everything about her makes it easy to understand & pleasant. I LOVE how she speaks her mind in such a classy way.
Well, she is a boxer, so ...
I love watching Andrea and EDB my 2 favorite lawyers on the tube. I love your comment on not being a stalker when your picture is your eye 👁️ 😂. I get it though it’s sometimes hard to convey thoughts and feelings through text
She’s a total badass and I’m a huge fangirl too!!
I appreciate that you treat your viewers as intelligent people who are here for more than lurid details of the trial. I watch this channel to LEARN something and I always do! Thank you🌻
I also listen to Crime talk there basically is no judgement just telling what the legal aspects of the case are! No extended talk no opinion basically just the legal aspects & what it means as far as the law!
@@pattypetty9615
That sounds great👌! I'll check it out.
@@jonboll-LGM , don't be a douche, Jon 👍
Well maybe or spell check it has a tendency to change things hard to say! But, crime talk is a good pod cast very straight forward & to the point! Yeah just went to correct it it's spell check!
You are so thoughtful in your explanations, it is wonderful for those of us listening!
I personally think this has become much bigger than the trial itself. It seems to have become a wakeup call for common sense and a branch of institutional trust issues in general. I really hope the higher courts get it right. The difference between "personal truth" and "the truth" (collectively reasoned) is an important one for society in general, and "innocent until proven guilty" needs to be reaffirmed, imo.
Absolutely. This trial has opened my eyes to so many things. Especially how our media skews so much! It's really appalling. What I saw in that trial and what was presented in the media were like 2 different trials. Also, the depths a human being will sink to in order to further their "cause". Politicians are not the only ones. All on lies.
Why was no one punished for submitting false photos and metadata faking? Does that not set a precedent for others to fake photo s/meta data? Why is the judge not punished for allowing Fake / fraudulent photos/data?
Can’t prove it’s fake! Even tho to everyone It seems so obvious there something fishy, unless an expert can say without a doubt what is fake and how it was edited there’s just no case and nothing the judge can do but trust the jury’s decision!
I wish this would be answered. How can this just slide? This seems like a huge, huge deal.
Because it wasn’t a criminal case
Because if they addressed the actual crime of "Photoshopping" and altering images and videos? Then the government wouldn't be able to do it anymore... Especially those pesky politicians and billionaires...
@@davecooke7868 Recordings of Heard admitting assault , perjury, submitting fraudulent evidence and witness testimony against her a case for criminal defamation is possible.Willingness from Depp isn't required, charges can be brought for each offence separately. Pending investigation it's all down to the Fairfax DA Steve Descano, I think.
That’s the best summation of the case to date “the shit show…” Knocked it outta the park Andrea⚾️
Exactly! The greatest sh!t show ever!
😎 somebody pass the popcorn, pls 🍿
In one instance literally...
My fingers and toes are crossed that the verdict stands! JD deserves this, and AH needs to be held accountable. Hopefully holding her accountable will make her think twice before she sets out to try and destroy another persons life with lies!
amber didn't listen to elaine so why would she start now. Thx Andrea for another great post
You explain this in a way that makes it easy to understand.
The question of whether it would have *mattered* seems like it'll be particularly important for these. When the core result of the trial was "the jury doesn't believe Amber", it seems like it'd be particularly difficult to say "if Amber could have just brought in that one new thing it would have made a difference".
If there was one thing that would convince me, it would personally be hospital records
Especially for the "sodomy via vodka bottle" incident
Like bro you don't get sodomized with a bottle without hospitalization, it's both as painless and sanitary as rubbing a rusted cheese grater on your genitals
Ain't nobody gonna stand up fine and punch someone the morning after, but never mind the infections from cuts + the bottle itself, or the pee seeping into the cuts afterward - you'd need a lot of treatment for that
@@Necroxion This was the basis for my disbelief in AH's Australian story plus the pictures of her getting off of the plane in LA in high heeled shoes and skinny jeans. There is NO WAY that ANYONE that had been abused in the way AH is adamantly claiming that she would be able to wear either one of those things. Besides that there were medical personnel at the scene less than 24 hours after this so called rape/batter/major glass cuts to her body scenarios. You would think that that many injuries to AH would have not only been noted but sent to the hospital for treatment. The only thing she was treated for at the time was extreme anxiety. There are no hospital treatment records to back up anything that she has said that has happened over the years that AH and JD were together. There are pictures of JD has cuts, abrasions and several black eyes.
Another well done interesting breakdown. Thank you.
Thanks Andrea, I believe you have covered this question previously and gave a few, based on facts presented. Viewers, please check out the other videos they are really informative.
Thank you, as always, for your commentary!
Please listen to Depp singing "Hallelujah"wonderful
One thing to remember! Judge A is the Queen of Case Law. I’m not worried about her rulings.
This case should just be OVER!
Was it perjury for AH to claim that she had not “donated” the “pledged” funds to charity because JD had sued her and she had to spend millions defending herself? Elaine also reiterated the same claim to the Court. Then we find out post trial that AH’s legal bills were being footed by two insurance companies and not paid at all by herself. Can such direct misleading of the trial court become an issue during the appeal?
And of course the fact that there was over a year between receiving the full 7 million and the lawsuit happening, yet she didn't spend a cent in between.
This would likely be seen as not relevant to the case. It was mostly important for building Heard's character to the Jury, but a Judge similar to Mr. Nichols might disregard that part
What CAN be claimed as Perjury though was the initial argument of "oh I didn't write the Op Ed"
@@Necroxion And the whole "I didn't know TMZ was going to be there, I wanted it to remain unknown as long as possible."
She signed a witness statement in the UK. Signed under penalty of perjury, stating she donated the whole amount. Not she opened up a pledge for the full amount.
@@linzi94 who does that sort of thing when, as you rightly say, “under penalty of perjury”? I’d say that a person must be toxic, in major ways, to consider it, totally betraying their honour which is a critically important attribute.
Always unbiased and informative.
Thanks Andrea! May I ask if you still plan on doing a deep dive on Dr. Hughes’s testimony?
Andrea, do you think that...on the flip side, her winning the one claim of Adam Waldman's (which imo, there was flimsy evidence that it was actually JD's statement) statement would give JD a possible chance, bc they don't want a NEW legal precedent that a lawyers statement can be used against clients???
Yes, I can't believe they wouldn't be thinking about the broader implications for the legal profession if the verdict is allowed to stand.
Nice breakdown of the appeal possibilities. Thank you.
Oh good! I love Sunday morning with Andrea!
As always thankyou for your insight Andrea. I value and respect your opinions.
Well done! Thank you for keeping us up to date….there are still so many of us still intrigued in this. 👏👏👍🇨🇦
Another first - rate explanation. I love your work. A huge thank you.
I appreciate all the work you put into your streams. It is so easy to go back to sections and re-watch to really let the points sink in. Thank you for making the 'legal' info to be broken down into segments so easily understood by all.
Thank you Andrea. You have a gift for making things crystal clear
Thanks for not talking as if you were addressing lawyers this is one of your most interesting and understandable shows you have given. Much appreciated.
Having watched the entire trial, I cannot see any arguments legitimately succeeding.
But I have thought that before and was wrong, so who knows.
AH remains in the news with her appeal otherwise would have fallen into obscurity and forgotten
If you ask me, the only viable thing that would help her would be MEDICAL RECORDS and she already said the only ones were to her therapist!
@@aleccampbell7707 Well, the phrase, "attention whore," seems to made to describe AH. Positive or negative doesn't seem to matter.
Well, it will be an interesting scenario to follow. I will be sitting on the edge of my seat for your next breakdown, as always. Thank you, Andrea, for your expert analysis.
Andrea, I enjoy your videos so much. Thorough, entertaining, educational, and I love your humor! Great job!
Love your coverage. Fact-leader not cheer-leader. Mega quality.
Andrea Burkhart's legal analysis and presentation is Superb.
Also, love the way you offer a 'timeline' (min:sec) and disclosed what topic is covered.
So many people don't understand that an Appeal is not a re-trial.
And, it's not an opportunity to introduce 'new evidence'.
The Appellate Court as you explained so well, is going to determine whether or not there was an error in judgment by the lower court on the application of procedural laws. (And, not rehash 'he said vs. she said'.)
Thanks for your in depth descriptions, Andrea.
[re.] Amber's potential success of winning an Appeal, one ruling by Judge Penney A. that seemed questionable (to me) which her Appellate Team should cite, because it did have an impact (allegedly) on whether Team Amber had the opportunity to put forth their best case is 't. l.' (An abbreviation was intentional.)
It is not my intent to help Team Amber perfect their appellate case arguments, since the correct verdict was reached in 'Depp vs. Heard'. However, I believe the Jury got it wrong on Amber's counter suit 'Heard vs. Depp'. Holding Johnny accountable for what another person (his lawyer Adam Waldman) said was an error.
Why do courts not get mad when lied to? Based on the idea that the lies could destroy somebody or businesses way of life, if ruled wrongly during the court process, shouldn't there be punishment? Is it safe to assume, that if caught, that would result in being a different case needed filed?
Thank you Andrea. This was illuminating and speaking for myself, reassuring. ❤❤
Thank you so much Andrea for going to the trouble to explain everything to us, and keeping us up to date. You are terrific. You explain things so clearly, and include everything we want to know, and are so interesting. You make it all very interesting and easy to understand. And I love your approach and attitude. I love watching and listening to you. Thank you. And you always look so lovely.
It feels as if this bs will never end! She’ll keep going until her benefactors get sick of wasting money.
You hit the nail on the head .... "Her benefactors".
i think its already done before appeal can come. i think we dont come to court again. there is really NOTHING to get the appeal
Andrea thank you so much for being a good lawyer and telling us the facts.
Now we wait for November 2nd.
Your videos are so well made and easy to understand.
When there is nothing new, you do not speculate for hours like some other channels.
I hope this chapter is over soon so all other issues can be solved finally.
The Australia dog process has not started yet.
The English process has to be reviewed as judge Nicol was biased and not correct.
"Her Truth" is just another "alternative facts" way of saying more media-sponsored lies from Amber, because she attracts tribal feminists by repeating their talking points. Having her appeal glorified is just giving an excuse to try to relitigate a loss, because the jury found her completely non-credible. In other words, they decided she's been lying, so they'll criticize their reasoning. It's just a revisionistic narrative, rather than a legal argument or basis for a valid appeal. Frankly, it's irresponsible of an appeals court to even hear her case, it's groundless.
Like your sanity, like your clarity, like your personality, like your fish.
I really appreciate how educational this channel is.
The US court and justice system seems to have more complexity and special contingencies than the English language itself 😊
We will wait to be either surprised or amazed with the following legal processes, and of course your excellent breakdown of it.
Would love to hear your take on the JD appeal…
Love your clear and concise explanations. Thank you.
I hope Johnny's lawyers are researching the position of the Palin case that Amber's lawyers won against Palin for defamation in the NY case.
No problem. I'm sure they're on top of it!
Why do they have to search it? It has nothing to do with the case and both are different cases. Palin sued the newspaper while Johnny sued Amber so the standard of defamation is different
The fact that there was another trial (in the U.K.) is irrelevant as Heard wasn't a party in that. She was just a witness?
Any court reopening this to appeal would be nuts.
Now we know why AH got those First Amendment lawyers!
I feel she has a n uphill climb. I just don’t believe she going to win. Judge Azcarate did her job in the realm of the law. AH first Amendment was not violated. Jury made a judgment off of evidence and testimony given. ❤ thank you Andrea always insightful. ❤❤❤
@anita capilato If that is true you may bet she is not paying for anything.
@anita capilato It seems to me she's now in a self created prison, hiding away, trying to avoid anyone but her stooges. 330 million people watched the trial, and all but the most dedicated of heards toadies saw what a unpleasant manipulative bullying liar she is. A gilded cage is still a cage.
@anita capilato The home she is staying in is owned by a convicted criminal, supposedly.
Very interesting video. Thanks Andrea, and now we wait 😘
God help us all if AH doesn't get what she wants (and she probably won't) she'll drag this up to the Supreme Court (if they'll EVEN take it) and this could go on for years!
Question is can she keep affording to have higher courts come in? She hadn't paid any law firms yet.
I don't know how she can ask for an appeal after she had lied over and over and turned in fake evidence so many times on top of her mountain of evidence it was all fake I hope and pray the judges look at this and throw it at her
What I haven’t seen covered is; can JD’s appeal be granted given how much AH lied?
That is the most amazing painting behind you. The way the colour moves as the fish move towards the light is magical. The fish themselves are both beautiful and humorous. Thanks for the explanations. I never understood before why the British Court reuling was being argued as making this case illegitimate.
Andrea thank you for just looking at the law ! The verdict is the not up for debate. Really appreciate the legal education you provide .
Love to hear what you have to say. My favorite YT channel
I love how easy you make it to understand everything. Thanks again for another great video.
Have you heard that she’s trying to get Angelina Jolie on her side?!
Thank you so much for the incredible content you make and the simple yet effective way you do it. It’s nice to be able to just focus on what you are saying rather than keep stopping for super hard, shout outs etc. An occasional live is fine but honestly, your production choices are total YT goals for me. Thank you so much. PS you are so pretty and have a beautiful voice.
I never like to say never...but I can't see Jolie siding with AH. From all I have heard, Jolie holds AH in utter contempt.
@@AceMoonshot AJ told Heard to pound salt! She's (AJ) a big JD fan.
@@patriciarockwell2227 Ok. I always heard it as 'pound sand.' So I'm not sure if you meant it as a pun. Because Jolie starred in a movie called, "Salt."
@@AceMoonshot I read the same - Jolie detest her And, from what I understand, Jolie tried hard to get JD to do a prenup before he married *that woman*
@@m.w.976 iirc she basically predicted exactly what would happen. And she was pretty adamant in support of JD, and her disbelief of AH's claims, from start to finish. I think she saw right through her.
I liked the narrator's choice of words "sh!t show" - very appropriate and apropos in the case of Amber Heard. 🙂
Does the appeal still go forward with Amber out of contact in Europe. It's seeming like she is avoiding court. How are they even getting paid?
Neither JD or X will be in the room when the lawyers argue their points of law.
Andrea, if you ever get to the point where you want to do something totally different pleeeease do something with Teaching. Love this!
You look so pretty today! And you speak so clearly, so easy to understand.. thank you!
Amber will take any drug but the one that will make her sane.
I don't think there's any drug that strong! lol
Thank you for working so hard on these videos for us. 🙏
Judge Askarati followed the laws to the letter , she was more than fair to both parties , more so did not punish nor rebuke incompetant lawyers in a way to discredit them , she also followed with the questions to the jury with those chosen by Ambers team , the only option is freedom of speach but that does not and would not change the outcome of the trial when they followed it to the letter such in existence now .
I would argue that, if anything, Judge A leaned towards Team AH in a lot of her rulings during the trial.
A lot of Judges would have been a lot harsher with Elaine, too.
Overall, Judge A seemed remarkably fair. I find it hard to believe that Judge A's rulings outside the eyes of the public would be any different.
Not the freedom to make stuff up.
Thank you Andrea, you are a real pleasure as always.
I have a lot of difficulty believing the system would see this as a First Amendment issue. You cannot create crimes in your head and accuse people.
Always look forward to your videos! I'm from Washington too ❤️ I quickly moved after all the new laws and taxes!
Thanks for this. The next question I have is "what would a victory for Amber Heard's appeal mean?" Could it reverse the verdict and find Johnny guilty? Lessen or erase the damages? Order a retrial?
maybe they can reduce/remove what she have to pay, they can't reverse the verdict without a new trial and retrial its almost impossible, i think JD have much more chance to remove 2 milion he have to pay than her; on appeal you have to work on the proof presented on the trial she can't bring new "evidence"
I'd like to know those answers too!
Watch the trial again.
Every day.
Do you see a mistake made by judge Azcerate?
There will not be a retrial because judge A made no mistake.
It is all on tape.
It's my understanding that the Appellate Court can reverse the entire judgment and send it back to lower court for new trial. They can affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment and sent it back to lower court for a new trial. So there's no finding JD "guilty" in either of those scenarios.
@@jmason1770 it can orden a new trial but like i said its almost impossible in this case there are no element for new trial...the proof are overweelming in his favour...just think that JD presented 10 years of texts message while she presented zero of her text message
Thank you, Ms. B. Really I dgaf about Heard’s appeal, but I enjoyed your breaking down the possible bases of appellate review.
Well, Heard's appeal motion documents are now out. I wonder if Andrea Burkhart has read them yet.
There did not seem to be arguments about 1st amendment/malice issues as Mr Burkhart had been saying she thought Heard's lot would go with.
Given that Heard's appeal lawyers are meant to be heavy weight, I thought the motion seemed weak. It pretty much just said...everything the Judge decided that Heard didn't like was wrong, everything the Jury decided that Heard didn't like the Judge ought to have said were wrong.
Thanks for the quality content.
Thanks Andrea great video❤️❤️❤️
I too was unsubscribed as well. I didn’t unsubscribe myself. Great video.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AH team prevented Stephen Deuters from giving testifying as well as his wife (by presenting fake evidence to the judge), but desperately tried to include an email that he allegedly sent Amber regarding a plane incident, which kept getting objected to successfully as hearsay. And then they accused JD's team of shady tactics!
Legally she stands slim to no chance and a lot of what's being put out seems to be more about the press then court. She stands a fair chance of losing the 2 million judgement as it was against a person who was not an employee of Dep so him being held accountable maybe in question. In the end she likely to be even worse off when all said and done.
What are the opinions on Johnny Depp's appeal re: Adam Waldman's statement? IMO, he's being erroneously held responsible for Waldman's statement (via the $2 million trial judgement), not to mention there were actual truths in the statement - law enforcement & their body cam didn't see/record any damage when they went to the penthouse, not once but twice. Is his appeal winnable? Thoughts? Please. Thank you!
Does the appeal court know about the incident with eve barlow and that the evidence was fake ?
Unless it’s in the court transcripts I’d don’t think so.
It was in the unsealed files that's how we found out about it
Thank you so much for doing what you do for us it's so much appreciated
Does anyone know if Judge Azcarate has had any of her rulings (or her trial jury rulings) overturned on a appeal?
“Evaluate the shit show they observed” chefs kiss 😂
Can the appeal judges view depositions to compare for confirmation? Eg. The trip up about TMZ? Or just the fact, she avoided answering questions directly, just as she did on the stand?
That would be a NO…A RESOUNDING ….NO.
Yes Andrea why are all the criminal charges still not indictments?
What if any arguments does Amber's team have for appeal?
That trial has ruined that phrase for me. 😂
Good question cos I don't see ANY!
Black mail 😂😂😂😂😂
I’m nervous that AH (and her lawyers!) will watch your videos and know how to win!
She didn't say anything she just explained how the process works
@@dima6580 I didn’t just mean this video, I mean all of them. Andrea is incredible and I feel like AH would be stoopid not to have watched her and taken notes. Just my thoughts 👍
I think Amber needs to have Darrel Brooks represent her. 🤣🤣🤣
Facts and law are not apart of AH’s world … that’s pretty clear at this stage , bluff and bull wont get her a win . Thanks appreciate you 🌻
In a word, NO
If I remember the court decision was the money had to be deposited with the court before an appeal could go ahead.(NO CASH =NO APPEAL) end of.
Please look up Andrea’s video covering this . The suspension bond your referring to is optional in a civil case in Virginia.
I really appreciate this totally unbiased view of this “nightmare’. I am some what concerned about the new lawyers approach of “free speech” issue. I don’t think she has a chance but… Anyway love your info!
Why did all the info from the uk trial come into this trial? I would think it would have been prejudice?
0:30 AH legal team unsubscribed right there. And...
1:50 Can't we have that AH moment on a loop as a Short?
I’d like you to consider talking to network news organizations to become their legal correspondent and expert analysis.
She should absolutely NOT join the MSM.
@@vikkideanegomez well shucks Vikki…I absolutely will agree with that! Those guys are the red headed step child of news organizations. Nice call! Your absolutely right.
News organisations don't want people who actually know what they're talking about.
Oh thank you!!! Next can you explain those new papers filed in her Insurance fight?
Today Friday 14th it was announced AH lawyers are putting 16 points forward for the appeal could this make a difference and will you please look at these and do a video explaining what and why it could change the jury's outcome.
"That's why I wrote the OP - ED it's about powerful men and he's a POWERFUL MAN!"
Andrea always has a choice of relevant words, her explanations are clear, her videos are reflective, she perfectly masters pedagogy!
And I love her slides where she uses the definition of legal jargon to facilitate our understanding.
And above all his voice and tone are perfect even for non-Anglophone like me.
Now you know why she kept saying 1st amendment. Even though we all know it wasn’t the case.
I can't wait to see your coverage of the Insurance lawsuits.