So from there, beyond normal development, the character's involvement in the story was sort of what it was from the beginning.
Was her role ever reduced for any reason?
No, I mean, again, from the early stages of the script.
Let me know how the audio is.
The character of Arthur and the character of Orm.
Arthur being Jason Momoa and Orm being Patrick Wilson.
Echo is in the stream itself, but let me know how the respective audio balances are.
Co-leads of the movie.
Did Warner Brothers ever plan to portray Ms. Heard as the co-lead in Aquaman 2?
The movie was always pitched as a buddy comedy between Jason Momoa and Patrick Wilson.
Was Ms. Heard cast in Aquaman?
This is Johnny's rebuttal evidence.
Was Ms. Heard cast in Aquaman 2?
Yes, she was.
Was Ms. Heard paid for her services in Aquaman 2?
Yes.
Was Ms. Hurd paid for her services in Aquaman 2?
Was her compensation for Aquaman 2 affected in any way by anything said by No.
Was her compensation for Aquaman affected by anything said by anybody representing Johnny Depp?
No.
There was a motion to strike presented this morning.
Was there any delay in Warner Brothers exercising the option to cast Miss Hurd in Aquaman 2?
Yes, there was.
How long a delay was there?
Probably weeks.
What was the cause of the delay?
There were conversations about potentially recasting.
Who was the producer?
Peter Safran.
Who was the director?
James Wan.
Did Warner Brothers believe that those concerns were legitimate?
Yeah, I mean, I had no reason not to believe the director and producer of the movie.
We're going to talk about other stuff that Johnny did today as well.
They did not call Depp as a witness for the defense.
They made a good decision after thinking they were going to do a bad one.
It was the concerns that were brought up at the wrap of the first movie, which is the issue of chemistry.
Did the two have chemistry?
I think editorially, they were able to make that relationship work in the first movie, but there was a concern that it took a lot of effort to get there, and would we be better off recasting, finding someone who had a more natural chemistry with James Moloa?
It's going to end this week, people.
Other than the creative concerns about chemistry you testified about, was there any other reason We're not going to miss much here.
This is...
Johnny is rebutting Amber defamation claims.
So they're trying to show that Amber didn't lose anything.
Certainly she didn't lose anything as a result of anything Johnny or Waldman, his attorney, said.
That there was a lack of chemistry.
No, we don't want this one.
We don't want this one.
That there was a lack of chemistry between her and the guy in Aquaman.
Copy link.
Let's go to Sky.
There was none from our end.
Now you're all going to say that the audio is too low.
Give me a second.
We'll figure this out.
At any point in time, was Warner Brothers considering...
How is this, people?
If I talk like this...
Relatively low.
This is going to be...
Oh, what did I just do?
I just hit mute there.
There we go.
Okay.
How is the audio?
Mic check, one, two.
Good morning.
Who says this?
Good morning, Torchwood gal.
How goes the battle?
Good audio balance now.
Okay, good.
This is an exec at Marvel.
From the beginning of history through today, did Warner Brothers ever release Ms. Heard from the Aquaman 2 contract?
No.
So she has not been released from contracts.
She got paid.
They didn't reprimand, they didn't not hire her because of any statements made.
Ms. Heard for Aquaman 2?
No, because we just picked up her option.
And when is the last time you spoke with Rob Cohen relating in any manner to...
My understanding Washington Post is based in Virginia.
Virginia has favorable anti-slap legislation.
That this was a favorable venue in that it would be less likely to be dismissed on an anti-slap basis.
Soothing audio levels.
Did you speak at all with Jason Momoa in preparation for your deposition today?
No.
Have you ever spoken with Jason Momoa about issues relating to chemistry?
Alleged lack of chemistry with Amber.
Yes.
They did talk about lack of chemistry.
When did you speak with Jason Momoa about chemistry issues between he and Amber Heard?
It would have been in that same time period where we were...
Prior to Green Light of the movie.
Now, you were asked some questions about scripts.
Did you review any of the drafts of the script for Aquaman 2?
Yes.
When?
Part of my goal is to be screwed up.
By the way, this is another video deposition, so boring.
You know exactly what they're trying to get at.
It's just a question of whether or not they have any gotchas or gimmies, but these are recorded depositions being played for the jury.
Nothing is going to be quite as exciting as what we saw yesterday, which was the worst expert testimony that has ever been broadcast in the history of television, in my humble opinion.
Let's see something there.
Well, there were probably a half dozen.
Who has seen Aquaman 2?
Or Aquaman 1, for that matter?
I haven't seen any of these movies.
That's not a green screen.
They blurred out the back.
Just the fact that they didn't really have a lot of chemistry together.
You know, the reality is it's not uncommon on movies for two leads to not have chemistry, and that it's sort of movie magic and editorial, the ability to sort of put performances together and with the magic of, you know, a great score and how you put the pieces.
I think when they mean there was no chemistry, it means they bitterly hate each other.
And they could not work together.
At the end of the day, I think if you watch the movie, they look like they had great chemistry.
But I just know that through the course of the post-production that it took a lot of effort to get there.
You got to edit in the...
They have to edit in the chemistry.
Why would Elaine ask this question?
Elaborate on why there was a lack of chemistry.
It's like, what makes a movie star a movie star?
You know it when you see it, and the chemistry wasn't there.
You've used the term fabricated a number of times.
What did you do to fabricate the chemistry between Amber Heard and Jason Momoa?
Elayne is Amber's attorney.
Why is she asking him to elaborate on the absence of chemistry between her client and Jason Momoa?
Carbonated water.
Vitamin C. It can make a happy scene feel sadder or a sad scene feel happier.
Please elaborate on why our client had no chemistry with the star, which might explain why she didn't, you know, get invited back for another...
by fabricating the work?
I mean, were they literally falsifying or were they just thinking the best Editing.
Editing.
um she's fighting she's fighting with the witness and allowing him to elaborate on a central point to johnny's claim doing in post-production that's what filmmakers do no yeah they they they this is on any production you're doing that you're you're putting performances together sometimes it's easier than others uh this one uh It is emergency.
Citrus.
Oh, it's already done, okay.
Appreciate what's going on here.
We give Elaine a hard time.
She's grilling the witness and allowing him to elaborate.
Asking him to provide details on the absence of chemistry of Amber Heard with Momoa.
Absolutely.
I'll tell you what has been marked as exhibit number five.
It's ALH 18247.
And this is a text message exchange between James Wan and Amber Heard.
And you mentioned James Wan was the director of Aquaman, too.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And Aquaman, the first one, correct?
That's correct.
All right.
And James is texting to Amber on August 25, 2018.
You rated really high with the audience, exclamation mark, exclamation mark.
You see that?
Yes.
This is August 25, 2018.
What's going on on August 25, 2018 that would cause the director to send a text message to Amber?
That'd be a test screening.
So during our post-production of the movie, we test the movie with an audience and the audience tells us what they liked and what they didn't like.
And so that's what he's referring to there.
And they really liked Amber Heard, correct?
Yes, she did.
They did.
Jason Momoa didn't, by the sounds of it.
And more specifically, did you play any role in the determination to communicate to Amber's representatives that Warner Brothers was considering not exercising her option?
Yeah, probably in the sense of we had the conversations, and I believe, if I recall, that's where Peter Safran...
Offered to reach out to the agent and express which direction we were leaning.
Have you seen any document that says there was any chemistry issues between Amber Heard and Jason Momoa?
I don't think they write up reports.
No, those were all conversations.
But if Jason came back, you were guaranteeing that Amber Heard would play mirror, correct?
That's correct.
And Jason Momoa was able to negotiate a different compensation structure.
Was he not for Aquaman 2?
That's true.
He did renegotiate.
Now, Aquaman was the highest grossing DC film ever for Warner Brothers, was it not?
Yes, it was.
I'll agree with Ryan Reynolds.
Jason Momoa is not my type.
What if any?
Lack of chemistry?
My understanding is actually the production went very smoothly.
Thank you.
next witness Your Honor, we call Dr. Colburn next, but I know we have a preliminary matter that we need to deal with.
Okay, good.
Let's take advantage of the quiet to highlight what happened this morning.
First of all, these headphones, you'll notice I no longer will be using the uncomfortable purple ones.
Eric Hunley, America's Untold Stories, Unstructured Podcast, his own channel, sent me these as a gift for my birthday.
They're very comfortable.
The only problem is I don't like not fully hearing my surroundings.
So I'm going to have to come to grips with that.
What happened this morning, people?
First of all, defense, Amber Heard rested.
So they did not do what I thought would have been an absolute monumental mistake of calling Johnny Depp in defense.
They ultimately decided not to call Johnny Depp, whether or not it was a ploy to rattle Johnny or whatever.
Who knows?
It would have been strategically the most idiotic thing to do to call Johnny Depp in defense.
After he has had the benefit of watching the trial, watching the witnesses, gauging his responses, to call him back after having seen two and a half weeks, three weeks of trial, it would have been medical malpractice of a legal nature.
So legal malpractice.
I say that tongue in cheek.
It would have been absolutely beyond idiotic to think that you could call Johnny Depp back, who has had the benefit of watching this entire trial for three weeks and think you're going to score points off of him.
So the rumor was they were going to do it.
That's why I was tuning in yesterday.
That's why I was tuning in today.
But ultimately, they're not doing it.
And the defense, which is also a cross-claim, counter-claim, counter-suit, a defamation claim for $100 million against Johnny, closed.
The defense counter-claim rested after what was nothing shy of the most disastrous day conceivable yesterday.
Do I hear a dog barking?
I'll get him afterwards.
Their expert psychiatrist who diagnosed Johnny from a distance.
And we got onto it early.
It was sort of obvious they were probably going to go there.
But we got onto the...
Oh, what's the...
What's the rule?
Jeez.
Rosenblum?
Goldblum?
Rosenbaum?
It's the rule.
Jeez Louise.
It had to do with the politician.
People were trying to, you know, experts were writing letters diagnosing.
Chat's going to get the rule.
Hold on, the door's going to bother me.
Hold on.
What is it?
Goldwater.
It was the Goldwater rule.
It's the Goldwater rule that it's unethical to...
To diagnose people, psychiatric diagnoses, it's unethical.
The American Psychiatric Association has it down as a rule that it should not be done.
Unethical because you are diagnosing someone who you've never met.
It's not like diagnosing a broken arm where you can see an x-ray and say it's broken.
You can't scan.
I mean, you can scan a brain for certain traumatic injury.
But not for psychiatric evaluations.
You can see someone has a concussion.
Someone has a bleed on their brain.
Someone has had a stroke.
But you can't, from a distance, without having met the patient, diagnose them with psychiatric issues.
This doctor did it.
Not by court order.
Not by court order.
And the first line of questioning was grilling him on the...
On the...
The Goldwater Rule.
Is it not unethical?
Is there not a rule of ethics from the APA of which you are a member to not do it?
And it was all downhill from there.
This guy says, if you can't do it with patients that you don't meet, forensic psychiatry for expert testimony in court, you're effectively erasing it.
Argumentative, also bad arguments, because the court can order psychiatric evaluations.
The court can also authorize or order...
Psychiatric evaluations in the absence of actually meeting the client for whatever the reason.
And then he's like, well, you know, doctors always diagnose things.
Doctors diagnosing or providing expert opinions on finger trauma, on other issues, far different than psychiatric evaluations at a distance.
It went downhill.
The psychiatrist was argumentative, was defensive, melted down on the stand, apparently in his deposition referred to Johnny as an idiot.
Try to walk that back and say, oh, maybe he's an idiot because anyone who would do something like that would have to be an idiot.
I wasn't calling Johnny an idiot, the man who I'm assessing at a distance, potentially unethically.
I wasn't calling him an idiot.
I was just saying what he did was idiotic.
What he did was something an idiot would do, which is not how it read in any event.
Meltdown of epic proportions did so much damage that, I mean, I...
So much damage that it undermines any position that Amber might have been putting forward.
They've hired a psychiatrist who arguably breached his code of ethics or rules of ethics to not psychiatrically evaluate people they have not met.
He had no court authorization or court order to do it.
At one point, he said, well, Johnny didn't submit to it, and you guys made a motion to prevent him from being evaluated by me, who's paid by Amber.
As though that proved a point.
As though he thinks he's got a right of law to evaluate, to psychiatrically evaluate people.
And if they oppose, it's a sign of guilt that he gets to do it in their absence.
Oh, the street value.
My God.
Then he's talking about the street value of some of the medications that Johnny's on.
As though Johnny was buying them on the streets or selling them on the streets.
It was, you know, we joked at the beginning that psychiatrists are...
They're eccentric personalities.
Oftentimes they are...
I've known a few psychiatrists and psychologists.
To expect them to be any less eccentric, to put it politely, than the general population is wrong.
Anybody who gets into that field is going to be somewhat more eccentric in certain respects.
And so you're going to find a lot of type A personalities in the field of psychiatry and psychology.
Oh, and then the cluster.
And the things that he was saying made Johnny an IPV, intimate partner violence perpetrator.
I mean, you'd have to be totally lacking self-awareness to appreciate that it was all truer, if not absolutely undeniably true, based on the evidence adduced, more true of Amber than of Johnny.
Oh, then he plugged his book, which he thought was funny.
And it wasn't funny.
So they had that psychiatric expert trying to come in and, from a distance, tell a remote, psychiatrically evaluate Johnny Depp as being a perpetrator of IPV, intimate partner violence.
Horrible.
Horrible backfire.
And then, you know, in redirect, they ask him, oh my gosh.
He said, at one point, there was a picture of Johnny, unconscious, with vomitus all over him.
And that's what he used to come to his opinion.
Turned out it was actually just melted ice cream.
He hadn't seen the pictures of the room in which Johnny allegedly lost his fingertip, of the broken glass.
He didn't see these pictures.
And in redirect, Elaine asked him, had anything that came up today that would have changed your opinion?
He said no.
It was an unmitigated disaster.
And then they came up with another expert who was trying to show that Amber suffered damages as a result of...
The allegedly defamatory statements.
Rubbish.
This morning, the legally interesting thing that happened.
The defense rested.
They're not going to call Johnny.
And Johnny Depp made a motion to strike, which is basically a motion to dismiss certain aspects of the claim or the claim in its entirety.
Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize again.
We have a few things to take care of.
We're just going to go ahead and take our morning recess now for 15 minutes.
Do not discuss the case and do not talk to anybody, okay?
It gives us time.
I organized with the judge.
We did this.
that was the same thing.
So they made a motion to strike this morning.
Johnny Depp saying evidence has all been deduced.
Amber has closed her case.
She has not even presented remotely enough evidence to even allow the matter to be presented to a jury for judgment, for verdict.
Go ahead and take a break.
Let's make it 10.50 to give them time to look at everything.
10.50, okay.
Oh, the earphones are much more comfortable, but I'm still going to take them off because I hate not hearing my surroundings.
Okay, so let me just do this.
Bring this out.
I'll hear it when it comes back up.
Yeah, so they made a motion to strike saying they have not even presented sufficient evidence of their claims to allow it to proceed to a jury for verdict.
And the arguments were compelling, I think.
It was dismissed.
So the motion to strike was dismissed.
The judge said, this is going to go to jury.
I don't want to make any...
I don't want to usurp the powers of the jury.
There are questions of assessment of fact, not admissibility of evidence.
That should be put to the jury.
And so, bear in mind, in a trial by jury, and full disclosure, people, I've repeated time and time again, so no one thinks I'm claiming to have expertise.
I don't.
I've learned a lot from watching other lawyers.
I've learned a lot from the years that we've been doing this.
I'm a Quebec attorney, commercial litigation, sworn to the bar in 2007.
Did my stash 2006 to 2007 internship at one of the biggest law firms in Canada, 2006 to 2007.
Worked there until, actually from 2005 as a student doing translation work.
2006, stagiaire, young lawyer.
I left.
After my first born child was born in 2010, because I decided I wanted another life, another lifestyle, another life schedule.
Started my own firm, which I still have, albeit I'm down to one remaining client, because in 2016, 2017, I said I don't want to do litigation anymore, and if I don't leave now, I'm going to be a 50-year-old man still doing this and hating it.
So I wound up the litigation practice, took about a year to wind up files, settle files, find new lawyers for files, kept a few clients that I wanted to keep, and then went out on my own to pursue this insane project of YouTube, which has come to fruition.
Started doing these things called vlogs, V-L-A-W-G, which I believe now is actually trademarked.
Where I would, you know, I would do car vlogs, which started during COVID, where I had to get out of the house because I was locked down in a house with three kids and I couldn't find a quiet space to make videos.
So I went into the car, did these videos, broke down subject matter, edited them together afterwards, put them together in videos.
Okay.
We'll talk about that at another, we'll elaborate on that for those who don't know my story at a later date.
Just to say.
Although I might look like an eccentric quack in the basement talking law stuff, I actually have a pretty extensive commercial litigation career, and I would dare say a successful one.
I just couldn't do it anymore.
I couldn't stand, I could not stand litigation.
Every day, I did not like the practice more than the day before.
I want to say every day I liked it less than the day before, and I said, if I'm doing this in 10 years, I'm going to be one unhappy cat.
Okay.
But I'm only a Quebec litigator.
We don't have civil trials by jury anymore in Canada.
We have criminal trials by jury.
I have never practiced criminal law, but I studied it.
Make eccentric.
Great again.
I like that.
Okay.
We can do that.
So I've never practiced criminal law.
I studied it.
I'm not certified in the States.
Period.
Full stop.
So don't come here looking for legal advice.
Of that nature, you can come for legal assessment, legal discussion.
Don't come here for medical advice, and don't come here for election fortification advice.
Okay, now, but I've learned a lot of stuff nonetheless.
I can read legalese.
I can understand it.
I can understand how it's applied.
In the States, as in Canada, you can make a motion to dismiss.
You say, look, they've reduced all their evidence.
They haven't even established the facts necessary to prove their claims in law.
Dismiss it now.
You can do this.
In the States, before it goes to jury, you say, look, as a matter of law, the party from whom you're seeking the dismissal or the striking, in law, as a matter of law, not a matter of assessment of fact, they haven't even established the factual elements to substantiate their claim in law.
And you bear in mind that even in a trial by jury, the jury are the assessors of fact, And the judge is the gateway of law.
So inadmissible evidence will not get passed to the judge for consideration by the jury.
And then legal questions, questions of law, objections.
Questions of law are submitted to the judge and not to the jury.
Assessment of fact is submitted to the jury.
So the judge is sort of the gatekeeper.
Of the admissibility of evidence, and the jury are the assessors of that evidence in terms of the claim being made.
Team Depp came in and said, Amber has not even established the factual elements to allow a reasonable jury to come to any conclusion in law as to liability.
And how?
They said, the argument was, first of all, the statements made.
That Amber is suing for defamation.
And bear in mind what this is.
I'm your favorite Montreal litigator turned YouTuber, Sean Farrell.
That narrows it down to only one.
Until there's a second one, this will always be true of everyone on Earth, even if they hate me.
Jokes aside, Sean, thank you.
Amber's counterclaim, or her claim, her defamation lawsuit, which came by way of counterclaim, but they could have been two separate suits.
Amber sues Johnny.
Johnny sues Amber.
Except Amber sued Johnny by way of counterclaim in the context of the existing Johnny defamation suit against her.
Her defamation claim...
Oh, look who's there!
Good logic!
I didn't even see it.
Remind me about this.
Joe, sir, how goes the battle?
I am fine.
I want to just be up front with you so there's no misconception here.
I am doing a streaming inception thing here.
Do it.
Hold on, let me just get this in here.
Joe, okay, let me hear you now.
Yeah, I want to be up front with you, so there's no misconceptions.
I am doing a streaming inception thing here, because I'm back streaming today, so there shouldn't be any confusion at all about the whole thing that I am doing.
So there's no, you know, just everyone is aware.
But I thought you, so you sent me a link, and I certainly feel flattered to ever come on to Viva Frye.
I'm a huge fan of your work.
Joe, well, you were there yesterday.
Yes, I was.
I want to hear what happened, but there was some drama on the interwebs.
I saw a video of a policeman giving a lecture to the lineup.
A policeman giving a lecture?
Oh, yeah.
Say what happened.
I saw a video of a policeman.
Not yelling, but giving a speech to the line of saying, anyone who is here before 1 o 'clock in the morning yesterday, leave now.
You're not getting in.
The rules are the rules.
I didn't know if he was joking.
Was he joking?
And what the heck is going on?
Okay, so I think that's sort of like when they issue rules that they want everyone to believe is true, but I do not see any possibility that they're going to be carrying it out.
Basically, they don't want people camping overnight, and people are literally camping from 4 in the afternoon or earlier the day before.
So, I guess it's sort of like they don't want to become like, you know, San Francisco and have just like tents set up all around the courthouse.
So, and the judge basically said no one can come here before one o 'clock in the morning.
Joe, someone is saying no one can hear Joe on his stream.
They should be able to hear me on through this thing.
I don't want to have, all right.
They can't hear me on mute.
All right, fine, here.
No, I was a little confused because I thought it would be playing through to you that they would hear an echo.
But, alright.
I'm trying to help them out.
Okay.
So, this is what I was trying to...
So, what happened was people start camping out.
4 o 'clock in the afternoon the day before.
And the judge doesn't like this concept that it's going to basically look like it's a homeless village around the courthouse.
So they set this rule up in place saying no one can come in here before 1 o 'clock in the morning.
Now, I was taking a train down where I left at 8 p.m. that was supposed to be coming in to the Fairfax bus station at 12.30, 12.45 when I was taking an Uber.
So I was really coming in around 1 o 'clock.
but because of the fabulous, amazing, amazing support from LawTube supporters, which I cannot express enough how overwhelming it is, the level of love that I got, that DUI guy gets, that all of us, whenever we go anywhere, I'm sure you must have experienced this on countless occasions too, Viva, your face is far more recognizable to the public at large than mine.
So the amount of love we get, and people who stick up for us and try to take care of us, it's crazy.
It's bizarre to me.
So I ended up going down there, and around 1 o 'clock when I was coming in, that's when there was all these issues happening with the line.
What the police had actually done was they said, okay, anyone who's on line here, you've got to leave here and go across the street, and then everyone come running back here.
You won't have encampments.
You're just going to have a bums rush and people literally throwing people down to get in line for 1 o 'clock.
You just displaced the urgency.
Yeah, so what happened was they knew this was going to happen, so they set up, the mob, the crowd who's assembling there in order to have some semblance of order and fairness, they created this whole thing where they gave out tickets, like a piece of green tape with a number on it.
They numbered from 1 to like 115, even go beyond 100.
This way you know where your place is in the line.
If someone has to leave, you know how much you move up.
They gave out these little things that everyone wore, and the line amongst themselves.
Respected it.
Okay, this is my number.
So there were five people who started waiting like, I don't know, four o 'clock in the afternoon, if not earlier, who were holding spots for LawTube.
Five people who were holding spots going through the night.
When I showed up there at one o 'clock in the morning, the guy who gave me my ticket...
The nicest guy in the world, JT.
He'd been waiting there since four in the afternoon.
Not only did he give me a thing, he's got this whole thing of drinks for me, that he's got ice, this bags of ice.
He's like, this is for you.
There's candy he's giving me.
It's crazy how nice these people are.
Total stranger.
I have no idea.
I was like, is there some way I can promote some of your stuff, show my gratitude?
He's like, no, no, I just want you to get in there and I want you to be comfortable because I really appreciate the work you do.
And I want to express to you, the public at large, how amazing.
I personally think it is.
And every one of us from LawTube, I'm sure you would agree with me on this, Viva.
The amount of support we get, I mean, look, we see it to a degree in super chats, but the in-person love is overwhelming.
It's new media.
It's people that they think are trustworthy, and they are, by and large.
Within LawTube, I don't think there's anyone who's actually done anything to discredit their credibility.
And I'm not even going to make the obvious joke that people think out there.
The reason why LawTube is getting the love and the attention now is because people found where they can go to get honest, insightful, humorous, and uncensored, entertaining legal breakdown.
Law and crime, you know, people like watching it without commentary.
That's like, you know, eating eggs without salt as far as I'm concerned.
There have been some drama with the line because apparently some people who showed up, the number 100, the person who got number 100, they showed up around 10 o 'clock at night.
Then around 12.30 at night, 12.30 I guess technically in the morning, a bunch of five or six people basically decided to hell with this whole line thing.
I'm moving forward.
I want to jump forward over it.
Or basically when they had, I'm not sure if it happened then because I came later.
I came like at 1.15 in the morning.
Or when they moved across the street and said, okay, everyone charge your spot.
So the line basically decided to reassemble as they had been the entire time.
And they basically put themselves in numbered order.
And there were like half a dozen people who Who decided to hell with that and they moved and they were sitting amongst a crowd of people around the number 60 to 70 range.
So when I got there, there's all this hostility of people who are really mad at those people.
I'm getting tons of love from people.
I get a ticket number 40. I'm sitting closer than they are.
So we go through the night and there was very little actual drama other than just innocent sort of...
I'm not saying innocent, but just sort of like...
Angry vibes, but certainly nothing I felt was close to fistfights or anything like that.
And I'm streaming through the night.
I met DUI guy, great guy, brilliant attorney.
And he's streaming, and we're doing our own separate streams.
And then basically we're working towards the morning.
We start getting shipments of food from Alaska.
Eight dozen donuts, ten dozen donuts.
Deliveries from IHOP.
And everything is coming addressed to Joe and Larry from people I don't know.
They're just law tube supporters.
And we're giving out to the line and spreading the love and offering up to the police.
Well, as it comes time, around 6.30, 7 o 'clock, now the cops show up because they've been gone through most of the night.
And they start making these, they start sounding like we're in, you can call it a camp.
I certainly wouldn't call anything remotely like, you know, the camps that people talk about when they're being oppressed.
But they're sort of treating us like, okay, everyone here in two lines, otherwise you're out!
I don't want to see it!
This doesn't look like a double line here!
And it's like we're in the military or something, and they're trying to assemble us.
I thought it was a joke when I first saw the video.
I thought it was an act.
And the guy looked like he was acting.
He even was laughing as though he couldn't deliver his lines, and I thought it was a joke.
Right, right.
And then he starts saying, if there's any, there's one piece of debris, of litter here on the ground, not a single person is going up into that courtroom.
It's like he's treating us like we're nine years old or something.
And the whole tone and attitude was very, it was just very demeaning.
It was like putting on a display of authority.
Like, I'm in charge.
We're the boss.
We run everything here.
And you're going to, you know, when we say jump, you say how high?
As if we're trying to get into the Miller Center or something.
And it was just, it was very, very weird.
And I was almost, and then they said at a certain point, you're not allowed, it's against a court order for you to be here before 1 a.m.
We have video evidence of who is here and anyone who is here before 1 a.m. is not getting up into the courtroom.
That's the claim.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
No, I was going to say, that sounded like a total bluff when I heard it.
Did it turn out to be a bluff?
Of course it was.
Anyone who had tape basically took their tape and shoved it in their mouth, started chewing on it, swallowing, getting rid of the tape.
I don't have no tape.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
But, yeah, we all took off our tape because that was a clear indication.
They probably do have video.
You think they're going to sit here, say, oh, wait, no, you?
I saw you here, 11.30 p.m.
You're gone.
Like, they're not doing that.
Well, not just that, but it's also, it seems like, did they warn you that that would be the punishment at the time, to come in the next day and say, anyone who broke the rule, you're out?
They basically said, they basically said, we don't want, they said you're not allowed to.
I don't know if they had said that or not.
That's my first time there.
James from Court, James at Court, who is a really great guy, has been covering this trial all the way through.
He has genuine concerns that he's not going to, that anyone, that they're going to follow through on it.
I don't know.
Maybe they will.
Maybe they won't.
Before we get back to the trial, what was the drama with the lady with the baby?
Yeah, so...
I have no idea.
I just saw a chat and I don't even know what the drama was.
Yes, right before the lunch break.
So there was a whole thing on the line with this lady who crashed the line.
Apparently someone gave her a number because they were so frustrated with how...
And she had a baby.
And so they gave her seating in the back corner of the court, in the back of the court, right by the front door with a place for her baby carriage.
When we break for lunch, the jury goes out.
All of a sudden, she barks out, you know, everyone sort of like waves at Johnny, and Johnny sort of waves back at the crowd.
He has so much love there.
I did hear about this.
Okay.
She stands up, and she screams, Johnny, I love you!
We're soulmates!
Our souls are tied together.
Something about soulmates.
And then she goes, there's a dispute on what she said here.
It was either, um, what...
What would you do if this baby was yours?
Or when will you admit that this baby is yours?
Those are two different statements.
Both of them very weird.
She did not seem like Johnny's type.
Just leave it at that.
She did not seem like...
I was like, I don't think that's his baby.
I don't buy that, personally.
But, yeah.
So...
And then she was ushered out of the courtroom.
We never saw her again the rest of the way.
It was the most bizarre thing because there was silence in the room.
But how did she get in in the first place?
She didn't wait overnight with a baby?
She did.
She waited overnight with the baby.
Okay, that's not good.
Yeah, crazy baby lady.
Squashed my dog under the chair.
But Joe, you were in there yesterday.
People want to know, what does the jury look like?
I mean, this is the question that everybody's asking because nobody can see the jury.
Yes, I know.
Whenever we're identifying the jury.
So I'm going to give you a quick description.
And how they get ordered or numbered.
You can either use numbers or letters.
So you have basically two rows of jurors.
The back row has five people.
And when you're counting them off, going from left to right, so one, two, three, four, five.
And then the front row has four, so you count them off six, seven, eight, nine.
Okay?
Juror number one, young Asian man.
Tunes out like 60% of the time.
What is the indication?
What allows you to be wrong?
When I say indications, I mean just sort of like looking around or whatever, occasionally nodding at good cross-examination of Amber's witnesses.
I would tell you right now that there are four jurors who I think are definitely committed towards Johnny at this point.
And juror number one is one of them.
Juror number two as well.
Another young Asian man, this guy is sleeping three quarters of the time.
He had...
Oh, they're coming back in.
I'll try to hop back later, brother.
Do it, please.
All right.
Good seeing you, my friend.
By the way, was it the most...
Assessment?
Most disastrous cross-examination you've ever seen of an expert, Joe?
Oh, my God.
We have to talk about that.
You got in for the best day.
Go.
See you soon.
All right.
Let me get in here.
Are you going to continue the Inception restreaming?
No, no, no.
I'm not going to...
Because I talk a lot.
You may want more quiet than that.
Yes.
I'm going to leave you in.
I've got to pop that out.
Pop it out and I'll bring you back in when I see you again.
We need more juice.
More news on the jury.
I've got to find...
Give me a second to figure that out.
You mean for now?
While you're still here though, Joe.
Anyone on the jury who looks like they're on the side or enthralled by Amber's evidence?
No.
No.
In fact, when they were talking damages, as soon as they were talking damages, I put myself off of there.
I got to come back in.
At just one point, as soon as they were talking damages, the whole jury tuned out.
They didn't want to hear anything about damages.
Later, bro.
Okay.
Go.
They're still talking.
Okay, so now where were we?
This motion, they made a motion to strike Johnny Depp's team saying...
Amber has not even established the factual elements which would allow a jury to come to certain conclusions of culpability.
And recall, Amber's defamation claim is based on statements made by Waldman, who's Johnny Depp's attorney, you know, that statement of using the accusations as a spear and a shield, that they had this elaborate setup, that they called the cops after they destroyed the room so the cops would come back and so they can set this up.
Amber's claim of defamation is that that statement is false, maliciously so, and that Johnny Depp is responsible for the statements made by Waldman, his attorney, under the concept of vicarious liability.
Which, in the chat, who here remembers the video, the vlog that I did?
It was one of the ones that I had to finish in my basement.
From the car, I think it was either heat or I had to add something to it.
I broke down an episode or a scene from...
And it was the episode where the cab driver got into an accident with the main actor's driver, and then the cab driver sued the main actor because he said, as a result of this car accident, I missed going to get my medallion renewed, something along those lines.
The taxi driver claimed to have sustained damages as a result of an accident that was incurred allegedly at the fault of the driver of the lawyer.
And he sued the lawyer on the basis of vicarious liability, being that the lawyer is responsible for the acts of his agent, his employee, and therefore can be sued even though he himself did not do the wrongful thing.
Amber Amber, her entire claim against Johnny Depp stems from Johnny Depp being vicariously liable for the statements made by Waldman, as though those statements were made by Waldman as an agent, employee, or someone acting for and on behalf of Johnny Depp, therefore vicarious liability.
There's the issue as to whether or not it was maliciously made the statements, whether or not it was even false, whether or not the person who made the statements even still thinks that they are in fact true.
And the judge ultimately said, I think rightly so, we'll get back to this in a bit, submit it to jury, let them decide.
I don't want to usurp the role of the jury in assessing whether or not Waldman was actually acting as an agent to Johnny when he made those statements.
I don't want to presume that they were not maliciously made.
Let the jury come to that conclusion.
Yes, I can.
Sorry.
Were you talking to me, Judge?
Yes.
Can you count to five for me?
One, two, three, four, five.
The judge and I were like this.
I'm just trying to get you on the big screen.
We're waiting for the jury.
Just give us a minute.
Okay, sir?
And hold on.
Who says, were the statements made outside of the courtroom?
Yes, those are the statements made to the press in a release to the effect that we've cited.
They've mentioned it a few times.
The claims by Amber Heard were both the spear and the shield, in that they were being used for offensive and defensive purposes.
So they're going to leave it to the jury to decide if the statements were false, made with malice, and whether or not Waldman was acting as Johnny Depp's agent when he made those statements, such that Depp can be liable for them, because if not, she could sue Waldman for defamation, but it just can't be Johnny.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth under penalty of law?
It wasn't privileged.
How can they link the statements to Johnny?
I mean, that'll be the question.
Was he making them foreign on behalf of Johnny?
Waldman said no.
So this looks live.
Could you please state your full name for the record?
This looks live, but video deposition.
David Allen Colbert.
And what is your profession?
I'm a plastic and hand surgeon.
And how long have you been a plastic and hand surgeon?
This is going to be disastrous for Amber.
I've been in practice for 26 years.
That's a long time.
Where do you currently work?
Hollywood.
At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Where is that?
How long have you worked there?
For the past 26 years.
Do you know the plaintiff in this action, Johnny Depp?
Let me see where Cedars-Sinai is.
I do.
And how do you know Mr. Depp?
Cedars-Sinai.
I'm taking care of him.
Los Angeles, California.
When did Mr. Depp become your patient?
Simple questions.
Clear cut.
Sometime in March of 2015.
And what type of treatment did you provide to Mr. Depp?
Clear question.
I like her pacing.
He had a fracture of his finger with soft tissue loss.
Don't show us the pictures.
He deconstructed his finger.
How did you do that, actually?
When did you perform the first surgery on Mr. Duff's finger?
Clear question.
Good question.
It was around March 20th of 2015.
And what was involved in that surgery, just briefly?
Debreeding the devitalized tissue, putting a...
I'll lower my volume a little bit and talk quieter.
What was the state of the hand after that surgery?
Not clear question.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, I think the audio cut out a little bit.
Could you please repeat your answer?
It was injured and he had soft tissue loss and a fracture of his distal phalanx.
And what type of cast was on Mr. Depp's hand after you performed that surgery?
It was a plaster splint.
I disagree with you, Jack.
Can you please describe to the jury what a plaster splint would look like?
It would look like what was on his hands.
It's like a cast, but you don't want to put everything circumferential on it because of swelling after surgery.
I believe in Mr. Depp's case, it was like two fingers.
I think the third finger was the one that was operated on.
So these two fingers, the third and fourth finger together, and it's a splint with plaster on the top.
And on the bottom, that goes around the hand to protect it.
I think there was crush and severed.
How mobile was Mr. Depp's hand when it was in that cast?
Not mobile.
Immobile.
That's what the purpose of the cast is.
Well, he couldn't move his third and fourth fingers because of the bulkiness of the splint.
Typically, postoperatively, it's a more bulkier splint right after the surgery.
Not very...
It's in the way.
The doctor said it was crushed.
With great difficulty.
He could attempt to grab someone.
I don't know how successful he would be.
He had his index finger free and his thumb free.
He could do the claw.
I'm going to talk about the WEF at some point today as well.
If you don't like that cherry, we're getting there.
How long was the pin in Mr. Depp's finger?
How long?
For time or length?
About 11 or 12 days.
And how was the pin removed?
Oh, don't say surgery.
It was removed under local anesthesia in my office.
How long did you ultimately treat Mr. Depp for his hand injury?
For several months.
And why was that?
It was a bad injury.
It required a few more little office procedures to clean up the tissue.
We had an infection as a result of the injury, so we had to be on antibiotics for some time until it finally completely healed.
Do you recall when the infection developed?
Oh, God.
It was a few weeks after the surgery, and that's when I took out the pen.
When was the last time that you saw Mr. Depp?
It was a good movie.
Sometime in 2015.
I don't recall when.
And when was the last time that you spoke to Mr. Depp?
The same.
Around 2015.
Thank you, Dr. Colbert.
All right, cross-examination.
What are they going to ask him?
How he got the infection in his finger?
It's still possible to grab someone?
Morning, Dr. Colbert.
So you said that this plaster splint was put on after surgery on March 20th, 2015?
Yes.
And a plaster splint, is that sometimes called half a cast?
Sometimes it's called half a cast or a soft cast.
Something like that, yeah.
And it's made of plaster of Paris, right?
Correct.
And plaster of Paris hardens like a cast does, correct?
Yes, except it's open on both sides.
But why is he asking this?
This doesn't make it easier to grab someone.
that it's a little smaller than a cast that goes around your whole hand it's just as hard as a cast that would be put on a broken arm or a broken hand correct well it's softer on the side so the fingers can expand for swelling so it's not fully the faster it's They're going to go after the argument that it was hard and that he struck amber with it.
But the parts that are covered with plaster of Paris are just as hard as any other cast, correct?
Correct.
Plaster of Paris, by the way, people, is that plaster that they get wet and wrap it when you get a cast.
Regardless of whether Mr. Depp could have grabbed someone with the hand with the cast on, he could have grabbed someone with the hand without the cast on, correct?
He could have grabbed with the other hand, is what you mean.
Correct.
Michelle, can you pull up Exhibit 400, please?
This has been admitted, Your Honor.
It's a picture of Johnny Depp sleeping.
Well, I would be funny if it is.
Okay.
What's it going to be?
Show the finger again to the jury.
Is that Rottenborn who we got there?
Show the blown open finger to the jury again in case they forgot how horribly traumatic it looked.
Dr. Culber, I'm just going to ask Michelle here to just scroll through these pictures and I'd ask you to take a look at them.
Okay, that's a house.
Your Honor, I'm going to object for lack of foundation for these photographs.
They're already in evidence.
With respect to the questions to the witness.
Michelle, if you could go back up to that, stop right there.
Show us that, yeah.
What are we seeing?
Is there anything about the cast that was put on Mr. Depp's hand on March 20th, 2015 that would have prevented him from doing this damage to Ms. Heard's closet on March 23rd, 2015?
Objection calls for speculation.
He's got one free hand.
I mean, he had his other hand available.
No further questions.
Thank you.
All right.
Redirect?
No.
You did it, Rottenborn.
You proved...
Dr. Kolber, how many fingers were in the plaster portion of Mr. Depp's cast?
Two.
Two or three.
At least two were.
The third one and the fourth one.
And why did you call it a soft cast?
He's already explained that.
So it could swell and not be totally compressed by a cast.
It's not fully, plaster doesn't go around the entire hand because you allow for swelling.
So there's plaster to protect the fracture.
So there's a little plaster on it, but it's on the top and the bottom, but it's not completely circumferential.
So there's soft spots to it.
And where are those soft spots located again?
Usually we put a piece of plaster underneath the fingers and on top and then the sides of the fingers it's soft so that the fingers can swell after the surgery.
Could Mr. Depp have hit someone with the hand that had the cast on it?
Silly question.
He could have.
It would be very painful.
Of course he could.
He could have hit someone with it.
It probably would have.
Injured, damaged the cast.
And hurt like hell.
Did you ever notice any damage to Mr. Depp's cast when you treated him?
This is a silly question.
No.
I don't recall.
Nothing that comes to mind.
I am definitely right-handed, but I shoot hockey left-handed and I fish left-handed.
Could he have formed a fist?
No.
No.
Could have formed a fist like this.
No further questions.
Thank you, Dr. Kolder.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Okay, great.
Didn't prove very much.
And by the way, you know, in law, people don't appreciate this in cross-examination.
It's not because you can ask a question that you should ask a question.
All right.
Could Johnny Depp have pulled down something with his uninjured hand?
No.
Yes, he could have.
But it would have been very difficult to do it.
With his mangled hand that Amber Heard mangled with the vodka bottle that she threw at him.
Sir, you've already just reminded that you're still under oath.
Okay, sir?
Okay, so now I think this is a total joke.
He is a Freedom Mason who supported lockdowns and tyranny and is spreading misinformation trying to confuse us.
Hashtag confession through protection.
But I do think that this is more of humor than actual seriousness.
Supported lockdowns.
Go to my Twitter feed.
If that's actually serious, but I don't think it is.
So thank you very much for the support.
Thank you.
Oh, I'm not ambidextrous at all.
Try to write with my left hand.
Try to...
What can I not do with my left hand?
I can do the claw with my left hand.
Oh.
Good morning, sir.
Okay, great.
So you showed me that he could have pulled down the things with his uninjured amber hat.
You were just fighting this case previously, but would you just briefly remind the jury who you are?
Yes, please.
I'm Richard Marks, and I'm a full-time entertainment transactional attorney.
I make deals every day for productions and for individuals.
But do you have a book?
trenches negotiating and then making sure the contracts reflect the deals.
And I'm very much distinguished from the other side's expert who is not an attorney, who's not in the trenches making deals, is not in that day-to-day process.
This is what happens when you've had time to watch other witnesses.
Yes.
Have you been asked to analyze that testimony and provide opinions in response?
Yes.
And generally, what are those opinions?
Well, my opinions are that she's very slick and smooth.
Don't be too aggressive.
Don't be too cocky.
Her assessment of damages is built on...
Nothing, and it's wildly speculative.
Okay, good.
Go on.
Are you familiar with Ms. Arnold's opinion that it's customary for an actor to renegotiate the fee for a subsequent picture option in a multi-picture contract when a film is successful?
Yes, I heard that opinion.
And are you also familiar with her testimony that under those circumstances, an actor will renegotiate a 50 to 100% increase in their salary for the next optional film?
Yes, I heard her say that.
Do you agree with those opinions?
Absolutely not.
Why not, sir?
Well, what we're dealing with in this case is a test option agreement.
And that's an agreement.
It's a multi-picture agreement.
And it's the nightmare for people like me.
The test is going to take place, let's say, for 10 actors the next morning at 9. And you have to fully negotiate a contract that might cover four movies and have it signed before they're allowed to test.
So that if they're chosen for the part, we have the full contract.
There's no renegotiation.
So you've got a contract for a multi-picture deal.
It's usually a franchise.
And you negotiate the first movie.
And normally...
If they get the part, they're the chosen one.
They're the stars born moment, if you will.
They get the part.
Normally, their salary is inflated from their normal salary.
This guy exudes confidence.
It could go on for four movies.
In this case, Ms. Hurd's first salary when she got the part was $450,000.
If Warner Brothers...
And DC Comics decided to make a next movie.
They could recast her.
They had no obligation.
All they had was an option.
But if they did cast her up front, that they had agreed to more than double her salary like two and a quarter times to get to the million dollars.
These are large bumps, if you will.
If an actor is on a series, say, And they have five options.
They go up in increments of 5%, 10%, 20%.
Not these multiples that you see in a test option agreement.
And that's one of the reasons that they aren't renegotiated normally.
They are in some instances, but not normally.
What's the significance of the test part in a test option agreement?
The test significance is that an established actor usually wouldn't test.
They'd be offered the role.
Ms. Heard was in a group of actors that needed to be tested to see if the studio wanted to hire them.
And then if they hired them, they would be locked up for potentially for movies.
At very lucrative increases, because after Aquaman 1, she gets to $1 million.
Aquaman 2, she gets to $2 million.
And Aquaman 3, you get to $4 million.
These are unheard of bumps if you're going on a normal career and trying to increase your salary by increments.
In your experience, what is customary for negotiations of multi-picture deals?
Yeah, I think they've established his experience before.
What happened in this case was customary for negotiation of multi-picture deals.
And by that, I mean that you assume success.
The reason you go from the first Justice League movie where...
Miss Hurd played Mira the first time.
The reason you more than double her salary is you assume success.
So you've already built in the bonus that Miss Arnold was referring to, a renegotiation, if you will, for the third movie.
Instead of doubling her salary, Miss Arnold said it would only be fair to quadruple her salary.
And that's just not the way these idiosyncratic contracts work.
They're a very small portion of the contracts we deal with.
Are you familiar with Ms. Arnold's opinion that Ms. Hurd's salary for Aquaman 2 could have been renegotiated to around $4 million?
I am.
Do you agree with that opinion?
No.
Wouldn't they have documentation to prove this?
Well, as I said, that would now be...
After a healthy first payday, it's more than doubled, and now it would be quadrupled.
That's not the way it happens.
Walter Hamada, who is the president of that part of the studio, said it doesn't happen.
They're not going to do it.
Ms. Arnold, for some substance, says, well, Jason Momoa got to do it, but she doesn't give us any of the details.
We know that Jason Momoa was in a movie before the Justice League.
He played Aquaman in a movie not with Ms. Mira in that movie.
So he had a history before.
Yeah, Chad, I don't know who Momoa is, but he was a known celeb for a while.
We don't know what his contract, the state of it was when you got to Aquaman 2. And she says, unsupported, that he renegotiated.
We're not sure what he renegotiated to.
But I can say that at the end of the option period, when you've only got one option left and you want that star in more movies, you may renegotiate, but it's not a gratuity.
We'll give you more for the last option if you'll give us three more options.
It's a give and take.
And unfortunately, Ms. Arnold didn't give us any of that background or those building blocks.
And then I think yesterday she said, and the other actors renegotiated.
And again, we don't know their salary history.
We don't know their contracts.
We don't know anything except...
She's asking you just to believe her as what I refer to as a professional expert.
Are you aware that Ms. Arnold's opined that but for the alleged defamatory statements by Mr. Waldman, Ms. Heard would have earned $45 million in the last 18 months and then the next three to five years?
Yes, I am.
I'd like to address some of the components of that one by one with you, Mr. Marks.
Are you familiar with her testimony that Ms. Heard would continue to make films for approximately $4 million each following Aquaman 2?
Yes.
Do you agree with that testimony?
No.
Why not?
Well, again, in Aquaman 2, Amber Heard has already had this huge increase.
She worked on Aquaman 2 for $2 million.
What Ms. Arnold is saying is, oh, she should have worked on it for $4 million.
Which I disagree with, and I think there is reasons to negotiate that weren't here in this case.
So the $4 million I have a disagreement with, but even if it was at $4 million...
I know how I would destroy this witness in Cross.
The four or five movies that Ms. Heard might get might be independent movies.
I don't know any of these movies.
Oh, I wish.
I could cross this guy with a good question.
I would ask this guy in cross.
You're an expert?
You have a lot of experience in the practice?
If you were renegotiating for Amber, how much would you ask for?
For Aquaman 2?
How much would you ask for for her next movie?
Based on?
What would you ask for?
And he'd say a big number if he wants to make himself look like a bigwig.
And then the question would be, do you think you could have gotten her that?
You'd say yes.
How much would you try to get for Amber for Aquaman 2?
Or two million.
That's all she's worth.
It's one hell of an agent.
Is Christmas 2018.
If that's true, and I don't think it's true, those moments don't normally happen to supporting cast.
Not one episode of Game of Thrones.
Stargate.
You would expect, if you represent producers, production companies, to flock in, to take advantage of this hot star and to sign them up.
And we have...
True, but if he asks for more, it's because he thinks she could get it.
And that's what's at issue here.
Ms. Hurd starred in one series of eight episodes, and she earned a healthy fee, $200,000 an episode.
But that's five times less than the million Ms. Arnold is tossing out.
Supposedly based on Jason Momoa's quote.
But that was an episode versus movie, though, no?
Oh, episode of the series.
Jason Momoa is not a comparable actor.
He's been in a series where they shot 78 episodes, 44 episodes, 21 episodes.
He played Conan the Barbarian.
He was in Game of Thrones.
It's not a comparable...
I'll state the objection.
Next question.
Really?
Mr. Marks, we'll get to some of those issues in a moment, but I want to take you back for a second.
I believe you testified a few minutes ago that your understanding is that the last option in a multi-picture deal might be renegotiated under some circumstances.
Do you have an understanding of whether Aquaman 2 was the last option in Ms. Hurd's contract with Warner Brothers?
Oh, no.
No.
Aquaman 2 has not even been released.
And Warner Brothers has a fourth option for Aquaman 3 or another movie where Mira appears, that character, and they've agreed to...
Oh, Aquaman 2 has not been released, but it's been...
So it's in success now that they recast for 2023.
Are you aware of Ms. Arnold's testimony that Ms. Heard would have made several million dollars on endorsement deals, such as the one she had with L 'Oreal?
I'm aware of that testimony.
Do you agree with that opinion?
No.
Why not?
You don't want to look like you're denying the obvious.
We didn't, after the breakout moment that Ms. Arnold talked about, Christmas 2018, we didn't see endorsement deals flocking to Ms. Hurd during that 16-month period before.
Adam Waldman made a few statements in the London Daily Mail, I believe it was.
We didn't see those endorsements coming to her.
What Ms. Arnold shows you is these non-comparable actors, they had endorsement deals.
Non-comparable actors is right.
She doesn't show you when she describes the breakout moment.
And why she's comparing Amber Heard to these, what I call...
Established.
But she's making the comparison.
She's saying, well, they had all these deals.
Why wouldn't she?
She still got paid two million bucks for Aquaman 2. Statements that happened 16 months later.
And I guess my primary question is what happened in the 16 months.
Even if you believe three statements in the Daily Mail are the state through the heart.
of this "Stars Born" moment.
Yeah, the expert yesterday definitely, she compared non-comparable actors.
Did you think about Ms. Arnold's testimony that Ms. Heard would have made $1 million an episode in a couple of streaming series following her "Stars Born" moment?
Yes, I heard it.
What's your opinion?
No way.
Well, after Aquaman won, this is a major coup.
Amber Heard got that role.
She tested for it.
She could have been the other 19 actresses or 10 or whoever else tested, didn't get it.
She got the role and she got her salary doubled for Aquaman 1, so a million dollars.
Now, Ms. Arnold wants you to believe that that million dollars would translate into, she'd get that for each episode of a series.
We know what she got for a series.
She got a series in that period after Christmas 2018, before spring of 2020.
She got a series.
It was eight episodes, and it was $200,000 an episode.
They did their best with their evidence.
Game over.
From somewhere, in a glib way, saying she'd get a couple series and a million each.
And I can tell you, as someone in the trenches, Rarely, rarely does an actor get a million dollars for a series episode.
You've got to have a budget for it.
And again, in those 16 months, there were no offers for series at a million dollars an episode.
In fact, her only series is the $200,000.
And if you look at her resume, the series that Ms. Hurt were in...
Amber's got to be seething right now.
Jason Momoa, if you were to believe Ms. Arnold and somehow Jason Momoa's agent broke their confidentiality in the agreement and he had a series and a million dollars an episode, if you're to believe that, Jason Momoa has had a series with 78 episodes, with 44 episodes, with 21 episodes, with 18 episodes, with 21 episodes.
Again, there's not a comparableness there.
We spoke a few minutes ago about the test option agreement.
What's the significance of the option part of that agreement?
The option part of the agreement gives the employer, the studio, the option.
They don't have to do anything.
They have an option to either employ you at a very healthy salary to play this role or not.
They can recast the superhero role.
You just have to think of how many actors have played Batman or Superman.
They can do what they want.
And indeed, since there's no contract, they only have a choice to exercise their option or not.
They might say, we're not exercising unless you reduce your compensation.
Who knows what the negotiation would be?
But it's not a contract until the studio exercises the option, and they don't have to.
It's not odd.
It's actually, they go hand in hand.
Well, the alternative is most agreements in Hollywood, you're hired to play the role.
They have no choice.
Or, once you exercise the option, then it becomes, for that picture, an agreement like others in Hollywood.
You are now hired to play that role.
So, most contracts are guaranteed.
You're hired to play the role.
In an option agreement, once they exercise the option, for that movie, it becomes a guaranteed contract.
Are you aware that Ms. Arnold testified that Ms. Hurd was released from her Aquaman 2 contract and then subsequently rehired?
I heard that testimony.
Is that consistent with your experience in the film industry?
Well, yeah.
These multi-option contracts?
No.
Is there going to be an objection?
Again, studios don't do things they don't have to do.
As we heard Mr. Hamada, the president of the studio, say, you either exercise your option or you don't.
They exercise their option.
He denied releasing and then rehiring.
And in my experience, in almost five decades in the business, doing this type of work, not talking about it, not consulting.
I heard Ms. Arnold say she's been an expert a hundred times.
They're just trying to refute Amber's expert testimony as to how much she allegedly lost.
This guy says no.
She was never worth that in the first place.
You know, it's not a contract until they option it.
And they pick up their option.
And at that point, it's a guaranteed contract.
And then different rules apply to it.
In your experience in the industry, do studios typically comment on those types of actions that they're taking with respect to options?
No.
Just like Mr. Hamada said, they don't need to comment on it.
They either exercise the option or they don't.
In Hollywood, silence is the default.
You play no card before it's time.
And the cards there were exercise the option or not.
And I was surprised by Mr. Hamada, under oath, basically saying that there was this discussion of chemistry.
That objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
Curry might be back on today, I think.
That's what I'm hoping for.
It was an in-court statement this morning, I believe, Your Honor.
That's right.
It's hearsay like yesterday.
Oh, yeah, there you go.
I'll rule the objection.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
I didn't hear.
Go ahead.
Sure.
Overall, you can continue.
Elaine does not look happy right there.
I'm surprised to hear Mr. Montess say that they talked about chemistry.
That would normally be behind closed doors because it can't help your relationship with the actor.
You're either going to exercise or not.
And that was quite a bit of candor from someone at his level.
And so, therefore, I take it at face value.
I think he felt that he was under oath and he was telling the truth, but it wouldn't be.
I'll sustain the objection.
Mr. Marks, are there circumstances where a studio would be more likely to say something about not using an actor again in a franchise?
Yes.
What are those circumstances?
Once they've exercised the option.
Once the contract is guaranteed, the studio still has the right to pay the actor, but not play them.
Pay or play them.
And that is a rare condition because you've hired the actor, you've got to pay them, but you say, go home, we're recasting.
In that situation, after you've exercised the option and the contract is guaranteed, if you...
Pay off the actor.
That's normally common.
This is not the most important thing in the world, but yesterday's cross-examination of the expert, it's a life lesson for everyone.
And a lawyer lesson.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Mr. Hurd's contract, again, it was just an option.
Either we exercise it or we don't.
And if we exercise it...
She's in the film.
If we don't, she's not.
Until we exercise it, we have our right to recast or not make the movie.
And even after we exercise it, we still have a right to recast and not make the movie.
We just have to pay her salary.
Do you understand that Ms. Arnold compares Ms. Hurd's career trajectory with that of other actors, including Jason Momoa?
Gal Gadot, Zendaya, Monica Armas.
Amber's going to be seething with this answer.
I heard that.
And what's your opinion of those actors as comparables for Ms. Heard?
They're not.
Even Ms. Heard's agent, Jessica Kay, said that four of those actors weren't comparable.
No, it's not.
It's testimony.
I believe the same response, Your Honor, that it was in testimony that was played in quarterly last week.
That's not what she testified to.
I mean, he's characterizing testimony.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
You can cross-examine.
Overruled.
Even her own expert.
Again, they are not comparable.
Jason Momoa was Aquaman.
Chris Pine was Captain Kirk.
Gal Gadot was one woman.
Zendaya has been working.
On Disney Channel since she was 13, she's in all the Spider-Man movies.
She goes by one name.
Ana de Armas, you know, when she was in a movie that they call, you know, her breakout, it was as a nude poster.
She's been an ensemble piece, Knives Out.
These are not comparables.
Ms. Arnold stuck to Jason Momoa, who is the most non-comparable because of his history and his career.
But she didn't give us the advantage of telling us what his contracts were, what he renegotiated to, what he earned.
She didn't give us any of those building blocks.
She just created, she set him up as a comparable and then said what Ms. Hurd should earn.
But she never gave us the salary of Jason Momoa or the other comparables.
And she built, like, this house of cards on nothing.
You know, she showed us, with her words, the beautiful clothing that the emperor was wearing.
But we could see, if you know the business...
Objection, Your Honor.
That he wasn't.
Let's go for the question.
All right.
I'll just say any objection.
Next question.
Okay.
You were just speaking about Mr. Momoa as a comparable.
Are you aware that Ms. Arnold compares Ms. Heard to Mr. Momoa as an actor with equivalent franchise experience who was able to renegotiate his salary for significant increases in bonus?
Yes.
What's your response to that opinion?
Again, he didn't have comparable franchise experience to Ms. Heard.
He was Conan the Barbarian.
He played Aquaman in a movie that Amber Heard was not in.
He played Aquaman, not a supporting character like Mira.
It's just not comparable.
And you can say the words, but I saw nothing from Miss Arnold to back it up.
Something to build on, which, if she was a negotiator in the trench, The studio negotiator would say, okay, so show us.
Where's the cops?
Let's talk numbers.
Because ultimately, that's what we have to get to.
Not just because you say it so.
We just don't believe you.
You've got to show us.
The jury is going to accept that she's comparable to Momoa.
Well, I mean, first, it depends on the film.
If the film is a million-dollar movie and everybody's deferring their salaries, that's one thing.
If it's a superhero movie, that's another.
But for dealmakers, the best predictor of what the deal should be is past earnings, precedent, comps.
You also look at the budget of the movie, what it can bear, because if you don't have a budget for a million dollars, but the budget's 10 million, obviously he has another price for that movie.
But the best predictor of future earnings is past earnings.
And I didn't see any Ms. Arnold talk about past earnings at all, except the earnings.
In this rarefied superhero four-picture deal where instead of incremental increases, which you normally see, it was multiples increases.
And then when you get on a series, the big renegotiation was when the network has no more options.
Until then, the actors on the series get 5, 10, 15. Small percentage raises.
They don't get multiples.
They get the multiples if it's success and the studio wants to continue making the series and they want to keep characters.
That's when the renegotiation happens.
Here, even if we believe Ms. Arnold, after Aquaman 2, there was still an option waiting at a big price, you know, double the previous payday.
What's the significance of the timing of the Waldman statements to the opportunities Ms. Arnold claims Ms. Hurd lost?
Objection?
Well, the argument, as I understand it, is that Ms. Arnold says that Ms. Hurd lost all these opportunities because those losses were caused by Adam Waldman's statements 16 months later.
So I think the timing...
Sure.
Okay, so there was a delayed objection there.
All right.
Well, this is boring.
It's really funny, actually.
It's boring, at least this testimony there, arguing over her alleged damages.
I think he's looking at the jury.
He looks personable.
The question is, like, so much of this is perspective-based.
If someone says he looks credible, he looks confident...
You know, is that perspective?
Other people are going to say he looks smarmy and he looks cocky.
He looks like he's looking down.
The bottom line, the question here is, in their evidence for Amber's alleged damages, setting aside whether or not the statements were in fact defamatory, assume they were.
Did she suffer damages?
And if she did, what is the quantum of those damages?
They're comparing Amber's career trajectory to Jason Momoa.
Now, I knew nothing of either of them, but that's because I'm a noob.
But I can now appreciate...
Mr. Marks, what's your overall assessment of Ms. Arnold's opinions in this case?
They're baseless.
My overall assessment of her opinions is that they're not worth the paper they're not written on.
She knows something about our business, but not about negotiating deals.
She may have gotten someone at the Endeavor office to breach confidentiality, but...
She never laid out the building blocks.
Wait, wait, wait.
Thank you.
Beyond the scope.
Mr. Marks, can you just limit your testimony to your opinion about Ms. Arnold's opinions, please?
My opinion, as someone who's made deals for 40 years, as a dealmaker for almost 50 years, is that she calls herself an expert, but she's not.
She doesn't have the background.
She doesn't have the day-to-day knowledge.
And her testimony that I heard did not back up her bottom line.
If you want to get those figures, you have to show why they're deserved.
And again, she was constructing a Jenga without the bottom pieces.
It does not hold up.
Under scrutiny by someone who makes deals.
No further questions.
No further questions.
Alright, what's going to be the cross?
How much, if you were going to negotiate Aquaman 3 for Amber, how much would you ask for?
Do it, rotten born.
If Amber were your client, how much would you ask for Aquaman 3?
So you agree that studios use comps to negotiate?
Deals, correct?
With actors?
Sometimes they do.
And you have an issue with the comps that Ms. Arnold used, correct?
As you testified to.
I have an issue with the comps that she says she used that she didn't disclose.
Why is he asking this question?
You've heard what he said.
Comparables.
Comparables.
I mean, she disclosed the actors.
She disclosed the actors and...
Budget figures from their movies.
She never disclosed their salaries and salary history as comps.
You're not offering a different set of comparators that should be used, correct?
I'm saying if you are going to...
That's not my question.
Are you offering a different set of comparators than what Ms. Arnold said?
I don't understand the question.
Are you offering a different set of comparisons?
I'm not here.
I'm not offering comparators.
I'm saying what she offered, you're not comparators.
That was my question.
You're not offering comparators, correct?
No, I would say that Ms. Brute's comparison...
Yeah, let him answer.
Let him answer.
It's not your fault.
All right, let's strike after that.
Just answer the questions, Mr. Marks.
Thank you.
You're a deal-maker, correct?
Good question.
What actors have you negotiated for in superhero movies?
Oh, dude, you're going to get burnt on this question.
Well, recently I've negotiated for Chris Pratt in a superhero series for Amazon.
I've negotiated a deal for Michael Douglas, not in a superhero movie, but a historical movie.
I've negotiated recently with Paul Rudd and Will Ferrell on an Apple series.
Billy Crudup on an Apple series.
Those are the recent talent deals.
What actors have you negotiated for in a superhero movie?
Movie.
You're going to limit the question to superhero.
As I sit here now, I can't remember a superhero movie that I've negotiated.
I've certainly negotiated over my career franchise movies.
And fantasy movies.
Your Honor, so it's no.
You haven't negotiated for any actors for superhero movies, correct?
Define superhero.
Fantasy is close enough.
Jungle Book isn't a superhero movie.
It's more of a fantasy.
No, correct.
So as I sit here, I can't think of a Marvel-type superhero movie that I've...
Apple series.
I'm not sure how impressive that is.
Now, you testified and you agree that Mr. Momoa negotiated his multi-picture contract for Aquaman 2, correct?
I heard Mr. Hamada say there was a renegotiation, but no facts were pro-offered, such as he didn't have an option.
His options were out.
What he was earning and what he renegotiated to.
And he is Aquaman man.
So yes, I did hear there was a renegotiation.
And you understand that his salary went from $3 to $4 million to $15 million?
If you tell me that, I haven't seen his contract and I haven't heard any testimony under oath that that's where the leap was.
Heard's contract was a talent option contract, correct?
Yes.
And you agree that if there's an Aquaman 3, Ms. Heard would have an option to receive $4 million, correct, for the movie?
Well, actually, language at Warner Brothers would have the option to engage her.
And if they engaged her, she would receive $4 million, correct?
She doesn't have the option to refuse.
They have the option to engage her.
And she would receive $4 million, correct?
Yes, $4 million.
Would you agree that the money Amber was making on Aquaman 2 or 3 would be her market rate for future studio movies?
No, he's going to say no to that.
I would think it would be her rate for future studio superhero movies.
But not necessarily studio movies that aren't superheroes, that could be standalone, that could be other type of studio movies.
But for studio superhero movies, it would be $4 million, correct?
His answer should be no.
It depends what the budgets are.
That's where I would start.
Assuming everything was equal.
This is getting close to the exact question I suggested they ask.
That she was in the ensemble.
There's a lot of ifs to look at, but all things being equal.
You agree that Aquaman was a breakthrough role for Ms. Hurt, wasn't it?
It's the first movie of that ilk that she makes, but she is not Aquaman.
She is Mira.
But it was a breakthrough movie for Ms. Hurt, correct?
For Hurt, it's a breakthrough movie.
That's a double-edged sword.
In that film and in the ensemble.
Absolutely.
And she was the female star of that movie, correct?
I believe so.
You would agree that for all of the actors Ms. Arnold listed as comparables, their career trajectory went up after their breakthrough, correct?
She didn't give us the raw materials to look at, but I'll take your word that all those unrelated actors...
I'm not sure what the jury is going to break through.
Except for Jason Momoa, they went up.
As did Ms. Arnold's when she went from one to two.
In your experience, can you identify an actor or an actress who's not been able to get a new studio movie after a breakthrough performance in a superhero movie?
A lot, a lot, I would think.
To opine on that, but there are lots of supporting characters.
They never get called back, especially when they die.
Don't appear in the next movie.
But a female star in a breakthrough movie, in a superhero movie, can you identify any actress who's not gotten another studio movie after that?
Who has not gotten another studio movie?
Well...
Convoluted question, but...
Miss Heard's breakthrough in 2018, she did get Aquaman 2. Aquaman 2 was already...
Okay.
She had the option for Aquaman 2. All right.
So she did...
Ms. Hurd did not get any movies after 2018, long before the Adam Waldman statements.
Other than Ms. Hurd, can you identify any actor or actress who's not gotten another studio movie after their breakthrough in a superhero movie?
As I sit here now, I haven't been asked to research that, and I can't.
That would be a normal thing.
And you're not providing an alternative number for Ms. Heard's damages, correct?
For the jury?
Thank you.
Correct.
I'm not providing an alternative number.
I think, you know, she's been more than adequately paid.
I'd move to strike after no, I've not been provided another number.
That's all.
I mean, my question was you're not providing another number.
I think it's in fairness in the full answer of the question, Your Honor.
It was a yes or no question.
His answer was no.
I'm not going to strike it.
Okay.
All right, no further questions.
All right, thank you.
So by the way, I'm not hungover whatsoever.
I went to bed early-ish.
I had to pick my kid up somewhere at 10 o 'clock, so Daddy don't drink and drive.
Mr. Marks, in response to some questions from Mr. Ladehef, you were discussing some franchise and fantasy movie agreements that you've negotiated with actors.
So this is redirect.
Can you describe some of those for us?
Examination Chief Cross redirect.
You know, I've had such a long career that I mainly forget what I've done.
I'm kind of a big deal.
He forgets what he's done.
Get the psychiatrist back in here.
That cross wasn't helpful at all.
It didn't do much.
Is that a fantasy movie?
The Golden Child, is that a fantasy movie?
I'd say Golden Child is an action movie.
Coming to America is one of the best comedies ever made.
Contracts, and ultimately the film wasn't made.
But as I sit here now, those are the only ones that come to pass.
If I was looking at my resume or going through my files, I might think of others.
But there isn't a deal that I haven't made.
And I think you also testified in response to Mr. Nadelhaff's questions that you have negotiated some deals for Chris Pratt.
And Paul Rudd.
Do you recall that testimony?
Those are big names.
Yes, he's referred to a streaming series.
How much?
Do you happen to know if both of those actors have played Marvel superheroes?
Oh, they have.
I believe...
Chris Pratt was in Galaxy, Guardian of the Galaxy.
You know, that's not my genre.
No further questions, Your Honor.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Mark.
Boring!
Sorry.
It's interesting to learn about the business.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
But I don't think we learned enough about the business to make it that interesting.
Suffice to say...
Michael Spindler.
Michael Spindler?
Let's see.
You've testified previously, correct, Mr. Spindler?
All right.
Just a reminder that you're still under oath.
Okay, sir?
Yes.
All right, thank you.
Dude, I couldn't have slept in because I was up at 6.45 to do morning drop-off of the kids.
Then I drove my wife to work, which is the only reason why I was late starting.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Spindler.
Good morning.
Can you remind the jury who you are and what you do?
Yes, I'm Michael Spindler.
I'm a forensic accountant.
I'm a CPA, a certified fraud examiner, amongst some other certifications.
I'm with B. Riley Advisory Services, a national firm that does forensic accounting, bankruptcy and restructuring work, and business valuations and appraisals.
I've got over 40 years of experience.
Are you familiar with the testimony rendered by Ms. Arnold in this matter?
Yes, I am.
Do you understand that Ms. Arnold testified that Ms. Hurd has suffered economic damages resulting from three statements made by Mr. Wall?
They can't testify to the causality, but they can testify to the damages.
Do you have an opinion of that, Clay?
I do.
Ooh, what is it, sir?
Do you have an opinion on that?
The question is going to be whether or not his opinion, he's an expert witness, he's only there for his opinion, whether or not it's going to be beyond the scope of his expertise.
And bear in mind, or they might be arguing over the causality, because it's going to be a question of fact as to whether or not the statements caused the damages, and maybe the way that question was asked, it presupposed that the absence of damages Or that any damages would have been related to or not related to the statements.
And...
Oh, I wish we could hear the sidebar.
But bottom line, they're going to try to claim that Amber did not suffer any damages.
Her damages are grossly exaggerated.
And even if she did suffer any damages, it wasn't related to the statements because they didn't line up, temporally speaking.
It was at that moment, day 22 of the trial, the stenographer decided to put on a yellow jacket to try to make the day more sunny.
But it was just another day, like every other.
Lawyers quibbling.
Witnesses fighting.
Jury members struggling to stay awake because their minds had been made up for many, many days.
Okay.
Finally, the lawyers have stopped talking.
And now I can go back to stenographizing.
Court reporting.
Doing what I was put in this courtroom to do.
She's staring right at the jury the entire time.
Now, you indicated that you had listened to Ms. Arnold, and she testified on behalf of Ms. Hurd relative to economic damages.
Okay, here we go.
On the damages.
Yes, I have.
What's that opinion?
It is not adequately supported and it is unreasonable.
There were multiple elements to that analysis, both damages related to her film career and to endorsements.
Have you analyzed both those issues?
Yes, I have.
What was your methodology, sir?
What is your opinion of the claims that have been asserted relative to the film career and endorsements?
Okay, well, first of all, with respect to her damages calculation, there was no calculation per se.
She initially looked at these comparable actors and seemed to use that as a basis for numbers.
She didn't provide the underlying calculation.
She didn't provide underlying support.
And then it appeared as though in her testimony, she backed away a little bit from that, but she still suffers from the issues of not providing detailed calculations or support for where those numbers come from.
And she still, to some extent, appears to be using some kind of comparable analysis.
What is the type of analysis that you think is appropriate here?
Well, I think, and as you heard from the last witness, I think that something that is anchored in facts, taking a look at historical compensation as a basis for anticipating future compensation.
Had you looked at Ms. Heard's prior compensation?
Yes, I have.
I've looked at tax returns that were provided for the period of 2013 through 2013.
Why do you want to use historical earnings?
Well, once again, you want an analysis that's anchored in fact.
I don't believe that Ms. Arnold has done that in her analysis.
Okay, they should have fun with this guy on cross.
Her income went up, objectively.
And as the last witness mentioned, that often provides somewhat of a basis for future anticipated earnings.
In addition, I believe that Ms. Arnold herself said that...
She had hoped to be able to look at a renegotiated salary for Aquaman 2 and then use that as a basis for future compensation, that being the new kind of base, if you will.
They can score points on this right now.
Were there any years in particular in terms of the trajectory of her income?
As to Ms. Arnold's testimony.
In terms of the historical compensation?
Well, for 2013 through 2019 in total, her compensation was around $10 million for all those years combined.
In 2019, the last of those years, her compensation was somewhere between about $2.6 million and $3 million.
Now, that's a good year.
That's known as a clean year.
What do you mean by a clean year?
For example, 2019, you had Aquaman was released in December of 2018, and that was a successful film.
So in 2019, you've got the benefit of that kind of success, and you also don't have any potential impact from the alleged defamatory Walden statements that occurred in April of 2020.
So 2019 is clean of all that.
What did you understand?
No way.
Dude, sorry.
Ms. Arnold's methodology to be.
What did I just do?
Appeared to be based on these comparable actors that she had identified.
And theoretically, the compensation that they earned, although she doesn't identify what that compensation is or provide any support for it.
Or in calculations.
He's going to get grilled.
He's talking perspective.
The historical trajectory is going to be used against him.
That methodology was unsound.
It's just unsupported.
There are no numbers.
There's no data that she provided and support for that.
Well, okay, we're going to see this.
What methodology did you understand Ms. Arnold to adopt a trial?
Okay, well it looked like somewhat of a mix and match approach.
She used different approaches, I believe, for different elements of the damages.
It's a lot of money.
With respect to the television series portion of her...
analysis.
What do you understand that methodology to be?
Okay.
Jackson, Your Honor, may we approach?
All right.
So, they're going to get this guy.
This guy's a chartered accountant.
He basically proved, from what he just said, she made, I thought, what, $10 million over, what did he say, however many years, and $2.6 to $3 million of that was in the last year.
They're going to use that to show specifically that her drop-off, which was on a parabolic Set aside causality, they're going to establish that as being a baseline.
It was going up.
She made $2.63 million in her last year.
That's a third of what she made in the last decade or whatever it was.
So you agree that her salary, her income, was on the uptick by a lot.
Now, whether or not they are not using comparables to determine whether or not it would have gone to $10 million, $40 million, or whatever, it was going up pretty much exponentially unless I've misunderstood.
From what this witness is saying.
So that should be a fun question on Cross.
The dude's also a chartered accountant.
So expertise in accounting, not necessarily expertise in Hollywood negotiations of salary.
Okay.
So there's that.
Out of that...
Oh, well, the question is also, she made 2.6 to 3 million.
Out of that $2.6 million, half of that went to California taxes.
Dude, in Canada, you make over a certain amount, 52% goes to taxes, and that doesn't include property taxes, sales tax afterwards, and all the ancillary taxes you pay.
One thing you can also guarantee, you don't get value for that money.
Now, the question is, I'm curious as to whether or not...
The $2.6 to $3 million she got in 2019, the source of that revenue, if it's prejudicial the source of the revenue or not necessarily from movie gigs, I presume Amber's not going to bring it up on cross.
They would probably want to bring it up on chief.
What would be the source of that $2.6 to $3 million?
We'll see.
Rebel News is live-streaming right now on YouTube about the WEF.
Well, then I would for everyone who wants to watch that.
I've reached out to see if we can get Sav Says on the channel.
Sav Says is the woman who was recording and reporting when Jack Posobiec was being detained by Swiss police.
So I hope we'll be able to get her on to pop in.
Let me just make sure I sent the link out to the individual who can forward it along.
I did.
So if we see, if I can get anyone from Rebel News who's in Davos right now to come on and talk about what's going on, 1000% I will.
I'm trying to.
But if you want to watch it, go watch it.
Yeah, look, and this is not like, there's tons of people I don't know.
I saw Sad Says on the bottom right hand, the watermark of the video.
Of Jack Posobiec being detained.
And she's got some courage, I tell you what.
When someone says to me in a Germanic accent, please delete that video.
I'm not sure what I'm doing, but I'm telling you I'm scared one way or the other.
So I looked her up.
Savannah Hernandez didn't know who she was.
I wasn't aware of the fact that she's with Rebel News as one of their five journalists in Davos.
And she's been suspended from Twitter a while back, not from this incident.
I was told it's not from this incident.
Sav says, Savannah Hernandez, down there with Rebel Media, and has got some chutzpah, as is known in some languages, cojones in another language, and Justin Bosman.
In my mind, Depp is succeeding.
He may not win.
What historical earning Ms. Hurd had during the period that you were concerned with relative to television shows?
Yes.
Well, yes.
During 2019, she entered into a contract in July of 2019 to appear in the television series at $200,000 per episode.
That's pretty darn good.
What about endorsement deals?
Did you look at what she had made on endorsement deals during that period?
She did have a contract with L 'Oreal.
Okay.
Maybe I should get a contract with L 'Oreal.
With respect to her movie roles, what were her historical earnings during that period?
Well, certainly for the most recent years, you had the Warner Brothers deal, which was a four-picture deal.
The first film was $450,000.
Then the first Aquaman was $1 million fee, base fee.
Then $2 million for Aquaman 2. And presuming that there was an Aquaman 3, that would have been $4 million.
Okay.
Why do you look at historical earnings as part of your analysis?
Because you want your analysis to be anchored in facts.
We've heard that.
That's your late motif, and it's very nice.
...and you want to come up with a reasonable result.
So if you take a look at, for example, the analysis that Ms. Arnold did, it didn't appear to be...
Let's just look at the analysis that you're doing.
So what you said, I think, is you wanted them anchored in facts.
Why?
Because that provides a sound basis for coming up with something with reasonable certainty.
There's AICPA or American Institute Certified Public Accountant guidance with respect to reasonable certainty.
And those are the basic elements of it.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Lane, I mean, I guess everyone's got to try to respond to Amber's evidence of losses.
Is this Rottenborn?
He had better focus on the...
Parabolic trajectory of her revenue.
Good morning.
I'm going to ask you a few questions that may refer to the statements in Amber's counterclaim against Mr. Depp.
You should be.
That's what it's about.
I'm going to refer to them as the Depp-Waldman statements.
Do you agree that we can both be on the same page what I'm referring to when I say that?
That's fine.
You can use your terminology.
Sorry, there's an injection, sir.
Can we approach it?
Okay.
Okay, well.
Join R. Cowan to learn the truth about Freemasonry.
I don't know who that is.
I still don't know what Freemasonry is.
I know people accuse...
I saw it in The Simpsons.
That's where I originally learned the term Freemasons around the country when Burns had lost his mind and was using...
Kleenex boxes as shoes.
What were we talking about before?
Oh, Sav says.
So that's it, yeah.
We're going to get to some of the Davos stuff.
Rebel sent down five journalists.
Jack Posobiec is there.
Briefly detained, then released by the police who said they had their reasons for pulling him over and detaining him.
Subsequently released, Jack Posobiec's humorous response is that he was pulled over from being too good-looking.
I have never had that problem.
So, Mr. Spindler, when I refer to the Depp-Waldman statements, you understand me to be referring to the statements in Ms. Hurts' counterclaim against Mr. Depp, correct?
I'll understand that, yes.
Now, you're here to provide a rebuttal opinion to Ms. Arnold's, part of Ms. Arnold's testimony, correct?
Correct.
You're not providing an opinion on whether Ms. Hurd suffered defamation by Mr. Depp, correct?
That is true.
You're not offering an opinion as to any of the underlying facts relating to whether Mr. Depp abused Amber, correct?
That's correct.
You're not offering an opinion as to the magnitude of damages that you believe Ms. Hurd may be entitled to if she proves defamation by Mr. Depp.
You're just reviewing what Ms. Arnold has said, correct?
That's correct.
And you said that you want your analysis to be accurate in facts, right?
Yes.
Anchored in facts.
Anchored in facts.
You'd agree that what an actor earns in one period isn't necessarily reflective of what he or she may earn in future periods, correct?
Are you sure you want to ask that question, Ron?
Correct.
And that's because an increase in the number of roles may lead to greater income, correct?
I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
I was speaking, I didn't hear.
One of the reasons that...
What yearned in one period may not be reflective of what an actress may or in future periods is because an increase in the number of roles may lead to greater income, correct?
The number of roles or the particular project itself, yes.
Sure, getting better roles may lead to greater income, correct?
Correct.
And being in bombs might lead to less income.
It can.
It depends.
So what Ms. Heard earned from, say, 2013 to 2019 that you testified to isn't necessarily reflective of what she might earn over the next five years, correct?
Yeah, for good and for bad, Rotten Boy.
Not necessarily.
It is a good indicator, though.
And you'd agree that from 2013 to 2019, in terms of earnings and star power, that Ms. Heard's career trajectory was on the upswing, correct?
There was a slight increase during that period of time in her earnings from 2013 through 2019.
And you'd agree that that was as a result of getting more lucrative roles, right?
Yes.
Now, you're not a causation expert, right?
You're just a damages expert?
That's correct.
So you're not testifying as to whether the Depp-Waldman statements caused her to lose any roles, correct?
That's correct.
And you're not offering any opinion as to whether the Depp Waldman statements kept her from being considered for roles that she otherwise.
That's correct.
That's correct.
I'm not testifying on causation issues.
And you can't speak to what opportunities may never have materialized for Amber as a result of the Depwaldment.
Yeah, I've not done those calculations.
And you don't have an opinion about whether or not Ms. Heard could have renegotiated a contract for Aquaman 2, correct?
That was not part of my work.
And you don't have an opinion on the impact that additional exposure or press coverage or magazine covers or interviews would have had on Ms. Heard's career, correct?
Correct.
I'm just looking at Ms. Arnold's calculations.
You've never served as an expert witness before to calculate damages based on lost roles by an actress resulting from defamation against that person, correct?
I've been involved in defamation cases, but I've not done the calculations as an expert witness and testified there to.
And there's never been an instance Correct.
I'm sorry, one more time?
You're not offering any expert opinion on what impact the Depp Waldman statements by Mr. Depp has had on Ms. Hurd's career, correct?
Other than taking a look at Ms. Arnold's calculations.
And you're not offering any expert opinion about what impact, if any, social media coverage of this case or Ms. Hurd may have had on Ms. Hurd's career, correct?
Correct.
That's other experts.
Can we approach other questions?
Thank you.
All right.
I'm just reading now on Swiss recording laws.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Ms. Finley.
You can have a seat in the courtroom or you're free to go.
Thank you.
All right.
Your next witness.
Plaintiff calls Doug Banya, Your Honor.
Who is Doug Banya, plaintiff?
B-A-N-I-A.
Oh, Doug Banya.
Okay.
That was a waste of time as well.
Thoroughly uninteresting.
Oh, God.
So apparently the jury.
Is also thoroughly unimpressed.
And according to Joe Nierman, when they start talking damages, tune out.
Because it would seem they are not even anywhere near the idea of contemplating damages for Amber Heard.
Oh, okay.
Do we remember this guy?
So just a reminder that you're still under oath.
Okay, sir?
Thank you.
Sorry.
Good afternoon, Mr. Banya.
Good afternoon.
Can you briefly reintroduce yourself to the jury, please?
Yes.
Hi, Doug Banya.
I am from Nevium Intellectual Property Consultants based in San Diego.
I value intellectual property.
I provide litigation support in infringement and defamation cases, as I'm doing today.
And I use internet and social media analytics in both of those services.
Since you last testified in this case, the jury has heard testimony from Ronald Schnell and Catherine Arnold.
Are you familiar with their testimony?
Yes.
Yes, I was.
Have you formed opinions in response to the testimony of Mr. Schnell and Ms. Arnold?
I have.
Generally, what are those opinions?
Generally, Mr. Schnell provided no evidence of a correlation between the Waldman statements and the hashtags and the spikes of those hashtags on Twitter.
Second, based on my Internet and social media analytics investigation, I've concluded that the alleged comparable actors that Miss Arnold came up with are not comparable with Miss Hurd.
Why not?
And then thirdly, Mr. Schnell and Miss Arnold both failed to provide any evidence of a...
causation as it relates to the Waldman statements causing any economic harm to Ms. Hurd.
Let's dig into those opinions a little bit.
You're familiar with the testimony of Mr. Schnell that there are more than 2.7 million alleged negative tweets related to misheard between January 2018 and June 2021?
Yes.
And what's your understanding of how Mr. Schnell identified those particular 2.7 million tweets?
Yeah, so essentially, Mr. Schnell chose...
Schnell is literally German for fast.
...negative towards Miss Heard.
Those hashtags range from justice for Johnny Depp, Amber Heard is an abuser, Amber Turd, and the hashtag, we just don't like you, Amber.
So then he used those hashtags and he searched using the Twitter API, searched through various tweets, and then came up with any tweets that were using those hashtags.
Did you conduct an analysis of those tweets?
Yes, I was given that exact...
What did you find?
So what I'm trying to do, and what's that issue of the case today at this point, is, you know, were these tweets, did they contain the Walden statements?
That's where we're at right now.
So he's here for causation.
So I wanted to analyze those tweets to determine...
Were they referencing the allegedly defamatory statements?
What's your understanding of what the Waldman statements are?
A fraction did.
So, my understanding is there's three Waldman statements that were published in the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail is a UK tabloid, and Mr. Arnold was quoted in three of those articles.
And those dates were on April 8th, 2020, April 27th, 2020, and on June 24th, 2020.
And my understanding, those quotes, those quotes, sorry, I think I said the wrong name, but those quotes are the only remaining in this case.
That kind of looks like the guy from Ferris Bueller's day off.
Did you analyze the timing of the tweets that we were talking about as compared to the timing of the Waldman statements?
And that's exactly what I did.
So I wanted to look at the Waldman statements, look at the dates that they happened, and then analyze those as compared to the Twitter data that I have.
Have you prepared a demonstrative that reflects that aspect of your analysis?
Yes.
May I approach the witness?
Dude, what's his name?
The guy who crashed his dad's car at the end of the movie.
Mueller?
Mueller?
Yeah, I have my own term for the WEF.
Unelected officials who want to systematically desecrate the provisions of the Constitution and individual rights and freedoms and privacy.
I have a new hashtag for them.
And the idea that Jack Posobiec, whether or not he's trying to sell a book, which I think It's probably a value-added book to the world.
People are entitled to make money and survive off the work that they do.
And they're even allowed to thrive off of the work that they do, especially when they're doing it without really coercing anybody to do anything.
Support people if you want to, but to expect people to not make a living off, speaking of which, not make a living off what they're doing, there's a word for that.
How much time and money have we spent on these hollyweirds being weird?
It's an industry.
This trial has become an industry.
But what I like about it...
Mr. Vanya, can you explain to the jury what this demonstration shows?
It's the new court TV.
It's the new court TV.
Okay, let's hear this.
Observation of hashtags.
This shows the total hashtags and tweets that Mr. Schnell was analyzing.
This is the summary data.
There are tweets that are running from January 2018.
Oh, wow.
This is damning.
2021.
And again, these are related for hashtags that I discussed.
Whenever I get an assignment such as this, when I'm dealing with a defamatory statement that's allegedly gone viral online, where there's economic damages involved and there's a lot of data involved, I like to take the data and I like to do a 30,000 -foot view of the data to see what I'm looking at, to see if there's anything interesting, odd, different about the data.
And the first thing that I notice is 35% of the tweets.
Unbelievable.
This is good.
The statements are part of the tweets that Mr. Schnell analyzed.
So obviously if these tweets were prior to the Waldman statements, in no way could they have anything to do with the Waldman statements.
So that was the first issue that I noticed.
Then I noticed.
What I like to call kind of the alleged defamatory time frame.
And as I discussed, that's when the Waldman statements were published.
That's the date down here.
You know, the first one was in the beginning of April, and the last one, which is the third one, was the end of June.
But what I found interesting is only 2% of all of the tweets happened during...
This Waldman statement, period.
So really, these are just observations.
And for me, there were red flags that I made note of.
And then I just continued with my analysis.
That's kind of a big red flag there.
...performed in connection with forming your opinions about the purportedly negative tweets.
Yeah, so now I realize that 35% are irrelevant and 2% only happened during this period.
They're not irrelevant.
Let me write that down.
I just continued to dig into the $2.79 million.
They're not irrelevant.
In fact, they're highly relevant because they show that the negative hashtags existed prior to the statement to which they're attributing that.
Checkmate.
The fact that 35% predated the article, it's not irrelevant.
It's actually exquisitely material to show that the hashtag predated the article on which the alleged defamation is based.
It preexisted.
It didn't create it.
I like this guy.
This guy.
He knows what he's doing here, this expert.
And he doesn't have to sell himself a little bit too much like the other guy.
I'm kind of a big deal.
I have many leather-bound books in my office, and yeah.
All right, plaintiffs.
You can turn the microphone, sorry.
No objection as a demonstrative.
No, you did not, Dr. Offensive.
That is technically impossible.
For identification as a demonstrative, it will be published.
Amber absurd.
Not bad, not bad.
Mr. Bynum, can you explain what this demonstrative shows?
Please.
Yes, this is showing the various spikes as it relates to the hashtags that Mr. Chanel testified about.
Justice for Johnny Depp.
Negative.
This is actually an exhibit or a demonstrative that he used in his testimony.
What this is showing are the largest spikes related to the hashtag Justice for Johnny Depp.
I don't know if you remember his testimony or any of his demonstratives.
The other three hashtags did spike at the same time, but a very small spike.
So what I'm showing you here are the six top spikes in Mr. Chanel's analysis.
Oh.
And what's important here, again, is the very first spike.
Right there, number one.
The largest spike, again.
The biggest spike.
The spike of all spikes.
Before the Waltman statements.
So what I'm trying to figure out is what tweets were related to the Waltman statements.
So this number one spike, which is the biggest spike, was prior to the Waltman statements.
So it's irrelevant to the case.
Not irrelevant!
Dude, don't miss the big point there.
It shows that these hashtags were not triggered by the allegedly defamatory article.
And you're going to notice, as we discussed before, only 2% of the tweets happened during that time.
But I found it very interesting for such a viral event that has potentially caused such economic harm.
There's no spikes in this area.
And actually, you're going to see that Mr. Waldman, you know, his...
It's not irrelevant to her case.
It's damaging.
downward use of the spike, downward use of the hashtags.
Downward use.
I'm not seeing any correlation as it relates to the Waldman statements and any spikes here as it relates to the hashtags Mr. Chanel chose.
They're not going to cross them on this.
The spikes that are depicted here?
Yeah, so what I did is I looked at the six different spikes.
And you're going to notice that each spike represents a month.
So the second spike, you know, is July 2020 and so on to the sixth spike going to April 2021.
And what I did is, I don't know if you remember my last testimony when I went into Google search, and I'm able to go into Google search.
I went in and I typed in Amber Heard.
And then after you hit search, you can use the tool and you can go back in time.
And I chose each six of these dates to go back in time to see what was the media talking about back then.
You know, what was the general public being fed as it relates to Amber Heard back during those spikes?
And what I found is none of them...
Well, I actually analyzed the...
None of them correlate to the article.
...because they represent 50% to 70% of what people click on.
And that way I realized that none of them had anything to do with the Walden statements.
Are you aware of Mr. Chanel's testimony that the tweets using the four hashtags he looked at were mathematically correlated?
Yes.
What does that mean?
So what Mr. Chanel is saying, which is irrelevant to this case, is the four hashtags that he randomly chose, they tend to go up and down together.
And that's why he had these spikes here.
So the correlation there is how those four hashtags work or dance together going up and down.
But first of all, the hashtags have nothing to do with the Waldman statements.
And the fact that there's a correlation with the hashtags is irrelevant to this case because we're dealing with the Waldman statements, which none of that correlation analysis he did had to do with.
How do you know that the correlation doesn't have anything to do with the Waldman statements?
Can I clear this at all?
No.
Oh, yeah.
Well, first of all, I know because that would happen right here.
You know, if when Mr. Waldman, one of his quotes was published, you would see a big spike right here.
I think they could object to this.
And then you would see maybe a little noise down here, and then the third time you might see a big...
Second time, a big spike.
And the third time, a big spike.
That's not here.
So that's telling me there's no correlation between the Waldman statements and this hashtag.
It's a broad enough period of time.
That would make sense.
Evidence that there's no correlation because I analyze each of these spikes and none of them had to do with the Waldman statements.
Is mathematical correlation the same as causation?
No.
Why not?
I mean, correlation is simply a relationship between two or more variables or two or more things.
In this case, the correlation question is, did when the Waldman statements were published, at the same time, did you see a correlation with spikes in these hashtags?
And again...
Can we clear this?
You see none of that right here.
It's actually a downward trend.
There's no spikes, there's no correlation.
So, you know, again, Mr. Schnell provided no evidence of any correlation.
What correlation opinion did he provide during his testimony?
Well, he provided the correlation that the four hashtags, you know...
There were spikes?
A, the hashtags have nothing to do with the Waldman statements, and the facts that they're correlating or moving together is irrelevant to the case because the case is about the Waldman statements.
So what is causation then?
So causation is where one thing causes a change in the other.
Yeah, well, you're not going to know that with this.
So as it relates to this case, did the Waldman statements cause Ms. Hurd to have economic harm?
Well, did it cause an uptick?
An uptick in the hashtags, that's the question here.
Ms. Arnold provided no evidence of this.
And as a matter of fact, during Ms. Arnold's testimony yesterday, she didn't even know what causation was.
You know, she was asked, do you know the difference between causation and correlation?
And she said that she's not a semantics expert.
We're not talking about the words.
You know, when it comes to damages, you have to prove causation prior to calculating damages.
You know, so there is no causation that's proven here.
Therefore, a damages analysis is not appropriate.
Did you hear Mr. Schnell testify that he agreed with your opinion in this case?
Yes.
What's your understanding of the opinion that he agreed with?
Well, he agreed that he failed to link the spikes in the hashtags on Twitter to the Waldman statements.
Did he try to do that?
Well, he tried to do that.
Well, again, his analysis was looking at the word Waldman and looking at the word Waldminian and then trying to say that 25% of the tweets included those two terms.
But first of all, Waldman isn't the issue here.
It's the Waldman statements.
And Waldmanian, I don't even know what that is, but it's not relevant to this case.
We can, I think, take that one down, please, Tom.
Mr. Bobby, what other work have you done in connection with forming your opinions about Mr. Schnell's testimony?
Again, the assignment was to determine if the Waldman statements were part of the tweet, so I continued to dig in to the data.
I believe the next step is now that I've excluded the 35% that was before the Waldman statements because they're irrelevant, I wanted to really analyze from the April 2020 forward to see if any of those tweets contained the Waldman statements.
Actually, Yasmin.
Swiss gun ownership is actually quite high.
Yes, I did.
Little known fact.
So Yasmin says, Swiss police are on high alert on anything.
This is in relation to Posobiec.
So just relax.
It's an extremely safe country and not everyone is carrying a gun.
Check up gun ownership per capita in Switzerland.
You might be surprised.
All right.
We'll mark it for identification as plaintiffs 1295 as demonstrative.
It will be published to the jury.
So, Mr. Banya, did you consider the content of the statements made by Waldman as part of the work that you did?
Yes.
Yeah, so here I reviewed the Waldman statements again.
And what I wanted to do is I wanted to determine what...
If any tweets included the Waldman statements.
So I went back to the Waldman statements and I came up with key terms and key themes for those Waldman statements, which are listed here.
You know, the Waldman statements were about abuse hoax, sexual violence hoax, and fake sexual violence.
So what I did is we're now dealing with a 1.2 million tweets because, you know, we're starting in April 2020 because that's when the Waldman statements started.
And what I did is I searched the 1.2 million...
Tweets for these three phrases.
And I determined that there were 751 tweets that included those key terms, which is 0.06% of the 1.2 million.
And then as I was sifting and sorting and analyzing this data, I realized that a lot of these tweets have the exact same language.
You know, it was interesting to see it was the exact same tweet because I'm analyzing the language to see if it matches one of these three.
I realized that a lot of these tweets were retweets, likes, or shares.
So therefore I eliminated any of those and it came down with 95 unique tweets.
And then what I did from there is I analyzed those.
To determine if any of these terms were in there.
And I identified five tweets that were related to the Waldman statements.
What's great about this is the jury might not understand it.
Do any of the hashtags Mr. Chanel analyzed include the words from the Waldman statements?
No.
No.
No, they don't.
Because I am rebutting...
Ms. Arnold, you know, her testimony yesterday, she was saying that the Waldman statements caused these hashtags.
Then throughout her testimony, she walked that back and admitted, no, none of these tweets have anything to do with the Waldman statements.
They don't include the Waldman statements.
You know, these hashtags are only hashtags that Schnell, in his opinion, felt that they were negative towards Ms. Herbert.
Based on your expertise, what are your overall opinions about Mr. Schnell's testimony and the Twitter hashtag data?
That's irrelevant.
Mr. Schnell provided no evidence that any of the tweets were related to the Waldman statements.
Mr. Schnell, there's no correlation there.
He also provided no evidence that there's any causation.
On the contrary, it shows that there is no causation.
The spikes don't occur contemporaneously.
All right.
It's going to be a little while, I assume.
A little bit more, yes.
Yeah.
Let's go ahead and break for lunch, ladies and gentlemen.
Now we can get to other stuff.
See, there's time in the day to cover everything, people.
Let me just go check my messages and see if I have any news.
Yeah, that was good.
I mean, that testimony, it's sufficiently complicated, but the bottom line, it's being quite simplified.
The jury might not understand exactly the nuances of the stats.
Bottom line, irrelevant.
No correlation.
And they've reduced the hundreds of thousands of tweets to a handful, none of which actually include the impugned statements or even the words.
So, this guy was good.
Let me see here about the...
We might not want to get into the nitty-gritty.
All right, there we go.
Sick Semper Tyrannus.
We shall remove this from the stream.
Oh, I'm going to take these out.
They're still more comfortable.
My ears are sweating.
All right, people.
Let's go to the other stuff.
What's going on at Davos with the WEF meeting?
It's a preposterous thing that we have these unelected officials discussing global policy and somehow it's acceptable that these global bodies of unelected officials dictate, if it's not international global policy, Which it is.
Coming down to governing national policy.
Rebel News right now is live.
I've included the link so you can all go watch if you want to.
Let me see what...
Canada is long gone.
We just don't know it yet.
You stand up against the government.
You're going to jail and your life destroyed.
Wow, we are in bad times.
Mike Davidson.
Anyone who thinks this is hyperbology?
Anyone thinks that...
That Mike is being hyperbolic.
I'm joking about the hyperbology.
It was from...
What movie was it from?
Boondock Saints?
Symbology.
Anyone who thinks that Mike is being hyperbolic is not paying attention.
Tamara Lich is going to be back in court tomorrow for the reading of the judgment on her notice of application for bail rehearing and the Crown's notice of application for bail rehearing.
They want to put her in jail.
The Crown wants to put Tamara Lich back in jail.
And I don't...
I was live-streaming, mouth-tweeting that hearing as well because you're not allowed sharing the screen.
You're not allowed clipping audio or video or screen grabs.
You're allowed listening.
You're allowed tweeting in real time.
And I was doing it, and it's a joke.
It's like an exercise.
It's like, you know, basically like moot court, what you'd expect in high school or university.
Where pick a position, regardless of whether or not it's absolutely immoral, tyrannical, and argue it as best you can.
And that's what the prosecutor, in my humble opinion, is doing.
Arguing the technicalities of a position which is constitutionally objectionable.
I mean, it's civilly objectionable.
The idea that you want to lock up a person, the fact that she's a Métis woman.
Relevant for other aspects, but you want to lock up a person in pretrial detention on mischief charges, cause her certainty to lose $20,000 because she took a picture of a pendant that someone had sent her and then gave that person permission to post it on social media.
It's fun to do it as an exercise, an exercise in tyranny, an exercise as to we no longer live in a free country when this is what the prosecutor...
The Crown Prosecutor...
Oh, I just made them dirtier.
When this is what the prosecutor is going after by way of justice.
Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, Your Honor.
Big RMV channel, thank you very much.
So let's just see what's going on in Canada.
I've pulled up my channels.
Share screen.
This morning, I put out a tweet.
Oh, I'm going to go crazy for what I did here.
Anybody who doesn't have glasses, you might never know the frustration of having lenses that are not perfectly clean.
It's very, very frustrating.
And growing up, story time, there was nothing more irritating for me as a child, or even as an adult, than when someone touches my glasses.
And it was a thing among my friends.
We all knew.
Like, if anyone touched my glasses, bent them, hit me in the face, and made my glasses crooked, it would send me into a non-aggressive...
It would drive me crazy.
Okay, let's set that aside.
Here, I tweeted out this morning that there's a lot of people in Quebec who are not even aware of the fact that Bill 15 passed.
There are a lot of people in Quebec...
Who don't even...
I've had glasses my entire life.
I think as of eight years old.
And there is nothing more annoying than someone touching your glasses, getting grease on them, bending them.
You know, it takes a lot of time to get them to fit perfectly.
Oh, okay.
A lot of people with glasses paint in the house know the pain.
I tweet out there's a lot of people in Quebec who don't even know what Bill 15 is, that it's passed.
And these are educated people, people with kids, people who have changed their avatars for the latest thing, people who have taken hard political positions on things that they think they understand, don't know that Bill 15 even passed.
And they're going to find out about it, and they're going to have to convince themselves that it's not a big deal, that it doesn't mean anything.
There are people who don't even know that this law passed.
They don't know what the law says.
They're going to find out about it one day, and then they're going to say, it's not that big of a deal, and they're going to come across an article that says, oh, Quebec has not passed law reducing parents' rights over their children.
Yeah.
Let's go ahead and read this, shall we?
Quebec has not passed law reducing parents' rights over their children.
Listen to this.
Nothing's better than repeating a government talking point in your assessment of a government law.
The government says the measure sought to clarify that the child's best interest should be considered above all else.
It hasn't done it, people.
And as an authority to the fact that the government has not reduced your parents' rights, trust the government.
Trust what they say.
The government says the measure only sought to clarify that the child's best interest should be considered above all else.
The law removed...
Parental supremacy as the guiding principle of youth protection law.
And this is going to work its way into Canada being an authoritarian state and unelected officials micromanaging your entire life.
In support of it, the article refers to a tweet by Matea Murta, which says, Quebec Bill 15, which removes parental supremacy.
Do you see that?
No, you don't see that.
Okay.
Quebec's Bill 15, which removes parental primacy, moms, dads are no longer their children's main caregiver, has passed.
Government replacing parents is yet another element of the Communist Manifesto being realized in Canada.
Hyperbolic?
Yes.
Um...
Moms and dads are no longer their children's main caregiver?
Hyperbolic?
Arguably strawmanning?
Yes.
Quebec Bill 15 passed.
Remove parental primacy.
True?
True.
The question I've always asked is, you know, the law only sought to clarify what the law already said.
Let's make sure we understand this.
You don't clarify by addition something which already existed.
So it doesn't make sense.
You're not clarifying anything.
By addition to a law or amendment to a law that didn't already exist.
Clarification means it already existed.
If it already existed, you didn't need a new law or an amendment to an existing law to clarify that which already existed.
Wrong.
You need an amendment to create something or remove something which already existed or didn't already exist.
I broke that down the wrong way.
You need an amendment to add something to a law where something does not yet exist.
Or to remove something from a law that already does exist.
Bill 15 removes from the youth protection laws parental supremacy as the overarching principle.
And now for anyone who says, okay, it's only there, it's only to clarify that the child's interest should be considered above all else.
What do you think parental supremacy is?
What do you think the principle of parental supremacy is?
It is the best interest of the child.
Nobody ever confused parental supremacy for thinking it gave the parent, because of their parental supremacy, the right to abuse their kid.
No one ever thought that, because that's not what the law ever said, period.
So, it's parental supremacy and the child's best interest, in my mind, in my view, are synonymous.
There are two ways of saying the same thing.
Any parent...
Who wants to exercise their parental supremacy is only going to do it in the manner that they think is in their child's best interest.
The idea that parental supremacy was the overarching principle never authorized a parent to abuse their kid in the name of their rights as parental supremacists.
So the idea that it clarifies something which already existed, that is misinformation and spin.
Well, let's just get to the substance of the article.
We can read this together?
Okay, we can read it.
Let me just see it on my end.
Claim a recently passed reform.
It's only a reform, people.
It's only a reform.
It's only an amendment to an existing law, as if that is any different than a new law entirely.
Reforming an existing law is no different than creating a new law, because you're doing the same thing.
You're either creating a law that already doesn't exist, or you're reforming a law to say something that it doesn't already say.
In the Canadian province of Quebec, eliminated...
Okay, sorry, let me start again.
Social media posts claim a recently passed reform of the law governing child welfare in the Canadian province of Quebec eliminated parental supremacy.
Increasing government power By the way, they're saying it claims it.
It doesn't claim it.
That's what it did.
So they say it's a claim as though it's in dispute.
It's at issue.
It's not an issue.
It's the amendment.
This is misleading.
The government says the measure...
Thanks for being the government's spokesperson.
Thanks for engaging in independent critical thinking.
Boom.
Instead of just being regurgitators of government talking points, of the government's position.
The government says the measure sought to clarify that the child's best interests should be considered above all else, and experts say the language defining when child protective services should take action remains unchanged.
If it remains unchanged as to when...
CPS should take action.
If it remains unchanged, then why do you need to amend the law?
What was the purpose of the amendment?
Who are we going to cite here?
Who are we going to cite?
Oh, we read the tweet, which I already read.
Big X threw it.
Screenshot of tweet taken on April 26, 2022.
Other versions of the same claim appeared on Twitter and Facebook.
A push to overhaul Quebec's 1977 Youth Protection Act followed, I covered this and discussed it in detail, the death of a seven-year-old girl in Granby.
And I think this article is wrong.
I think it wasn't her mother, by the way.
It was her stepmother.
The child had been under supervision of the Youth Protection Services since her birth.
Until I read this article, I am 99% certain it was her stepmother.
Let me just see this.
Hold on one second.
Granby, child, death, stepmother.
Yes, it is a stepmother.
It was not the mother, which is exactly why even this tragic incident was a pretext of an impetus to go overhaul that law because this was an already illegal act committed by someone who wasn't even the birth parent of the child.
So to go in there and say you have to remove parental supremacy from the law because of this incident, it's pretextual in my humble opinion because the person was the stepmother.
The person was not even the biological parent, and there was nothing already that did not already prevent or make illegal the conduct that was done here.
There was nothing already that did not exist in the law to prevent what happened here.
Okay, so stepmother, not mom.
Let's just get back to that article.
This is fun.
You want to talk?
And the header in this is fake news.
Let's break down the fake news.
This is fake news.
What did I just do here?
Son of a beasting.
Oh, come on.
Okay, where are we?
Bill 15...
Getting real angry here.
What is going on here?
Am I...
Oh, show full article.
Okay, stop it, stop it.
Bill 15, which introduced reforms to the Youth Protection Act, passed the National Assembly unanimously.
But it is not aimed at allowing government to broadly replace parents.
Oh, thanks, thanks.
You mean they didn't say that that's what they're doing in the law?
The law didn't say the government now has the final say.
It doesn't have to when it basically says we get to determine what's in the child's best interest.
But yeah, no, it didn't say it quite that clearly.
It's not aimed at allowing the government to broadly replace parents.
Thank goodness.
Imagine if the amendment had said we are replacing parental supremacy with government supremacy.
You don't need to say it, but that's the actual...
Because who determines the best interest of the child?
If not the parents, it's the administrative state.
It is the government.
The claims about Bill 15 circulating online amounts to disinformation.
Robert Miranda, a spokesperson for Quebec's Ministry of Health and Social Services, told the AFP, oh, the government is now saying this is disinformation.
How convenient.
Is it the same government that wants to pass laws to prohibit?
What they consider to be disinformation online?
It's funny how this all seems to happen together.
Bill 15 makes the child's best interest the primary consideration.
Yes, who determines it?
Who determines the child's best interest right now, if not the parents?
The province aims to keep children in the family and to provide all necessary support to the parents.
Granby's tragedy was the mother-in-law who duct-taped the child overnight, head to toe.
And the child was non-responsive in the morning.
Stepmother committed an existing crime.
And you know what the problem was in that tragic situation?
Not the absence of laws to protect the child, because everybody knows it's not in the child's best interest to be abused by a stepmother.
The absence of laws was not the problem.
It was the corruption and the incompetence of the existing system to do what it already was supposed to do.
He said, while noting that leaving or returning children to the family environment should only be preferred if it is in the best interest of the child.
He also said the changes will improve collaboration and communication between people responsible for the child situation, including the regional direction.
Oh, yeah, because that was the problem.
In the Granby tragedy, everybody knew what was going on.
The government was already involved.
They just failed to act.
Oh.
Here we get into some of the amendments.
Section 3 was changed to clarify that the interest of the child is a primary consideration in the application of the Act.
Section 4 was amended to say every decision made under this Act must aim at ensuring continuity of care as well as the stability of the child's relationship and of living conditions appropriate to his needs and age.
Roa said the purpose of the law is not to protect the parents but to protect the child.
He disagreed with the online claim that the changes will allow the state to systematically set aside family ties.
Well, that's not what they're going to do.
They're just going to be able to intervene when the state says, we've deemed this to be in the best interest of the child, even if the parents disagree.
Oh, here we go.
Let's see this.
This is the interesting one.
Additional video post claims that the actions such as refusing A certain Fauci juice could warrant an intervention by the government under the changes to the YPA.
But Roy said Section 38 of the YPA defined dangerous situations for children, and Bill 15 did not change it.
It didn't change it.
It just changed who gets to decide what is in the child's best interest.
So let's just say that the child says, I want a medical procedure.
I want a certain medical intervention.
And the parents say, no, it's not in your best interest.
Child goes to the police, child goes to the government, and the government says, we think it is in your best interest.
We disagree with your parents.
We're going to authorize you in this administrative state to do what you want to do, despite the fact that both your parents don't want it, might not want it.
I am not aware of any decisions, considering that the parents' refusal to have the child Fauci-juiced Or to wear the mask, negligence, justifying the...
Oh, you're not aware of any decision considering the parent's refusal?
Excuse me.
Misinformation.
Liars.
There have been several decisions where the court has said the child can get the medical procedure despite one parent's opposition because the other parent said it wanted to.
And the court said, yes, we agree with the parent that wants the medical intervention.
So there have been situations where the court said...
We're going to prefer one parent's support for a procedure over another parent's opposition to it because we, the adjudicators, the administrative state, decide we have determined it to be in the best interest of the child.
How long until both parents say no, the child says yes, and the government comes in and says, hey, we just changed the parties that disagree here.
We didn't change the law.
We just have a difference of the people, the parties disagreeing.
So, I'm not aware of any decisions considering that the parents' refusal would justify the intervention of the DUIP, the Youth Protection Services.
Not yet.
But there have been several decisions where the court said, we're going to allow the procedure despite one parent's opposition.
Not just Fauci juice either.
Other stuff.
Arguably more permanent.
It is just a matter of time before...
It not being one parent versus another parent, but one kid versus both parents, and the government's going to play the exact same role.
Oh, I'm sorry.
But the courts have not intervened to force the Fauci juice of a child when both parents objected.
Not yet.
Because the law just was amended.
Pathological misleader.
Mona Paré, a professor in the civil law section of the Faculty of Law at University of Ottawa, said that without the full implementation of Bill 15, it remains open to speculate how it will be applied by the courts.
But, quote, nothing in the changes addresses parenting practices, she said.
Okay, that's nice.
So, I'll re-put this link in.
You can go read this.
This article is the misinformation it warns about.
So far, there hasn't been a court case where the court ordered a medical intervention despite the opposition of both parents.
Yet, the amendment is April old.
The amendment is one month old.
The check is in the mail, okay?
Guaranteed.
And if you're not paying attention, and if you discover it, it's not going to be that bad.
They're not coming for me yet.
They're only going for, you know, when one parent fights with another parent.
They're only going for like...
The cases which I consider to be abuse.
They're not coming for me yet.
Lo and behold, by the time they come for you, there may be no one left to defend you.
Viva, Savannah violated Swiss laws.
Okay, we're going to get to this.
Let me take that one back.
Government owns your children.
Shut up and obey.
They don't own them.
But they certainly get to trump your decisions.
Now, if there's a fight and they decide your decision as parents, they disagree with.
Because?
Parental supremacy has been stripped, stricken from the law, and now it is the child's best interest, as determined by whom?
The administrative state, when they get pulled into a conflict.
In 2009, Sweden, Dominik Johansson was taken off a plane from his parents.
They were leaving for his mother's homeland, India.
The crime against their child was to homeschool their son.
I do not know about that situation.
But the check is in the mail.
And as much as when Jordan Peterson, you know, sounded the alarm over, it was Bill C-16 at the time, amending criminal law to add gender identity as an aggravating factor for certain crimes.
And Peterson warned it was going to lead to compelled speech.
This is by no means anywhere near as hidden.
This is obvious.
This is in your face.
But there hasn't been a case yet, so shut up and don't worry.
Yeah.
Okay, Viva.
Savannah violated Swiss laws.
This is going to what's going on in the WEF.
You are not allowed to film someone that does not consent.
Whether you like that law, Americans can't just go to foreign countries and act as if their constitution, I presume, applies.
Kagan, this is a fair point.
One of the reasons why I'm reluctant to travel to certain countries where I don't know the law, where I'm not certain that they have rules of habeas corpus, where they can detain me without explaining why, as we seem to have witnessed in that...
In that detainment of Jack Posobiec.
But let me just pull this down and pull up an article.
I'm not sure that you're right.
And again, people, I'm not certified to practice law in the States.
I'm certainly less...
I'm not certified...
I know nothing of Swiss law.
So I'm just going to go...
I'm just going to go and...
Pull up one particular article which referred to Swiss law.
Here's Swiss International Law Review.
Let's just look here.
I mean, Google is good or the interwebs are good for getting a rough idea but not to think you are anything of an authority to give an opinion to anybody.
Switzerland.
This is from...
What's this website?
I will find out in a second.
This is 1998.
That's very old.
You know what?
Forget this.
This is amending criminal law that says...
Was this the article that I wanted to read?
Criminal code protects people from unlawful intrusion.
Too old.
Forget this.
Under the criminal code, any person who listens in or records non-public conversation without the permission of the individual will be punished.
Let's just go to something a little more recent.
This is...
Oh, God, Reddit.
As mentioned in this thread and various other threads, I understood that recording of private phone conversation without consent is illegal in Switzerland.
However, I have quite difficult...
The question is, what's a private recording versus a public recording?
And whether or not a newsworthy event on public ground in the public, whether or not there's an expectation of privacy, it's true.
I don't know what the laws are in Switzerland.
But I would be very curious to know if it's illegal.
To record on a public street a newsworthy event of authorities.
These are not private individuals who have any expectation of privacy whatsoever, but I don't know Swiss law.
So anyone in the chat who does, without relying on a criminal law amendment, there might have been more recent amendments in the last 30, 25 years.
We got...
Let me bring this up here.
First of all, let's bring this down since that's not going to be a useful link.
Not legal without consent in public in Switzerland.
Thank you.
We got...
Yes, it is.
You can't publish these recordings to Twitter.
You can't publish these recordings to Twitter.
I don't know.
I would be very, very, very cautious when doing these things.
I mean, that would be...
To say that a journal...
That would basically render...
In my critical thinking...
In my critical thinking, that would basically render journalism illegal in Switzerland.
I mean, if you can't record in public without the consent of the party, you can't perform journalism.
So I would be very curious to know if that's what we've got here.
A recent amendment, how convenient as a criminal step up their game?
Post a link to the amendment if anyone has it there.
Post a link to the amendment.
Post a link to the amendment.
Are they arresting all tourists in Switzerland?
Well, there's a difference between recording something and then posting it to social media.
But again, I don't know what the law is in Switzerland.
I would be very cautious before doing things like that.
But I would be very shocked if you can't record newsworthy events on public ground in Switzerland.
It would make documenting protests impossible.
It would make documenting...
Newsworthy events impossible?
It would make journalism impossible in Switzerland if you had to get permission from everyone involved.
Now, I don't know.
But that being said, let's go to what's actually going on in Switzerland.
Davos.
Talking about unelected officials who think that they somehow have the authority to...
Promote, argue for policy governing people.
They were never elected to have any role in governing.
Listen to this.
This is Alibaba Group President J. Michael Evans boasts at the World Economic Forum about the development of an individual carbon footprint tracker to monitor what you buy, what you eat.
I mean, I don't even know why they need this.
You basically have it on your phone already, but let's just hear what this guy has to say.
We're developing through technology an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint.
What does that mean?
Where are they traveling?
How are they traveling?
What are they eating?
What are they consuming on the platform?
So, individual carbon footprint tracker.
Stay tuned.
We don't have it operational yet, but this is something that we're working on.
We're developing a carbon footprint tracking.
By the way, you know damn well that they're going to pitch this as, you know, do your part.
Do your part for the environment.
Guys, did you all hear that?
I don't know if the audio was too soft.
They're going to pitch it in benevolence so that if you don't download this app, if you don't measure your own carbon footprint, you're immoral.
You're selfish.
You don't care about community.
You're going to become, by virtue of not downloading this app and letting whomever, I don't even know who this is going to be, private enterprise or the government track, where you go, how you travel, what you eat.
If you don't do it, you're going to be a very selfish right-wing extremist, according to Jagmeet Singh.
And you know, Darvall, I eat a lot of meat.
They're going to say my carbon footprint is selfishly big.
Viva, you...
You went to the five seasons and got some aged beef for your birthday.
That's very selfish of you.
You might have to take a little hit on the social credit score.
Audio good.
But who are these people?
Who the heck empowered them to create this conference that has any sort of national or international influence?
Who the heck authorized these people to act, to govern themselves?
As though they are somehow elected officials in charge of global policy.
I remember being young enough hearing that the NWO, the New World Order, was a conspiracy theory.
I mean, I knew it as a great band from childhood.
But we were told that that's a conspiracy theory.
And now, and this is it.
It's the same awareness, the same awakening as with this Bill 15. At first, you don't know it exists.
Then you know it exists, but you write it off and you say it's no big deal.
And then you realize it's a big deal, but it's too late.
Like a variation of City of God, the first time is the rule, the second time is the exception, and the third time the exception becomes the rule.
It's conspiracy theory.
Okay, it's not conspiracy theory, but it's not what you think it is.
Okay, it's exactly what you thought it was.
I mean, who the heck are these people?
And they go and they organize this prestigious event, which they fly to.
I would like all of them to show me their carbon footprint.
These jack-and-innies, politicians meeting at the G7 summit, flying down on private jets as though Zoom doesn't work.
On a lower level, these people, they're all meeting in conferences to talk about the carbon footprints, global pollution, what we can do to reduce emissions.
They're flying to luxury hotels to do it.
These people meeting up to talk about how to better Indigenous lives in Canada, how to get them clean drinking water.
And they meet up at like Chateau Frontenac.
They meet up on these luxurious opulent hotels where they spare no expense getting there once they're there.
And then they get there and they lecture the rest of the lowly citizenry on what they have to do to make up for historical government atrocities.
These people, this guy right here, Alibaba, let's see your carbon footprint.
Let me see what you had for dinner last night.
Let me see...
I won't presume everybody enjoys a martini.
So I won't presume that, you know, this guy's drinking Grey Goose vodka or whatever.
Let's see your carbon footprint, Jane Lake 11s.
Let's see the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs determine what your carbon footprint is.
Rule number...
Rule of acquisition, 191.
Let others keep their reputation.
You keep their money.
Let others keep their reputation.
You keep their money.
I'm going to have to think about that one.
Mahayo.
Mahuyo.
This is what's going on at the World Economic Forum.
And I think it's hyperbolic, people.
These people, these unelected officials, are toying with, they are playing God with our constitutional rights, with our rights to privacy, with our rights to...
The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
It's always in the name of the greater good, social good.
Download the app.
If you travel too much by plane, you'll pay a little more for life.
Although, as if you haven't already paid for the plane ticket.
If you travel too much by car, we'll need to see what type of car you have.
This is constitutional terrorism, is what it is.
And it's always for our own good and in the name of the good.
It's glorious.
So these are the important policy decisions, the policy discussions that they're talking about at Davos, at the WEF.
There was another glorious one before we carry on here.
Glorious in the most sinister of...
I played this one yesterday, but listen to this.
This is what they're talking about, the WEF people.
We're going to monitor where you go, what you eat, how you travel, where you travel, and we're also going to monitor what medicines you take.
It is basically a biological chip that it is in the tablet.
And once you take the tablet and dissolves into your stomach, it sends a signal that you took the tablet.
So imagine the applications of that.
Compliance.
The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do.
Take them.
It is fascinating what happens.
The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.
It is fascinating what happens in this field.
Yeah, the insurance companies are going to know what you're taking.
Only the insurance companies to know if you need to pay a higher premium.
As if that's not already...
Grotesquely offensive on its face.
I mean, you're talking about in the States, you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
What exactly is Bourla talking about here?
If you don't take your medicines, what's going to happen?
Denial of coverage if you missed your dose?
It's fascinating.
It's fascinating what can happen when we monitor every aspect of your individual life.
The compliance.
We can get full compliance if we know that if you miss one dose of your medicine, you can be denied coverage from your insurance claims.
We can know if you do not take the medicines or you eat too much red meat or you consume too much alcohol, you can be denied coverage.
You might have to pay for your own medical expenses.
If you refuse to get a certain medical intervention, you'll have to pay a certain tax.
Do people appreciate in Quebec, by way of...
Oh, Point Curation, how you doing, sir?
Bless even these egomaniacal bankers and self-professed elites, but God bless lawyers and people actually attempting to avert 1984.
Point Curation, good to see you again.
Thank you very much.
Do people in the chat actually appreciate that...
It doesn't matter that that clip is from 2018.
It doesn't matter that that clip is from 2018.
This is what's being discussed.
These are the likes of things that are being discussed at WEF.
Now, what was the first one from?
Does it matter that it's four years old, that this is what they're discussing four years ago, even if that's the case?
This is what goes on at the WEF.
Unelected officials talking about how to govern, micromanage every aspect of citizen life.
For the compliance.
But let me see.
Oh, yeah.
Do people appreciate in the chat that Quebec actually discussed implementing a tax on the unvaxxed?
Do people know that our government actually contemplated taxing the unvaccinated Quebecers?
One, yes.
Did you know this?
Yes.
And did you know this?
No.
Who knew that Quebec, I guess a lot of you have been following the channel for a little while.
Who knew that Quebec actually, within recent memory, floated?
They stated they were going to do it.
It wasn't that, you know, maybe we'll do it one day.
They said they were going to do it.
Quebec, vaccination, vaccine, tax.
I bet you one of the videos I made on it is going to be the first one.
Quebec plans, premier, drops plan.
It wasn't just that they floated the idea.
They said they were going to do it.
And Francois Legault.
The Premier of Quebec, Supreme Leader Francois, as I say, Supreme Leader Frank, he said, he said, they're going to do it and it's going to be substantial.
But they dropped it.
Thank goodness.
The benevolent dictators finally saw the error, the folly in their ways.
Get no thanks.
Quebec is dropping plans to impose a financial penalty.
It's like it's straight out of The Simpsons.
I don't want to call it a colossal cash grab.
What can we do with it?
How about a temporary refund adjustment?
I don't want to call it a vax tax.
That actually sounds too gross and rhymes.
We'll call it a financial penalty.
On those who are unvaccinated against COVID-19, Premier Francois Legault made the announcement Tuesday afternoon.
When is this article from?
February 1, 2022.
He made the announcement.
During a briefing, while the premier said the bill drawn up by the finance minister was ready to be tabled, he admitted the project was divisive and polarizing.
Okay, you've admitted that you were divisive and polarizing.
You don't get brownie points.
You don't get street cred for coming back on that.
You should actually just resign.
When you understand and you admit you just actually not just floated the idea, not just promoted the idea, but drafted it.
And it was ready to be tabled, to be law.
When you recognize that you just wasted all those resources and caused the damage of being divisive and polarizing, you should resign.
It's time to rebuild bridges between Quebecers, he said in French.
It's time to work together so that Quebec remains a place where it is good to live.
Well, too late for that, Frank.
But you know what actually happened?
Because Quebec trusts the science?
Quebec policy was not determined based on science.
It's determined based on polling.
And by the way, watch this.
Quebec COVID policy polling.
Where's the article that I read?
I won't be able to find it right now.
It was basically overtly disclaimed that the government...
Polling policy.
I already have that word in there.
That the government was dictating COVID policy based on polling.
Based on polls, based on public opinion.
And quite clearly, when it came to the vax tax or the financial penalty on the unvaccinated, it was determined even that was a step too far, even for Supreme Leader Francois Legault.
Which clip was from 2018?
Was it Burla or was it this guy?
Okay.
Thank you.
In the chat.
Which clip was it?
It doesn't matter.
Distinction without a difference.
This is what unelected officials are gathering in their opulent, wonderful gatherings where they have their private police forces.
So talking about the Swiss law, which I'll get to later because I don't know what it is.
Someone tongue-in-cheek said the people detaining Posobiec weren't, you know, they're not WEF police.
They're just Swiss police.
No!
No, by the way.
They were...
They were WEF police.
Check this out.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
Recording, as Sav says, from Rebel Media.
Excuse me, can I ask you while you're detaining this journalist?
Can you put the phone away, please?
Can I ask you why you're detaining this journalist?
I don't answer your question.
We're not able to report here?
Please put the phone away.
Can I ask you guys why you're being detained?
Yeah, can you please stop filming?
Then we can talk.
Why do I need to stop filming?
Because I ask you to.
It's my personal right because I don't like to be filmed and it's a right in Switzerland.
But can I ask why he's being detained then?
I won't point the camera at you then.
I won't film you.
Posobiec looks dejected or nervous, I would say, as he should.
How come he's being surrounded right now?
Is he allowed to leave the area?
We're just making a normal police patrol because, you know, it's WEF.
Everything is very...
It's WEF.
I believe he's a credentialed journalist.
Because we have to have a reason to control a person.
What was the reason?
What was he doing?
I don't have to tell you that.
Why are you asking me that?
Because this is, you know, there's many journalists here and I want to know why he specifically is being detained.
There is a reason.
But everything is clear now and we're about to leave in just a few seconds.
Sorry, that actually was not the video.
Oh, okay, well, I took a screen grab.
No, this is Pozo's screen grab.
So check this out, people.
This is literally World Economic Forum Police.
Now, the chat is very smart, sometimes smarter than me and more observant than me.
They noticed this is on a Velcro patch.
So the World Economic Forum has now printed up, what are they, embroidered?
Official patches designating police as World Economic Forum police.
People observe that it's on a Velcro adhesive device.
And is that normal?
People are saying that's suspicious.
I don't know anything from anything when it comes to police.
I've had minimal encounters with police.
And apparently from the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs, it's not unheard of.
Where did I post?
Yeah, look at that.
Beautiful, beautiful.
Here, I can't pretend to be an expert, yada, yada, yada.
And here, it's not that.
I mean, take it for what it's worth.
It's the interwebs.
Especially for tactical uniforms.
It's not that unusual.
To me, it still seems totally unusual and totally abnormal because those things can get stolen.
And it seems like a very easy way to, I mean, change any uniform into official police uniform.
Maybe that's the purpose.
But it seemed weird to me.
It makes it much easier to steal.
I mean, that's the number one reason.
You get into a kerfuffle, you rip off the logo, you rip off the little thing from the Velcro.
Whoever owns that now can put it on anything and pass themselves off as WEF police or whatever.
So it seems suspicious to me regardless, but I don't know how these things work.
But people remarked on it.
What kind of steaks were you grilling?
Where can one find that apron?
And what happened to the Red Bull?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Let me ask one question.
Let me answer one question first.
Where can you get that beautiful apron?
Thank you for allowing me to plug the merch, people.
Boom.
Oh, you're not here.
Hold on.
The merch store is up and launched.
Yeah, this stream got demonetized within two minutes.
It'll get...
Let's do this here.
Hold on a second.
Where can one get the merch, you might ask?
Right over here.
Pin the message.
Okay, there you go.
We've launched the new merch store, and it's all integrated, and it's not just shirts, apron.
Good stuff.
Fun stuff.
Okay, let me see here.
It was my birthday yesterday, so that's why it says cake there.
But okay, shirts, hats.
It's fantastic.
The apron is my personal favorite.
And then we have some Viva Barnes.
All the good stuff.
Okay.
That was not the purpose of what I was doing, but that's where you can get it.
What was the other question?
The Red Bull?
Still haven't found the Red Bull.
And where did I get those steaks?
Grocery store down the street.
I deliberately smoked it so that when I opened up the lid, it would be dramatic.
Although it did offer, it did also offer a beautiful smoke flavor to the steak.
The Viva fried.
The Velcro stuff is apparently not unheard of.
I never knew that.
I'm still not sure if it's totally true, but I still find it peculiar.
I find it peculiar that the WEF has official police, but I guess you could just private mandate out security as you should and as you'd need because there are a lot of prominent, important, fancy people with many leather-bound books and Scotch thingy things.
That's pretty much all I can say on that.
But they're meeting, and then the question is this infamous amendment to the treaty.
I discussed it with Barnes.
Amendment, WHO, treaty.
Davos?
I think that's...
These two things are happening at the same time.
No, the pandemic treaty would not give who...
Why do I keep getting these nail ads?
I do not have toenail fungus, people.
People are concerned about the fact that this proposed amendment to an existing treaty would effectively give WHO control over national sovereignty.
People are circulating articles claiming that this is the case.
Robert Barnes and I have discussed it.
And take it for what it's worth.
You can agree to disagree.
You might be wrong.
You might be right.
You're probably wrong.
Or if you're wrong and you know you're wrong, potentially misleading, but whatever.
It's set aside intentions.
No, the pandemic...
This is from ABC, and because it starts with a no, I am immediately skeptical that the exact opposite is true.
I've heard Barnes's explanation, and I concur with Barnes, even if he agrees, even if these two opinions agree with each other.
Pandemic treaty would not give WHO control over governments during a global health crisis.
Proposed amendments to international...
Health regulations covered by the WHO does not grant the WHO any new powers over countries.
What existing powers does it have?
On May 22nd, it's going to take place in Geneva.
Oh, that's too hard to read.
In Geneva, where World Health Organization member states will meet to discuss current and future priorities for public health issues of global importance.
On the agenda is a U.S. proposed.
That's one big problem with it, one big red flag.
Even if the WHO passes it and it doesn't grant the WHO any powers over national sovereignty, the state that proposed it and all others can certainly say, well, we're going to adopt law in accordance with WHO guidelines.
So although it's not the WHO telling us what to do specifically, we're just going to implement dictates, diktats, mandates that will coincide with this.
The WHO adopted it, it's a good guideline, especially if we propose it in the first place.
On the agenda is the U.S. proposed change to international health rules.
These rules set the standards for all countries to have the ability to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events.
Okay.
The proposed amendments outline new ideas to better respond to a pandemic.
Across social media, users are referring to the amendments as the pandemic treaty, quote, and say it would grant the WHO, quote, complete health sovereignty and unlimited authority over governments in a global crisis.
Let's just see one thing, actually, for the sake of it.
The individual that they're citing.
80,000 followers.
Okay, that's enough to be sufficiently influential that it's a legit tweet.
Oh, son of a beasting.
How do I go back to the original article?
Oh, you don't see the original article.
I see what's going on here.
Hold on.
I mean, you're still on the original article.
Here.
Boom.
This is the tweet account.
Nearly 80,000 followers on Twitter.
So that's a big enough account that if it's not true, it could be misleading a lot of people.
On the podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, former Minnesota Representative Michael Bachman, Michelle Bachman, also claimed the amendments could give the WHO sovereignty over the states.
Several verified viewers asked us to look into the powers, yada, yada, yada.
The question is, what does it do to the sources?
Okay, it's false.
Now I'm suspicious.
No, the WHO would not have control over governments during a global health crisis.
The amendments to the international health regulations would allow WHO member countries to share data and better prepare for future pandemics.
What does that mean?
Better prepare.
But preserve the authority of individual countries.
That's effectively Barnes' explanation as to how it would work.
If you wanted to change the Constitution or change the law, you'd have to do it nationally, and you can't do it by amending this existing law, and it's not going to have the scope and the impact that people fear it's going to have.
My major concern, and I think that Barnes is right on this, my concern is that you don't need it.
We've seen how the local provinces, states, Canadian and U.S. governments have just ruled through mandate through dictate without even going through the legislative process.
Sure, the courts are striking some of it down now, but I don't care if the WHO's doing it or if it's the province of Quebec doing it, justifying what they're doing on the basis that it's under the WHO amendments to the treaty.
I don't care.
The outcome is the same.
In theory, you can vote your way out of one where you wouldn't be able to vote your way out of the other, but yeah, that's it.
But this is why it's important what's going on, but not necessarily what everyone thinks or fears is actually going on in real time.
Let me see what we got here in the chat.
Okay, I'm not bringing that one up.
No election fortification advice, people.
WTF, you're reading MSM.
Alex Glasgow read straight from whose site?
This is so dumb.
Barnes and I talked about it on Sunday in great detail.
And the idea is that this would not change the constitutional law of the United States.
And if it were to become law in the states, it would have to be ratified at the national level.
There was concern that they can sanction.
I'm reading MSM.
They might be wrong a lot of the times.
They might not always be wrong.
And the question is now, what is this treaty going to have by way of impact on national law?
And unless it is made into national law at the national level, I don't know what the sanctions could be if you don't comply with this, if the nation states don't comply with the WHO treaties, as they haven't done in the past.
You can opt out whenever you want.
What is WHO doing about the apparent toe fungus pandemic?
I don't know, but the monkeypox is in the news.
The monkeypox is all over the place.
Let's see what's going on in the chat here.
Oh, no.
You know what the best thing is?
On my Viva Clips channel, I had an interview with a retired Canadian veteran get flagged or get cited for violating community guidelines on my Viva Clips channel.
And the warning is, anything that goes against WHO guidelines...
We set aside the fact that it was an interview with a veteran that didn't discuss any medical issues.
Anything that goes against WHO guidelines.
The video was 10 months old.
I published it during my election run for the federal elections.
And I think WHO guidelines and I think what WHO determined to be information or factual has evolved over time.
WHO has said both A and not A at different points in time, which means that anyone who said what WHO said when WHO said A before it said not A...
Technically, when who now says not A could be in violation of a video that's a year old when who said A. Side rant.
It's the nature of this beast.
What time did they say they were coming back at?
Let's see what else we have time for in the meantime.
And first of all, let me see if I'm not...
Oh!
Son of a beasting.
Oh, okay.
Someone sent me a message here.
Let's see what this says.
Okay, that's not going to be responding to any of the questions.
Let me go to...
Okay, that's good.
Let me see what else we got here.
So, there's going to be a disagreement on fact.
Is it going to be binding?
On nation states by virtue of this amendment passing the who?
The answer seems to be no by people I respect and in my own assessment as well.
The only question is going to be, is that itself a distinction without a difference in that it won't be binding on nation states via the who or via an international body, but provinces, states, and individual countries.
Are just going to enact these dictates, these mandates, in the exact same way they enacted the last two and a half years, bypassing the legislative process regardless.
And they're going to use as the justification, as the pretext, well, look, these are the international guidelines as approved by this Amendment to the WHO Treaty.
That is, I think, the actual risk.
Remove.
Let me see here.
David.
Interesting, many of Klaus's speeches sound like...
I won't repeat those words, but listening to him brag about having penetrated Canadian Parliament through young global leaders, that would have been conspiracy theory five years ago.
That would have been conspiracy theory three years ago.
I presume everyone's heard that, but just in the unlikely event.
Let me see something here.
Let me go here, guys.
Everyone needs to hear it.
As many times as possible.
Klaus Schub penetrated cabinets.
Thank you.
Okay, here we go.
I got it.
Good.
This one was easy to find.
I think there's some audio issues in this, but it's in the original audio recording and not in my sharing of it.
So, share.
Share.
Here we go.
Where was it?
Here it is.
This is it.
Okay.
When I mention our names like Mrs. Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on, they all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.
But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau.
President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more half of this cabinet, are actually young global leaders of the world.
And that's true in Argentina, too.
Wow.
Yeah.
Sorry.
That's true in Argentina as well.
It's true in Argentina and it's true in France now.
I mean, with the president, who is a young global leader.
But what is important for me...
I mean, they're saying the quiet part out loud.
And if you had said this in 2020, do you remember back in 2020 on YouTube, the Great Reset was conspiracy theory.
WEF, an unknown entity at the time, was conspiracy theory.
Imagine if you had said in 2020, the Great Reset is coming, people, and the WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, has penetrated at least half of the cabinet of Canada to promote the WEF agenda, ideology of the Great Reset.
I mean, you would have been looked at like an absolute crazy person.
There's no other way to describe it.
You would have been looked at as an absolute crazy person.
The Great Reset is coming.
Once upon a time, the Great Reset itself was called conspiracy theory.
Let me see if I cannot find this.
Oh, no, I'm leaving that up.
That was an old...
The Great Reset was a conspiracy theory.
You were crazy if you thought it was a thing.
And then the documents come out and they're like, oh, it's not saying what you're saying it's saying.
It's not saying what you're not going to own nothing and be happy about it.
That's not government policy.
That's just that was from a presentation at this WEF thing where they're talking about a great reset.
It's just a never mind.
It's just a think tank policy.
You know, it's just a bunch of people meeting to talk about the future.
If you were to have suggested that they penetrated half of the cabinets of Canada.
France.
Brazil.
And they're so happy about it.
You would have been looked at like a madman.
And now they're just saying it out loud.
And if you find it objectionable, you've gone from being a conspiracy theorist, now that it's confirmed reality, to a selfish bastard because it's for the greater good.
Hey, Viva.
I'm still crazy.
Missy Léger.
Missy Léger.
It's...
Let's raise them a great awakening.
This is, if nothing else, know about it.
And, you know, you can minimize it if you want.
You know, to say that what's going on with the WHO is not concerning, it is.
And it should be concerning, and people should be following it, and they are.
To make it into something that it's not does have consequences longer term, like Robert and I discussed Sunday night.
But now...
Let's just see share screen.
Let's just go to some more of the gems while we still have the time here.
Chrome tab.
Okay, so that is Rebel News Live on YouTube.
Listen, well, hold on.
Before we get there, before we get there, an article in Al Jazeera.
This is what I mean where you have people downplaying things.
Let's just read through this real quick together.
Real quick-like.
This is from Al Jazeera.
May 23rd, 2022.
Davos is dead.
Amid a pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis, the people have no patience left for the virtue signaling of the Davos set.
The question is whether or not it's something that rises above virtue signaling and amounts to policy setting, and the less people are interested in it, the more that it happens without the scrutinizing eye of the public.
Just when you thought you would never see, again, the spectacle of private jets landing in the Swiss mountain town of Davos for the rich and powerful to unironically discuss solutions once they penetrate the cabinets to climate change and inequality, the World Economic Forum is back.
They're meeting face-to-face for the first time since January 2020.
Did you miss it?
No, me neither.
They meet at the critical juncture of the pandemic and in the midst of a huge and deepening inequality crisis.
Policy choices made by governments and international institutions throughout the pandemic have fallen woefully short of protecting people from the impact of multiple crises.
Spiraling inflation, skyrocketing energy bills and fuel prices, as well as high and still rising food prices, spelled disaster for many.
People had been talking about this from the beginning of the COVID response by saying, what you're doing is going to cause these problems and it's going to cause greater problems than a more measured response to COVID.
People were saying this back in 2020.
I might have been a little late to be saying these same things, but I was there in 2020.
You don't lock down the healthy to combat a virus.
And you let...
You're going to cause far greater, longer-term generational damages, which you won't be able to measure today if you do these things that you're doing with willy-nilly whole hog across an entire country, across an entire globe.
And then you had Bill Gates even recently saying people are going to be starving to death by the hundreds of millions, according to some, as a result of these COVID response measures, which have now...
Who could have foreseen it except for anybody with half a brain at the time?
But the richest few who continue to increase their wealth in the past two years, they're still benefiting from the crisis.
As a result, questions are being raised on the morality of the economic system that has failed to help the masses and instead supercharged inequality during a global health emergency.
Just think Bill Gates.
People, however, are no longer fooled by Davos' talk of equality, transparency, respect, and diversity.
They are well aware.
That those who benefited and continue to benefit from the pandemic that left them struggling to put food on their table, such as Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, we saw him earlier today, who made an eye-watering $24.3 million in 2021.
Oh, he made $24 million.
Pfizer made massive profits because they put out a product which had been designated...
I don't want to even call it anything.
I don't want to be accused of anything.
Granted government immunity for it.
It's fantastic.
Rich or poor, it's good to be poor.
And it's good to be king.
That they're not interested in these systemic changes needed to tackle inequality.
How long does this go on for?
This goes on for a while.
It's good.
Let's just skip to the end.
Those attending Davos this year should take notice of this reality.
People will not be looking at Davos for solutions.
They already know how their problems can be resolved.
By taxing the richest people in corporations and by ensuring fair wages and employment.
Or how about just, you know, allowing them to work and make a living.
Allowing them to live their lives in freedom.
And by ending the monopoly the Davos set have over politics and policymaking.
The people have no patience for the speeches or meaningless policy proposals that will be produced in Davos this week.
This is why people around the world, from Kenya and South Africa to Switzerland and the UK, will once again be taken to the streets to send a singular message to their leaders at Davos.
It's time.
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
And, you know, they'll be taken to the streets for as long as the government allows them to.
Take to the streets for too long, people.
It's an occupation.
Be careful.
We're back with the trial here.
I hear it in the background.
No, that's me live.
I heard them come in.
Okay, they're letting people in.
So I still have a few things on the backdrop, one of which was another gem from Kamala Harris.
Let's see what's going on here.
I got Zucker...
What was it?
Zucker Goobles?
Where is he?
Where is Zucker Goebbels?
You know what's more important than taxing the rich?
Letting people work.
Not making it impossible to make a living because of government bureaucracy, paperwork.
You know what?
I got a ticket last week for allegedly passing a school bus with its thingy out.
Another person behind me also got a ticket because apparently That's how...
I'm contesting it because I know in law I have a defense.
This was a four-lane street with a median in the middle, not a raised median, and that's going to be the question at law.
A four-lane street so that when four lanes over, a bus has its thing out and there's cars, two lanes of cars, it becomes impossible for people on the far end to even know it exists and there's a median and that's why there's an exception in the law.
Setting that aside, take a guess, people, in the chat.
How many demerit points?
Came with this.
I was going 35 in a 40 zone, by the way.
35 kilometers an hour in a 40 zone.
On a four-lane street with a non-raised median in the middle.
How many demerit points do you think I got for this ticket?
It's not yet applied because I'm contesting the living daylights out of this ticket.
Six or nine?
Five?
Six?
Six?
Fourteen is way too many, Sean.
Three?
69?
No.
Nine demerit points.
Nine demerit points.
I'm going 35 kilometers an hour in a 40-kilometer-hour zone at 8 in the morning on a four-lane street with a non-raised median in the middle.
Nine demerit points.
The ticket is $317.
This is how crippling.
That's crippling for most people.
In fact, if you're 23 or 24, that's all your demerit points.
Crippling.
This is what the government does.
It criminalizes existence with excessive fines, excessive paperwork.
And by the way, if you're connected, if you know somebody, bets on Mark Mark.
I'm winning it.
I'm winning it.
Demerits.
You have 15 demerit points.
Like 15 points that you can lose through tickets before your license is suspended.
I am not being targeted, by the way.
They couldn't even see the license plate when they pulled me over.
So no.
And the person right behind me, his week was ruined.
So you know what the government can do?
You can tax the rich.
That's fine.
How about you just let everyone else live their lives with as minimal government intrusion as possible?
Okay.
We're back, people.
Yeah, and it increases your insurance rates.
It's like nine demerit points?
Why not?
I said that as a joke.
Why not just take the license away?
Immediate suspension of a license.
I think you get fewer demerit points for speeding in a school zone.
Oh, anyhow, so that's it.
Tax the rich is not the solution.
Mr. Vanya, before lunch we were talking about your opinions in response to the testimony of Mr. Schnell.
Did you also analyze the testimony of Ms. Arnold in this case?
Yes, I did.
And are you aware of her opinion that Ms. Hurd's career would have followed the same trajectory as that of Jason Momoa, Gal Gadot, Zendaya, Ana de Armas?
How are we on audio, people?
Yes.
What's your understanding of Ms. Arnold's basis for her opinion that Ms. Hurd's career should have been similar to that of those identified actors?
Ms. Arnold stated that when...
Producers or her industry is looking to hire talent and actors, that it's important to best understand the public's perception of the actors that they're considering, and that it's important to look into social media to see what is happening with the actors that they're considering for either a movie or even an endorsement.
Opportunity with companies.
So that was her approach.
And is that the process she followed in providing her analysis of those purportedly comparable actors?
No.
Although she stated that, she went in and brought in these comparable, alleged comparable actors without really reasoning behind that.
Did you conduct an analysis based on your expertise in social media and internet analytics of Ms. Hurd compared to the actors to whom Ms. Arnold compares her?
I did.
And what did you find?
Well, since Ms. Arnold stated that the proper approach is looking at the public perspective, looking into social media, and she did not do that, I felt that was the best approach to do this based on her words.
So, yes, I did go into...
You know, best understanding the public perspective of Miss Heard and the alleged comparable actors using Q-scores.
Then I also went and did some analysis online and on social media as well.
Can you briefly remind the jury what Q-scores are?
Yeah, again, Q-scores measure how well a celebrity, it could be a cartoon character, it could be a sports person, how well they're known.
How well they're liked and how much they're disliked.
And it's an industry standard tool that's used.
It's not just focused on the movies that they're in, but it's focused on them as actors, but also what's happening in their personal lives come to play as well.
So that's how Q-scores are typically used.
Did you prepare a demonstrative that reflects the Q-score analysis you completed?
Yes, I did.
Your Honor, may I approach again?
All right.
Thank you.
What did I miss?
Oh, okay.
Let's do this.
No objection to the democracy.
All right.
We'll identify plaintiffs 1296 for identification and public to the jury.
Mr. Vanya, what point in time do these Q-scores represent that are reflected on your demonstrative?
So these are the winter 2019 Q-scores that are reflected here.
And what was important for me is I wanted to find Q-scores that represented misheard after Aquaman.
And remember, Aquaman is December of 2018.
These Q-scores were gathered January and February of '19, but before the Waltman statements.
And what did you find based on the Q-scores that you looked at?
So as you see here on the left are positive Q-scores, and the higher the number, the better.
As you can see, you know, Ms. Godot.
Has the highest Q score out of the group of actors here at a 28. But you're going to see what a Q score is.
Has the lowest positive Q score.
She has a 9. That's going to upset her.
So I find that very interesting that she doesn't appear to fit in as a comparable with these alleged comparable actors.
I think what's also interesting is the average Q score for all actors being scored at that time, which include all the alleged comparable actors here, score at an average of 17. And you can see, again, she is 9, well below that.
And then on the right side, you can see the negative Q scores.
So this is how much people dislike you.
You know, so the lower the score is better.
You can see Mr. Momoa is over here with the lowest at an 8. But you can see Ms. Hurd is over here at a 28, which was quite a difference.
You know, a 20-point difference from Mr. Momoa, and also a 10-point difference, you know, from the average of all actors.
So she is very much little.
her positive score is very low and her negative score is very high, which tells me that she does not fit in as a comparable as it relates to these alleged comparable actors.
What opinions did you form based on that Q score analysis?
My opinions as it relates to these Q scores is, you know, Ms. Arnold used these actors as allegedly comparable actors, but really, I'm on the cue score website putting my name in.
I don't understand in this approach.
I don't think she's using these comparable actors or these alleged comparable actors anymore.
She's more relying on her experience, and I agree with that.
Did Ms. Arnold offer a criticism of your use of accused scores here?
She did, yes.
And what's your understanding of what that criticism is?
Well, what I believe she was saying is that I should have ran Q scores for these allegedly comparable actors after each of their breakout films, which I disagree.
First of all, Q scores doesn't work like that.
Q scores are available twice a year, so it's not that I could pick a month or a different month for each of the Q score actors.
So I feel that, you know, what was important for me, and this doesn't always happen when I'm using cue scores, you can get this perfect moment in time, as Ms. Hurd said, I'm sorry, but as Ms. Arnold said, that, you know, Aquaman was Ms. Hurd's breakout moment.
You know, so these scores reflect that breakout moment, and they're terrible cue scores.
How would your analysis change if you had used Ms. Arnold's logic with respect to the timing of the Q scores that you looked at?
I mean, if you really think about what Ms. Arnold was saying, is she's saying that she thinks Q scores are the highest for each actor right after their breakout moment.
So I would think, if anything, these Q scores could have been a bit lower.
Because it's not right after their breakout moment.
But again, what's important for me is the fact that these scores reflect, you know, who Amber Heard was at the time before the Waldman statements, but after the Aquaman release.
We can take that one down, Tom.
Thank you.
Thank you.
What other work have you done in connection with forming your opinions in this case?
Again, taking the advice from Ms. Arnold, it's important.
I don't have a Q score.
I can't access it.
Who cares?
I'm closing that down.
You know, with the numbers as it relates to their followers.
You know, again, what is the public perception of them?
So I analyzed their social media accounts, but prior to the...
That was a long time ago.
And how did you do that?
Yeah, so what I did, I don't know if you're all familiar with the archive.org.
They have a tool called the Wayback Machine.
Chat is a little slow.
It archives the internet.
So you can go back in time to see what websites and web pages used to look like in the past.
Not all the time can you actually get...
Just celebrities' social media accounts to have been archived, but we were fortunate that each of the alleged comparable actors' social media accounts were in archive.org, so I was able to go back in time prior to the Waltman statements to see what the following activity was for each of the alleged comparable actors.
Mr. Banya, did you prepare a demonstrative that reflects your social media analysis?
Yes.
All right.
So the Q-score, it's interesting.
I can't...
I'd never heard of Q-score before this trial.
I clipped from the website what Q-score...
It's the recognized industry standard for measuring consumer appeal of performance.
Brand ambassadors, yada, yada.
And then you go to the website.
Can you tell the jury what you found when you looked at the social media?
So what I found, again, this is prior to the Waldman statements.
You know, first thing you're going to notice here is not all actors use social media.
You're going to see Mr. Pine doesn't have Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and Momoa and Darmus don't use Facebook or Twitter.
But what's important to look at is you have misheard prior to the Waldman statements with 3.8...
Instagram followers and 142,500 Twitter followers.
And then you move down to Gal Gadot with 37 million Instagram followers compared to her 3.8 million.
And, you know, 2.3 million Twitter followers compared to Ms. Hurd's 142,000.
And you can then even go down to Zendaya, the 65.9 million and 17.2 million Twitter followers.
What this is telling me is really more people are interested in Ms. Guido and Zendaya and even Mr. Momoa than...
misheard on social media.
It just tells me a lot.
People are interested in these actors as opposed to misheard more of a following few scores, well-liked, less disliked.
So it kind of fits into the analysis of determining whether or not these This is devastating in terms of distinguishing the comparables.
Yes, again, it appears that she's abandoned this approach, and I agree with that.
I feel that through the Q-score analysis and the social media analysis, that they're just not comparable.
Tom, we can take that one down.
I mean, this is brutal for anybody.
Based on all the analysis you did in this case, what are your overall opinions?
Yes, my overall opinions are that Mr. Schnell...
Failed to prove any causal connection with the Waldman statements and the search or the hashtag activity, those spikes as it relates to Twitter.
There's no causal connection there.
My second opinion is, you know, based on my social media and Q score analysis, Ms. Arnold's comparable, alleged comparable actors are not comparable.
And then third, Ms. Arnold.
And Mr. Snell both failed to prove any causation.
You need to take into consideration causation before you can calculate damages.
You look at damages, and you look at this allegedly damaging event, and not only do you have to prove that 100% of the damage is because of these Waldman statements, she didn't even consider COVID.
It happened at the same time.
You know, a lot of actors probably made a lot less money because of COVID.
Maybe films didn't get made.
And, you know, when you do an analysis...
Yeah, this is a good point.
But this is going to apply for Johnny also.
...to look at everything else that might have caused this alleged economic harm.
And she didn't look into any of that.
She didn't even know what causation was.
So I don't think the damages is an appropriate approach in this case.
Yeah, except that argument now is going to apply to Johnny as well.
But this guy is very good.
And he did his tie very well.
Looks like a half Boston.
You're not a damages expert, correct?
Cross-examination.
I am a damages expert, but not providing any quantitative damages opinions in this case.
And is it your testimony?
That only if a person repeats the Waldman-Depp statements could they be related to the defamation?
I don't understand your question, sir.
Say that one more time.
Are you saying that a person literally has to repeat the Waldman-Depp statements in a tweet for them to be related to the defamation?
No.
If you looked at my analysis, I did pick the three themes as it relates to the tweets, and I analyzed those themes, and I came up with five examples of one.
Those themes were used.
And you ran searches for, quote, abuse hoax, sexual violence hoax, and fake sexual violence, and you ran all those in quotes, correct?
I did.
So only if a person used a tweet with those words in that order and with that spacing would they hit on your searches, correct?
Objection.
Compound.
Overruled.
Yeah, so I used them in quotes because, you know, hoax could be used in many other contexts.
So I wanted to make sure I was fitting my search with the theme of the Waldman statements.
So if someone tweeted misheard faked sexual violence, that wouldn't appear in your searches, correct?
Faked with an ED?
It would not.
Okay.
And if they used two spaces between abuse and hoax, that wouldn't fit in your search?
That's correct.
Did you, and a tweet can only be 280 characters, correct?
That's correct.
So, certain of the Waldman-Depp statements, a person could not tweet the whole thing in one tweet, correct?
The whole statement in one tweet?
The Waldman statements?
Correct.
No, you could not.
Did you make any determination if there was an online bullying campaign against Mr. Depp after Ms. Hurd's op-ed?
I didn't look into any online bullying campaign for Ms. Hurd nor Mr. Depp.
Did you determine if there were tweets harassing Mr. Depp that quoted from Ms. Hurd's op-ed?
No, my assignment was to determine if the Waldman statements were part of the tweets that Mr. Schnell provided.
I was rebutting him.
And in your analysis of...
When you testified before, you never looked to see if the op-ed was quoted anymore.
Court's empty today.
Objection, Your Honor.
May we approach?
First of all, the courtroom looks much more empty today than on previous days.
All right.
Questions withdrawn.
Next question.
Okay.
That was a short sidebar.
Now, you have no objection to Ms. Arnold's use of comparables, correct?
Just the use of comparables in general.
These are good answers.
I listened to her testimony and my understanding that she abandoned that approach, but as it relates to my testimony today, my opinion was related to those specific alleged comparable actors that they were not comparable.
You're not offering an opinion as to who the appropriate comparables should be to Ms. Herrick, correct?
No, he's just saying that the ones you picked are not comparable.
You testified just before about the Q scores of misheard and the comparables.
That was, plaintiffs exhibited 1296, correct?
I don't know what 1296 means.
Okay.
The demonstrative in front of you.
Yes, that's correct.
When I first read that headline, by the way, I thought there had been another incident.
Those were all for the winter of 2019.
I said Ms. Hurds were from the winter of 2019.
Because isn't it true that none of the rest of these people were from the winter of 2019, correct?
That's correct.
I don't even understand what he's getting at here.
In fact, Mr. Momoa's was from the summer of 2020?
That's correct.
Not all alleged comparable actors had cue scores for that date.
What was important for me is to get Ms. Hurds' cue scores.
Right after Aquaman, but before the Waldman statements.
So you weren't comparing apples to apples, correct?
I wouldn't say that.
I'm saying that it's not the exact same years.
Well, so in the winter of 2019, that Q score comes out.
The field work dates for that is from January 22, 2019 to February 7, 2019, correct?
That is correct.
So the field work would be starting almost...
Immediately after Aquaman just came out, correct?
Yeah, in her star-is-born moment, yes.
You'd agree that for the winter of 2020, where you took Jason Momoa's Q score, would have more time to account for the rise in popularity of the film Aquaman, correct?
Well, actually, if I use Ms. Arnold's suggestion, these celebrities tend to have, you know, the celebrity moment right after they have their breakout film.
I disagree with that.
I think maybe his cue scores could be lower as it relates to when I use them.
You'd agree that for the winter of 2020, Mr. Momoa's cue score would have more time to account for the rise in popularity of the film Aquaman?
I don't know if it accounts for the rise of popularity.
Again, using Ms. Arnold's...
What does he think he's going to prove with these questions in the cross?
It's not even clear the jury's paying attention to this.
What's up?
What's happened?
What happened?
All right.
Thank you.
Okay, he's showing the witness something.
He's going to say the dates on which you did the Q score analyses were different.
Almost like he's not comparing comparables.
If you If you look on page 177 of your deposition transcript, do you see that?
I don't see a page, is that what you handed me?
You don't see page 177?
Four pages?
Four pages per?
Oh yes, thank you.
And I asked you, at lines 6 through 10, you'd agree that for the...
Winter of 2020, Jason Momoa's Q score would have more time to account for the rise of popularity in the film Aquaman, and you answered yes.
At that time, as I am a rebuttal expert to Ms. Arnold, based on her testimony, I've learned something new from her.
And you didn't look at Ms. Hurd's Q score for summer of 2020, correct?
She doesn't have any.
And Ms. Arnold had a lower familiarity score than Ms. Hurd, correct?
I don't have that in front of me, but if you're saying that, yes.
Okay.
And Ms. D 'Armas' career trajectory has gone up since the summer of 2020, correct?
I don't know.
I didn't analyze her career trajectory.
Okay.
Could you put up Trial Exhibit 1297?
That was the demonstration.
Yeah, I can't pretend to understand how the Q score works sufficiently.
I may have to go to Wikipedia to see.
Thought that was determined by and in CBC ratings of them.
Mr. Armis has less Instagram followers than Mr. Armis, correct?
That's a joke.
I get the joke now.
But Mr. Armis has more than the Instagram followers of Mr. Armis, correct?
Yes.
And isn't it true that you get more social media followers the longer you're on social media?
Not necessarily.
At all.
You can lose them the more you're on social media.
Dumb question.
Move on.
That's correct.
Q stands for quotient factor.
Through mail and online panelists who make up representative samples of the population.
Okay.
Sounds reliable.
Okay.
You understand that Mr. Wallman has been banned from Twitter for life for harassing Amber Heard, correct?
Objection.
I don't know that, but if that's the case...
Shame on him.
And you understand that Mr. Wallman appealed the decision to Twitter...
You should know this question's useless from his answer to the first.
May we approach on this one?
Okay, sure.
This is a good example of a bad question.
You ask the lead-up question.
You don't get the answer you want.
Don't ask the second one.
The first answer wasn't good.
You know that he's been banned for harassment.
I don't know that.
Oh, and you know that he appealed this?
I didn't know the first question.
Why would I know the second question?
I didn't know that he had been banned.
I certainly don't know if he appealed it.
I don't know if he was banned for harassing.
I don't think Twitter gives such a specific example, a specific explanation, sorry.
It's a bad question.
You have your list of questions and you're not listening to the actual answer to the first question.
You agree that in looking at Mr. Schnell's data, 65% of the uses of negative hashtags relating to misheard occurred between April 1st, 2020 and June 15th, 2021, correct?
Correct.
And you would agree that five of the six highest spikes of the negative hashtags were after the Depp Waltman statements, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Where you talked about the February 2020 spike.
And the 65%, by the way, even includes the February 2020 spike of tweets, correct?
I think.
That's correct.
Well, there was no spike in February 2020 during the Waldman statements.
Well, the spike in February 2020 was before the Waldman statements, right?
But it doesn't.
Can we pull up the chart again if you want to talk about the spikes?
Sure.
Can you put up 1294?
Yeah, the idea of him asking the question, it plants the seed in the jury's mind.
Number one.
I don't think so.
That spike happened before the Waldman statements.
Okay.
And there was hardly any activity in negative hashtags until February 2020, correct?
That's correct.
And you understand that the spike in February 2020 was related to the partial tape that Mr. Waldman and Mr. Depp leaked to the Daily Mail, right?
I'm aware that the articles were related to her admitting to hitting death.
And you understand that Mr. Waldman testified that Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman met with the Daily Mail in person.
It's argumentative.
Fair point.
She's talking about, he talked about what's the number one related to.
What's the objection?
Sorry, lack of foundation.
I'm asking if he knows or he doesn't.
So what's important to me is the fact that this spike is prior to...
Sir, sir, do you know...
I don't think the jury's paying attention.
Do you know if Mr. Waldman testified that Mr. Depp and he met with the Daily Mail in person to provide the partial tape in February of 2020?
You don't know one word or the other?
That's irrelevant to my opinion.
Okay.
And the spike in July of 2020 came right after the last defamatory statement by Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman, correct?
The July spike, which is number two, is not related to the Walden statements.
And there are articles related to abuse between Herd and Depp and feces found in Depp's bed.
And that's based on Google searches you did?
That's correct.
Okay.
But the July spike in time came after the June 27, 2020 defamatory statement by Mr. Depp and Mr. Walden, correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
And five of the six spikes came after the defamatory statements, correct?
After the Waldman statements, yes.
Okay.
Now, you testified before that you eliminated shares and likes of the Depp Waldman statements from your analysis, right?
Repeat that, please.
Did you say that you eliminated shares and likes of tweets that included the Depp Waldman statements?
That's correct.
When I was doing my analysis, I noticed the exact same text was part of many of these tweets.
Don't shares and likes disseminate the negative information?
I am doing Tamarilich tomorrow morning.
That's quite possible.
Nine o 'clock.
Got to figure out who takes the kid to school now.
Oh, this is boring.
You agree, right, that use of the term...
Yeah, I think it's...
They refer to it as...
It's strategy.
...toward misheard from April 2020 through January 2021, correct?
Although it's irrelevant to this case, it has nothing to do with the Waldman statements.
That's what Mr. Schnell says.
You don't disagree with this?
You don't disagree with the search results, correct?
Although it has nothing to do with this case or the Waldman statements, I do not disagree.
They're all leading questions.
People are tweeting about Adam Waldman.
They're all leading questions.
Or Waldminian at the same time as tweeting negative hashtags.
Hashtags about Amber Heard, is your testimony that they have nothing to do with this case?
Correct.
The hashtags have nothing to do with this case.
That's what you're saying?
Yeah.
Okay.
And even if they include the negative hashtags with Mr. Wallman's name?
And Waldminian, you're saying they have nothing to do with the defamatory statements?
All four hashtags that Snell used have nothing to do with the Waldman statements.
Waldman himself has nothing to do with the Waldman statements.
We're talking about the Waldman statements here.
Waldminian, I don't even know what that is, but again...
The jury has not been sequestered.
It's not related to the Waldman statements.
And the reason they're not related to the Waldman statements is because someone didn't literally copy what...
Adam Waldman said in the Daily Mail and tweeted out?
Well, I looked at enough tweets that included the name Waldman that have nothing to do with anything negative or the Waldman statement.
No, they must have had to have the negative hashtags toward Ms. Hurd because the only way that those would have been in the data you looked at would have had the negative hashtags toward Ms. Hurd.
It was looking at that universe, correct?
Well, first of all, I don't agree that justice for Johnny Depp is a negative hashtag towards Amber Heard.
So, listen, the assignment was to determine if the tweets that Mr. Schnell presented were related or included the Waltman statements.
In your review of the tweets related to Ms. Heard, you cannot point to any positive toward Ms. Heard.
You bite your tongue to stay awake.
I was not looking for that.
And you did not review the hashtag justice for Johnny Depp during the time frame from April 1st, 2020 to January 1st, 2020 to see if there were any that were not negative toward Ms. Heard.
That's what's at issue here today as we sit in court.
And you didn't form any statistical analysis to rule out the Waldman statements impact on the hashtags, correct?
Correct.
You did not analyze whether media and press coverage other than the Waldman statements affected Ms. Hurd's career, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Looking at the exhibit that's in front of you, where you have the numbers here, those you said are related to Google searches?
The one through six?
Correct.
Yes.
Okay.
And can we put up...
888.
Oh my god, like, I'm interested in this trial, and this is boring.
It's so preposterous.
And we could just start at one.
Do you understand that you're...
Okay, okay.
They're trying to draw defamation from negative hashtags.
These are the documents you relied upon for your opinion today.
Yes.
And are these the search, where it has the different letters, these are the searches that you ran for the various time frames and the articles that came up for numbers one through six, correct?
No.
I mean, obviously document 1A is the Heard Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure.
These are documents that I used throughout the time I've been working on this project.
So these aren't related to those one through six numbers.
This guy's a good one.
He's keeping it calm.
These are documents that I relied upon when I presented my designation.
For your opinion today, that you're offering today.
Yeah, these are the documents that, yes, I've relied on throughout this.
The argument is that the Waldman publication resulted in negative tweets.
Johnny authorized it, therefore Johnny's responsible.
...in this designation to...
...
Let's see.
Hold on one second.
Can you just scroll down?
Yeah, keep scrolling.
Well, the Covington kids never went to trial, but with the Covington kids, it would be a lot easier to establish because they had no pre-existing tweets.
There was no pre-existing, like, I forget defamatory articles.
There were no hate tweets about hashtag Covington kids or hashtag Nick Salmon.
The whole issue here is that 35% of these tweets predated the Waldman statements.
Yes.
Oh, man.
And it's similar to the chart that we had before with the 1 through 6, correct?
That's correct.
And where it has the various boxes, it's talking about documents 6E through 6H, for instance, related to Depp wanting to have Hurd replaced on Aquaman.
Yeah, we'll be off of it tomorrow.
Tomorrow's going to be Tamerlich.
And you can compare this chart, correct?
Yeah, this was part of my designation.
There's no more interesting witnesses coming up, it looks like.
Your Honor, I do have an objection, if I might be heard.
Let's hear it, please.
Wake us up.
We don't even get to hear the objection.
Yeah, so this trial's ending this week.
I think the only remaining witness of interest could be Johnny Depp.
There's a question of whether or not Kate Moss is going to be...
A witness.
I think I might be done with this for the week after today until closing arguments.
Tomorrow I'm going to do Tamara Lich, cover that, talk about other stuff, maybe see if I can get some of the folks, someone from Rebel on, and go live with them.
I think we've seen the most interesting things that we've seen in this trial come and go.
Tomorrow, Tamara Lich, they're going to read the judgment.
It should start at 9 o 'clock in the morning.
Tomorrow night, we've got...
Who do we have for sidebar tomorrow night?
Hold on.
Tom Woods for the sidebar tomorrow night.
Got to set that up.
And Thursday?
We'll see.
Closing arguments will be fun.
And this guy, he's asking, like, he's got to have a purpose for his cross-examination.
Don't just ask questions for the sake of it.
Okay, so, like, what does he think he's going to score with the jury in terms of trying to date when the Q scores are from?
This guy just did such an amazing job distinguishing Amber Heard from her comparables.
I mean, he basically made it look like it's like...
It's like comparing a 3,000-foot square house with a 10,000-foot square house in Malibu and saying they should cost the same.
How would you rebut the distinction that this guy, this expert, just made between Amber Heard and her comparables?
Exponentially more followers on social media.
Exponentially more popular.
Better Q scores, whatever that's worth.
I'm trying to think of how you could even undo that damage.
What's Amber Heard's social media following now?
They've been on social media for longer.
You get more people the longer you're on.
Not necessarily.
That's exactly how some people lose their followers.
Go see the Twitter here.
See if she's on Twitter.
Twitter.
Twitter.
And let's go see Amber Heard on Twitter.
How many is she up to now?
Does she have an account on Twitter?
Okay.
I don't...
Does she...
It is funny what comes up under Amber Heard.
Here we go.
She's got 233,000...
233.9 thousand followers on Twitter.
Interesting.
Hold on one second.
I think, if I'm not mistaken, if I'm not mistaken, let me see something.
Come on, show me what I got here.
She's got 233.9 thousand.
Oh, my internet is so slow.
This is very annoying.
She's got 233.9 thousand and I've got 234 thousand.
Other than...
Yeah, Gal Gadot.
I don't follow Gal Gadot, but I know that she's got...
So as I understand it, the way you determined that the tweets were not related to the Waldman statements was that you looked at time and then you ran certain...
Google searches, correct?
Correct.
And then the top three hits came up?
Correct.
And then you looked through the article to see if the Waldman statements were there?
So as it relates to any trending event, any defamation that's happened...
This is going to be a good point he's going to make.
...allegations of economic loss because something went viral.
Going to Google...
Looking at the spikes in time and going back in time to see what was happening on those top three sites will give you an indication of the best results that were being served at that time.
So something viral that's happening would appear most likely in those top three results.
And just so the record's clear, if we could go back to page 76 of this document.
Tu n 'est pas un vrai robot.
Eurotrip.
Oh, my goodness.
Correct.
You don't disagree.
Sorry, explain that again?
I'm not looking at...
Whether they're negative tweets or those hashtags are negative, I'm determining if those tweets are related to the Waldman statements.
So you have no opinion whether the tweets were positive or negative towards Ms. Herb?
That's what you're saying?
Yes, I'm just analyzing whether or not they're related to the Waldman statements.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No questions.
You don't have to ask them.
I have no further questions on this witness, Your Honor.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Domo arigato.
Viva robato.
All right.
So that was a good witness.
We're going to take a brief reset screen at this point.
Hopefully we're pitching it today right back.
Sorry.
Do not discuss the case and don't do any outside research.
Sorry.
We'll just take a short break.
I've got to tell you, people.
People.
I'm not sure that I'm sticking around for this to come back.
What time is it?
2.30?
Oh, these are coming off.
Okay, good.
Just so that we're on the same page, you can have a seat.
Keep standing the whole time.
Just so we're on the same page of Mr. Knight's testimony.
Actually, could Mr. Knight go back out?
Let's hear what they're saying here.
I'm not putting my headphones back on.
All right.
All right.
So we're on the same page with Mr. Knight's testimony.
There is a rule on witnesses.
However, Mr. Knight's a rebuttal witness.
The purpose of excluding witnesses from the courtroom, usually it's a courtroom, is to deprive a later witness of the opportunity to shape testimony to correspond with that of an earlier witness.
The issue we have here, obviously, if it was a direct witness in the direct testimony, you had time to do a rule on witnesses, let them know about the rule on witnesses.
With a rebuttal witness, it's a little different because they didn't know they were going to be a witness.
You didn't know they were going to be a witness.
I understand that part.
The problem is the courtroom in this particular case.
Appears to be the world.
So what we have to do here is...
It is indeed the world.
And I'll allow both sides to ask questions as well of Mr. Knight to see what he has seen of the case.
And I'm just going to use the factors that the case law in Virginia uses, which the factors to consider, because the court does have broad discretion to permit or prohibit a witness.
To testify in this particular circumstance.
So the factors I'm going to consider is if the impropriety was intentional, which we'll find out, the prejudice attached to it.
Also, if the excluded witness learned about substantive aspects of the case from an earlier testifying witness and whether that knowledge had any effect on his.
Or her testimony.
So those are the three factors I'm going to look at in weighing this decision.
So keep that in mind when you do your boy deer.
And it's my understanding that the evidence that Mr. Knight will testify only relates to Hicksville.
Is that correct?
Okay.
All right.
Now we can have Mr. Knight.
Sorry.
Barnes is not cheating on me.
I'm an idiot.
Lawrence is live on the Duran.
If we're pausing...
If you could come forward.
Oh, we're not breaking.
Barnes is live on the Duran.
So, anyone who wants the important stuff...
After this witness...
I'm out of here.
But I invite everybody to go to the Duran.
Let them know...
What we're doing is I'm just going to ask you a few questions outside the presence of the jury.
Then the attorneys are going to ask you a few questions, okay?
Then I'm going to have you step back outside after that, okay?
No problem.
All right, what's your full name, sir?
Morgan Higby Knight.
Okay, you don't have to be that close.
All right, how do you spell your last name?
N-I-G-H-T.
Okay.
All right, and sir, before I can allow you to testify, I just want to ask you a few questions.
Oh, I'm such an idiot.
Have you seen any of the trial that's been going on for the past six weeks?
Yes, all of it.
Approximately five weeks ago, a friend of mine texted me that Hicksville was mentioned, and I watched a little clip where it was mentioned.
Which clip did you watch?
This is interesting, because witnesses of fact are supposed to be excluded until after they testify.
I think it was the security guard testifying, maybe, about Hicksville?
No, this is not a voir dire.
This is to see if they're going to exclude it as a witness.
But it was something where Hicksville was mentioned and it was about something about a wrist or something like that.
I don't believe that his memory could be this foggy.
At some point did you get in contact with attorneys?
So I didn't reach out to them.
I didn't really care.
The innkeepers that worked at Hicksville before reached out to them and said we saw some stuff that wasn't true and then...
They asked, is it okay if I give the attorneys your phone number so the attorneys reach out to me?
Okay.
Duran is political discussion, and they're probably talking about Ukraine, Russia.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Not Camille, but Gerilyn.
Okay.
Yes, because witnesses of fact are not supposed to be in court while other witnesses testify because they get to shape their testimony.
I've been keeping off.
Off the internet and turning off anything that seems to be like it's on social media.
So I just don't watch any of that.
So expert witnesses are allowed being in court because their testimony is allowed to be shaped by the evidence because they provide opinions.
You were contacted by an attorney from Mr. Depp on May 3rd?
Yes.
Okay.
And you said it was Carolyn?
Jerilyn.
Oh, Jerilyn.
I got it.
Okay.
I think it's pronounced Gerilyn.
Okay, can you tell us the conversation you had with her at that time?
Yeah, she just asked me my recollection of the evening, and I told her, and she said, okay, would you mind testifying?
And I said, sure.
And she said, okay, well then, we're not sure if we're going to call you or not, but just in case, please don't watch anything having to do with the case.
We saw this early on in this trial.
Where one of the witnesses had been watching the trial and they just kicked her off as a witness and excluded her testimony.
To your best knowledge, how is it that Gerilyn was able to get hold of you?
How did she know that you knew something?
How did she know that you knew something?
Like I said, two of my innkeepers, my innkeeper and my manager, had reached out to her team.
I think this is a witness of fact.
It has to be a witness effect.
I think through email, and one of them texted me and said, hey, do you mind if we give Gerilyn, your phone number.
Yeah, he's a witness of fact about some evening.
You also communicated on Twitter.
Watching the trial, having heard all of it, would you trust his testimony now?
Yeah, two weeks prior to Gerilyn reaching out to me, someone had made a comment about something that happened by the fire pit, and I said, that's not my recollection.
I didn't see.
That's not what I saw.
This hurt my neck.
So who was it that made a comment about something that happened at the fire pit?
So once I was told about the fact that Hicksville was mentioned, I went and did a Twitter search of Hicksville trailer.
So it was, I don't know who it was, but I was just like, what are they saying about Hicksville?
I'm going to go see.
What are they saying about Hicksville?
I have no idea.
Why I did a search just to see because it was weird and fascinating because the night to me.
It wasn't that remarkable.
They are in Johnny's rebuttal evidence now.
So I think they want to call us Johnny's witness.
What do you mean by you did a trailer search?
So if you go to Twitter and you put in keywords and do a search, all the tweets regarding that subject come up or anything with those keywords in it.
That is how I found the tweet.
Amber has closed.
So this witness, they cannot want to call this witness for Amber.
How many tweets did you find that mentioned Hicksville when you did that trailer search?
Probably like five or six.
I only replied to one of them.
Okay.
And what do you recall those tweets saying about Hicksville?
The one that I replied to said that there was some incident by the fire pit and...
And Johnny was yelling at Amber.
I see it.
I think I'm piecing it together now.
The jury's not here to hear any of this, by the way.
You know, I was working that night.
So the lawyers can hear this.
Unless the jury's watching, they won't see this.
So your best recollection on that one was that somebody said somebody was testifying that Johnny was yelling at Amber?
Yeah, and I believe...
Grabbed her or something along those lines.
So Johnny wants to call him as a witness.
Who said Johnny was yelling at Amber and grabbed her?
I have no idea.
It was a stranger.
So I didn't really pay attention to who was writing it.
All right.
You said that you responded to it.
How did you respond to it?
I said that's not what happened.
I was there all night.
Okay.
So it's coming to the defense of Johnny.
Yeah.
They didn't know they were going to call this guy.
He had been following the trial because he hadn't been identified as a witness that they were going to call.
I just said that didn't happen.
I didn't say what.
I believe I said maybe something along the lines of, from what I saw, Amber was one acting jealous, not Johnny.
And you said this to one of the tweets.
Yes.
Do you recall whether that was the Umbrella Man?
I don't recall.
That's a ridiculous name, though.
Okay.
So tell me about the other five tweets that you recall seeing when you ran your trailer search.
So the jury is not here right now because they're going to have questioning to see if this guy can testify because he has heard testimony in the trial.
And that's the only one I replied to.
He had been watching the trial.
They didn't know they were going to call him as a witness.
Do you remember anything about the other five and what was said?
During the trial, they decided we might want to call him.
You said that somebody told you about a security guard.
What was your understanding of what the security guard said?
I got a text that somebody in the trial had said that they were talking about Trailer Palace during the trial.
And so that's what led me to go on Twitter and do a search.
And did you have any communications with the two innkeepers about what you knew or what you thought?
No, I haven't talked to them in years and still haven't regarding the case.
So how is it that the innkeepers then contacted you and said, do you mind if we give you the telephone number to the attorneys?
Because they still have me in their phone and Christy, who was the manager at the time, is the one that texted me and said, hey, do you mind if we pass this along?
Mr. Depp's attorneys want to talk to you.
Do you mind if we pass what along?
Your phone number.
Right, but what is the communication you had with the innkeepers that even led them to understand that you believed you had knowledge about the Hicksville incident?
There was no conversation.
They knew because they were both working that same night.
The jury is not hearing this, cannot hear this because this is the substance of his testimony.
They're going to decide if the fact that he has heard testimony in the trial is prejudicial to any testimony he would otherwise give to determine if he can give it.
Seven years ago, they happened to know that you were working that night.
Nine years ago, and it's because I was there with them.
My math, well, it's 2022 right now, and that was what year?
Oh, that was 2013.
You're right.
Okay.
So how is it that out of the blue, they remembered nine years ago that you worked there that night and that you might have some knowledge?
I mean, to be honest, like we do get...
Celebrity sometimes, but it was, you know, it's not that unmemorable.
It's not like it's any other night of the week.
So I'm sure they remembered the specifics of that night.
Had Mr. Depp's attorneys ever attempted to contact you before?
No.
Had you ever attempted to contact Mr. Depp's attorneys before?
Why are they determined they need his testimony now?
What's new?
What's new that came out during this trial?
Since?
Yes.
Well, I met with Camille last night.
All right.
And what was that conversation?
Please describe it.
Prepping as a witness.
I just went through, you know, the story again that I had told Gerilyn.
And let's hear what that story was.
You want me to go through the whole story?
Your Honor, we would object to attorney work product.
There's no attorney work product.
He's not their client.
Yes, sure.
Camille's not his attorney.
I described them getting to the trailer palace, me showing them around, the interactions I had when I was on duty with Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd.
Effectively, yeah.
If he testifies, he's just going to go into more detail about this.
The question is going to be why didn't Johnny notify him he might be needed as a witness?
What came up in the trial that makes it necessary is the fact that he's heard some of this trial prejudicial to any testimony he could otherwise give and such that they're not going to call him or exclude him.
I've spent total 45 minutes to an hour with Mr. Depp.
I miss her throughout the evening.
The entire course of the night, so it was my recollection of those events during that time.
And what did Ms. Vasquez say to you?
Your Honor, we object on the grounds that it's beyond the scope of the voir dire, which is limited to the three criteria.
May I please finish stating my objection, Your Honor?
Go ahead.
Yes, sir.
The objection is that it's beyond the scope of the voir dire.
This is a voir dire to determine admissibility.
And this is a rebuttal witness, so...
Your Honor, whatever Ms. Vasquez shared with him is going to be very important here because they knew by this time...
I agree with Elaine on this.
So...
That's last night.
So how does that fit into one of the three factors of deciding whether or not he's going to testify?
Well, one of the three factors...
Well, Your Honor, may I approach so the witness doesn't hear?
Okay, that's fine.
Okay, so it's interesting.
The three factors, the judge went over them.
Did he hear testimony out of malice?
Is it going to impact any testimony he might otherwise give?
This is a witness of fact.
They want to call him as a rebuttal witness to Amber's testimony.
Why they didn't know that it was going to be necessary to preserve this guy as a witness so that he didn't hear any of the trial.
Yes.
Interesting.
Ms. Vasquez.
Vasquez.
Does provide you with any information that anyone had testified to or said at any point?
No, she didn't talk about anything except for asking me my experience and just getting a clear understanding of what my experience was.
She didn't mention anything outside of the scope of what I saw and just asked me for the facts and told me, just tell the truth and let me know.
Good.
By the way, that's what a good lawyer does.
Doesn't tell you what to say.
Just tell the truth.
Outside of what I described earlier with a friend of mine texting that someone was talking about Trailer Palace, I do not.
Do you know whether any of the witnesses testified about any jealousy?
Other than the tweet that I replied to?
No.
Okay, this guy's credible.
As in, he...
Thank you.
Your Honor, may we approach?
Okay, so, interesting.
All right, sir, if you could have a seat back outside the courtroom.
Sure.
Thank you.
Who's making a prediction?
This is, by the way, the only thing that's going to wake people up now.
I'm still going to end it after this is done and they break.
Is this witness going to be allowed to testify?
Okay, you can determine a lot about the witness.
He put on a mask.
On the way out, and it was a cloth mask by the look of it.
The witness leaves the courtroom.
He's not sure if he's done good or bad.
He's waiting outside to determine his fate.
Will he be allowed to testify?
Is he going to be allowed to testify?
Yes or no?
He has a very good memory, and he thinks quickly on his feet.
Quickly corrected Elaine when she wrongly suggested it was seven years ago when it was actually nine.
Not credible, Mark Mark?
The question is of his credibility, not on the substance of his testimony.
Why was he watching the trial?
Why did they not call him?
How did they call him?
And is his testimony that he's going to give going to have been impacted by whatever testimony he heard in this trial?
I'm going to go out on a limb.
Knowing my limitations of experience and expertise, he's going to be allowed to testify.
But he gets a minus 100 IQ for putting them...
Okay, I thought that said...
I'm not trying to make fun of him.
I thought that said Q score, not IQ.
Yeah.
Okay.
Check out his social media activity.
Oh, I don't...
This guy seems like he's got a decent enough memory that I think he remembers his social media activity.
Okay, so let's say no.
And now why is he going to be called?
Because apparently in Amber's evidence, they testified that an incident occurred.
People are saying it was the cuddle puddle.
The cuddle puddle.
The puddle of love induced by the MDMA at parties.
That someone said Johnny was alleged to have done something.
This guy's like, I was there.
That's not what happened.
I responded to a tweet.
And now they want to call him.
And by the way, so everybody appreciates?
Like, you know, why don't you tell a client to do something illegal?
Why don't you...
You know, tell a client how to testify.
The client is not always going to like you.
And if you've told a client to do something illegal, if you've taken cash payments from a client and didn't issue a receipt, it's all fun and games when you guys are hunky-dory and like everyone's, you're saving money, you're not declaring money, the client doesn't pay tax.
It's all fun and games until the relationship is no longer any good.
And then the client's like, remember that time I gave you cash and you didn't declare it to the bar?
You didn't fill out a receipt?
Well, now I want a favor.
So, you know.
Camille Velasquez telling this witness, I'm not telling you what to say.
Just tell the truth.
They're chummy, chummy now.
And if Camille said, you know, this is what you really should say.
Well, if the poop hits the fan and this witness no longer likes Camille at some point, that becomes extortion, blackmail.
That becomes something that a client who no longer likes the lawyer can use against the lawyer.
Well, I've got to go for 330 anyhow.
I've got to pick up a kid.
So that's what's happening now.
So this witness doesn't seem like they've watched a lot of the trial.
I don't know what planet they're living on.
Being called now, witnesses of fact are excluded from the courtroom so they don't hear other witnesses' testimony so they can craft their own testimony around it based on biases or whatever.
Contrary to witnesses who are expert witnesses who can hear everything because they come to...
Testimony of opinion and not testimony of fact.
They didn't know they were going to have to call this guy.
They've decided now they want to, to rebut Amber's evidence.
He's heard some of the trial.
He was not excluded as per the rules.
Why not?
Malice.
Is his testimony going to be impacted by what he heard?
Will he be allowed to testify?
Who knows?
Find out in 30 seconds.
What do they all look at?
They all look so concerned.
The stenographer is now back to contemplating her existence.
She looks over at the jury, wonders, how bored are the jury members?
Are they as bored as I am?
Am I even bored?
She's preparing the introduction to her book.
Court reporting, Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, The Trial of the Century.
Oh my goodness, I've just, everyone's laughing.
I missed a bloody joke.
Oh my goodness, I just noticed what appears to be a court clerk in the back.
Studiously reading.
Okay, I think they're going to let the witness in.
I think they're going to let the witness in probably with a caveat on the testimony.
You don't want to exclude a witness because I think you give a better grounds of appeal to a party for excluding evidence as opposed to allowing evidence that might come with a warning.
We'll see.
Fife dog.
Viva, did you see the video with Elaine and the doctor yesterday where it sounds like he said...
Yeah, I saw it on TikTok.
I'm skeptical of all of those things.
You know, if you have to enhance the sound, I'm skeptical.
All right.
So based on weighing the factors, I'm going to allow Mr. Knight to testify.
Yes!
I can practice in Virginia, babies!
This is the wake-up.
This is what I needed to wake up.
Okay, now the jury comes back in.
We know of the substance of his witness testimony.
Jury comes back in.
They didn't get tainted by testimony that might have been excluded if they declined to allow the witness.
You know what?
That was as good as an energy kick from a Red Bull.
You could just stay there while we get the jury, okay?
Are we ready for the jury?
Millions of people aren't listening to this trial, but millions of people are.
I wasn't until the other day because of you.
Hollywood BS.
In front of the jury, okay.
Okay, let's do this now.
Let's see this witness's testimony.
Oh, sorry.
Forewarning, cracking my knuckles.
That is it.
One day, people, I might...
I figured it would be amazing content if I start...
If I try to take the bar exam of a state.
If I just say, that's it.
I need a state where I don't have to be a licensed attorney.
Where I can just see if I can pass the bar now.
Based on the years of learning through osmosis.
Picking Barnes' massive brain.
Could I pass the bar exam?
And by the way, Emily Baker cracked 500,000 subs today.
It's amazing.
Alita and Emily Baker.
Rakeda has already had the live streaming trials down to a science.
Alita and Emily Baker have put in, and that is to say Legal Bites and Emily D. Baker have put in the work and have done something amazing.
Amazing with this coverage.
It's just some matters we have to take up outside your presence, okay?
All right, thank you.
All right, your next witness.
I'm not jealous and there's no but.
I am impressed and amazed.
They've done amazing work in how they've covered this thoroughly.
I don't think he's supposed to be doing that there.
I think he should be doing that at the stand.
Amazing, thorough.
Meticulate.
Details that I know that I don't know.
Let's see what this witness says.
It is his moment to shine.
His memory.
Good afternoon, Mr. Knight.
Taking memory courses for his entire life.
Oh, Camille!
That's a little familiar.
Mr. Knight, where are you from?
I live in Los Angeles, California.
And what do you do for a living?
So I currently own and run Hicksville Pines Bud and Breakfast in Idyllwild, California.
Now it's okay.
Now we're understanding.
And I created and ran Hicksville Trailer Palace in Joshua Tree, California starting in 2009.
And how is Hicksville Pines Bud and Breakfast different from Hicksville Trailer Palace?
So Hicksville...
Pines, Bud and Breakfast is up in the mountains of Idyllwild, which is a beautiful snow town above Palm Springs.
And all the units are A-frames instead of trailers, which we have.
It's obviously a very different climate than Joshua Tree, which is a desert area.
Joshua Tree is glorious.
The rooms, which are themed at both places, are trailers, finished trailers from the 50s through the 70s at Hicksville Trailer Palace.
I want to go.
There's also different kind of amenities.
There's a pool in Joshua Tree.
There's a rec room up at Hicksville Pines.
Dude, I want to go to this place.
The owner of the Trailer Palace.
Trailer Palace.
I started building it in 2009.
It took about a year with my collaborator, Stephen Butcher, and on the trailers.
And we got done and opened in 2010.
Did there come a time that you sold the Hicksville Trailer Palace?
Yeah, I did at the beginning of 2020.
I had some health issues and just it was too much to run both at the same time.
So I chose Idyllwild because it was newer and shinier.
And just for my sake, how long did you own the Trailer Palace?
So 10 years of us being open, 11 years total.
I once wanted to buy a summer camp.
Still do.
So it started out as an artist retreat.
I was a filmmaker at the time and wanted a place to get away and work on film projects outside of Los Angeles.
I also put in a recording studio so musicians could record records there.
I had lived in New Orleans for five years and there was an amazing recording studio there called Kingsway where I'll be.
Musicians would come and they'd live in this big mansion and record their records, and I just thought that was a really neat thing for artists to get away and create whatever they were working on.
Over the course of the build-out of all the trailers, themed trailers, which I'm a huge fan of, this hotel called Madonna Inn.
And so I wanted to do really detailed themed trailers.
It became too expensive to just make a living off of an artist retreat so I decided before I was done to make it a hotel as well.
And what were your job responsibilities, generally speaking, when you owned the Hicksville Trailer Palace?
So I would be live-in manager some nights, a couple nights a week.
I would also drive out from Los Angeles twice a week and bring supplies that you can't get out in the Yucca Valley area and Joshua Tree.
There's just a lot of things like, you know, Smart Vinyls, Costco's and stuff.
So I would drive that stuff out.
Joshua Tree is glorious.
So sometimes I'd have to get things shipped to my house and drive them out as well.
Also, just do constantly building and creating new stuff at Trailer Palace, whether it's new trailers or amenities.
I see where this is going.
The fact that Disneyland is always making it better and better.
And when you were the live-in manager, does that mean that you spent the night at the Hicksville Trailer Palace?
Yeah, we have a house on site where the recording studio was, and there's a bedroom in there, so whoever is live-in manager those nights stays in the house and basically lives there.
There's a kitchen and everything.
Have you ever met the plaintiff in this case?
Ah, yes, I did.
One evening.
I met him really briefly at the Viper Room in the late 90s.
I worked with some of the people that performed there and was good friends with this girl Robin from the Pussycat Dolls and some other friends in this band The Impostors.
So I was there.
Pussycat Dolls, the small 14?
How about Miss Heard?
Ever met her?
I had never met her before.
They were guests at the hotel.
When was the first time that you met Mr. Depp and Miss Heard together?
In late May 2013.
When they were guests, Mr. Depp's assistant Nathan had rent out the entire place so they could have a night there in privacy.
What do you recall, if anything, about Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard's arrival to the Hicksville Trailer Palace?
Mr. Depp got lost.
So his security guard who arrived early asked me if I could go fetch them because he had an old car that...
Didn't really fare on the dirt roads out there, which are pretty horrible.
So I went out and made sure that they got themselves and the car back to Higgsville safely.
Do you remember approximately at what time that was?
It was three to four in the afternoon.
What was Mr. Depp's demeanor when they first arrived?
This is not irrelevant.
Trailer Palace, he was super excited about the place, really complimentary.
There was an alleged incident and he was there and he's gonna say that's not what happened.
He's going to be a biased witness because he's trying to protect his business.
Or promote it, will she?
She just kind of didn't say that much when I was giving them the tour of the grounds in the trailer.
And was anyone else with Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd when they first arrived?
There's people that are arriving throughout the afternoon.
Unhappy face on this.
Her jaw.
I think 10 to 12 people total ended up staying.
The security guard had gotten there earlier just to check out the place.
But yeah.
And did I understand your testimony previously that the entire trailer park was rented out by Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard?
Yeah, the whole place left, I believe at the time, about 25 people, but there was only 10 to 12 in this party.
And who was part of that party besides Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard?
I'm really horrible with names, but I remember one of them was Miss Heard's sister and the security guard I mentioned before, but I honestly forgot his name too.
What happened when Mr. Depp and Miss Heard first came onto the property?
There's going to be a good cross on this potential, but...
I gave them a tour of, we give all guests a tour of their specific trailer.
She's got to be exhausting.
In every respect.
Show them around.
When someone rents the whole place, they get another trailer called the Bar Trailer, which is basically a place to set up their alcohol and stuff.
And some people in the group were just putting their beverages in that area.
And where were you when Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard...
Did there come a time when Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard went to the Bar Trailer?
I...
Didn't notice most of the time that my interactions with them, everything's kind of centrally located.
So there's a fire pit, bar trailer, and picnic tables all right in the same area.
So they were generally around that area the entire evening.
I wonder how much this place costs.
What did you observe of Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard as the evening progressed?
So Mr. Depp was super, just super curious and really nice.
He was also really interested in my innkeeper because she was a musician, so they would talk about music a lot.
At one point, the innkeeper who lived at the next-door property went home and grabbed her guitar, and they had sung a song or two around the campfire.
It's got good reviews.
There's another instance where Mr. Depp, the innkeeper, her name is Jenna, and myself were talking about What about Ms. Hurd's demeanor made you think that she was annoyed?
I think just generally she, it's hard.
I don't know.
It was just like a gut reaction.
Like, I can't describe it, but, you know.
Yeah, that's what I'm seeing.
How long were you with Mr. Depp and Ms. Herb?
90, I saw.
Generally.
So throughout the course of the evening, I was probably mostly with Mr. Depp, but 45 minutes to an hour total.
So it was, yeah, that's over the whole course until the end of the night after the check-in.
And did you have an opportunity to observe Mr. Depp interact with other people, guests on the property that evening?
Yes.
I saw him hang out with his security guard at one point.
And outside of the time that him and Jenna were seeing around the campfire, he was off by himself a lot of the time.
And Ms. Hurd was over at the...
Campfire with her friends and seemed to have a good time.
So what happened?
What happened that night?
If you haven't already, can you generally describe for the jury your observations of misheard that evening?
Yeah, she was angry, jealous.
She seemed to be having a really nice time with her friends around the campfire.
And yeah, everyone was in a pretty good mood.
Did there come a time in the evening that you observed Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard have a disagreement or an argument?
Oh, yes.
Yes.
I was speaking with Mr. Depp just one-on-one talking about Hicksville and Ms. Heard came over and she said that I want to talk to you and seemed really upset about something.
So I went and...
Back in the house because it was really, they went off on their own and she started yelling at him and I didn't want to hear it.
It honestly was really triggering because I've been in an emotionally abusive relationship.
Objections.
What's the objection?
It's terrible for our case.
A man who knows what an abusive relationship sounds like?
Sweet, merciful goodness.
If Camille did prepare this, well played.
Yeah, that's...
Bias witness?
Oh, now we don't believe all abuse victims.
When it's convenient, we don't believe all of them.
When it's inconvenient...
Now, it's true.
I think this objection should get maintained, sustained, because...
We're not going to have a mini trial within a trial about his lived experience.
Mr. Knight, can you please just explain for us what you observed when you saw Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd having an argument?
Yes.
So Ms. Hurd asked him to go talk off to the side and she was upset at him and she was yelling at him.
And I personally had been...
Objection.
All right, I'll sustain the objection.
There you go.
Okay, I'm on a roll, people.
We're not doing a trial within a trial here.
But they heard it.
They heard it, and they heard the defensive objection from Elaine.
He was kind of cowering and seemed almost afraid, and it was really, like, odd to see.
Oh, that's definitely...
He was older than her, obviously, so...
Here says the right objection, but...
I went back in the house because I didn't want to.
Objection to what he did.
All right.
I'll sustain us.
Went back into the house.
Nobody cares why.
So after you observed the argument, fair to say you went back to your house on site?
Yes, I did.
Yeah.
Okay.
What happened after that?
So when I saw Mr. Depp on my next rounds, he apologized profusely and said, I'm really sorry about that.
She was upset.
Objection, Your Honor.
Here's saying.
That's fine.
Okay.
Elaine's on a roll.
What, if any, type of reaction did Mr. Depp have?
He said, I'm sorry.
He was just really...
It's the reaction.
It's not the statement.
Sorry, if you could make that clear.
Yeah.
Just what type of physical reaction did Mr. Depp have after the argument between Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd?
He honestly, throughout the rest of the night, became a lot more quiet and was...
Just very more petulant.
In the beginning of the night, he was a lot more outgoing and extroverted.
And throughout, as the course of the night went on, he was less and less so and more quiet.
Did you observe any of the guests consuming alcohol while on the property?
Oh, yeah.
I assume they were.
I mean, people had cups and there was alcohol set up in the bar trailer, but I didn't.
See the alcohol go down their throat.
Pour alcohol into their cup and cup go into the mouth, per se.
I like this guy.
Did you witness Mr. Depp drink any alcohol that evening?
I couldn't say.
Anything about Mr. Depp's demeanor that made you think he was perhaps intoxicated?
Yes.
As the night went on, I am a former bar owner, so even though I wasn't drinking that night, I'm very familiar with the signs.
Elaine doesn't object to this.
It's not quite as prejudicial.
His head would kind of sway a little bit back and forth, which was a little, you know, he was much less sharp than he was earlier in the night.
Did Miss Hurd appear intoxicated to you?
She did.
She seemed, I think when she...
I was angry at him.
It seemed like she was intoxicated, but that's just based on my experience and my own personal trauma dealing with abuse.
Objection, you're on a move to strike.
You got that.
Elaine, you're slow, Elaine.
He got that one out.
Did you observe anyone do or take drugs?
I did not.
Did you witness Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd interact other than the argument that you previously described for the jury?
At the end of the night, I heard a commotion.
I was inside the house and came out.
I couldn't tell what was going on.
And Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd were having a discussion about, I'm not sure what, but then they went to their trailer.
At that point, a lot of people had already gone to bed.
It just kind of petered out.
Everyone went to bed, including myself, and I didn't hear anything else the rest of the night.
Okay, until I saw a tweet.
What time did the evening come to an end?
Four o 'clock in the morning.
I'd say it was almost around 3 a.m.
Did you ever see Mr. Depp grab anyone?
No.
Objection leading.
Sustained.
What did you see?
Did you ever see Mr. Depp become physical with anyone?
Objection leading.
Describe Johnny's behavior.
Did you ever witness Mr. Depp get angry that evening?
Objection leading.
Describe Johnny's behavior.
What if anything happened the next morning?
There you go.
The next morning, we have to check out at noon at the time before COVID.
And so around 11 o 'clock, one of my innkeepers let me know that there was some damage.
No, that'll be overruled.
Did something happen that caused you to go to Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd's trailer?
Yes, I was informed.
Objection, hearsay.
It's not being offered for the truth, Your Honor.
I mean, maybe we approach on this one.
Okay, sure.
Thank you.
To pick up kid.
LOL.
Yeah, so this is going to get through.
I'm not saying there was damage.
I'm just saying, why was I summoned to the room?
Because I was told there was damage.
So I'm not trying to make truth of the statement that there was damage to a room.
I'm just telling you why I was summoned there in the morning.
So it's going to be allowed because why he was told or why he in fact went is independent of the fact of whether or not it was true as to why he was told.
What if anything happened next morning, Mr. Knight?
Inkeepers let me know that there was some damage in one of the trailers and it happened to be Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd's trailer.
So I wanted to inspect the trailer because I was extremely worried.
Johnny's trailer that Steve and I worked on were like my babies.
And the one they were staying in was the only one that was mostly original and restored 1950s style.
And so I was...
Very concerned.
So what did you observe when you went to the trailer?
There you go.
I observed that there was a light sconce by the bathroom in the bedroom that had been broken off the wall and a couple pieces were on the floor and they were and yeah it was basically just broken.
The light fixture was hanging on the wall still except for the pieces that were on the floor.
Did you come to understand how that happened?
Objection, foundation.
All right, foundation, I was just saying it's a foundation, how you knew.
Foundation.
Did someone tell you-Did you ask how the sconce was broken?
What was your understanding of what happened to the skunks?
They break pretty often.
I mean, it's not like a usual thing, but things in the trailers generally get broken because it's all vintage trailers.
I would say as much as every couple weeks, there's some incident of damage in one of the trailers.
In this case, Mr. Depp had told me that.
Objection.
So anyway, yes.
Beyond the light fixture, was anything else in the trailer damaged?
No, everything else looks fine.
In fact, we have something we call a piggy fee that we address to guests that if there's anything we call inconsiderate or unusually large.
We charged them extra for it for a $25 an hour cleaning fee, but they did not receive one of those because everything outside of the light fixture looks fine.
And what was your reaction to seeing the damaged light fixture?
To be honest, I was relieved because it was not a big deal.
There was already another light in the room, so I just tucked the wires in the wall until I had a few months later time.
That would have been a pregnancy.
It was matching sconce with another one in the room.
So I had to, on eBay, find a matching pair that would fit there.
And when I finally got around to it, I was able to get that and charge it to Nathan, whose credit card I had.
And what was your understanding of who Nathan was?
Mr. Depp's assistant.
Okay.
And what did you charge Nathan or Mr. Depp for replacing that?
150 bucks.
The pair came out to $62.
That was pre-COVID.
Now that would be 150 bucks.
Therefore, I'm on a roll of four now.
Okay, this is interesting.
While you were on site, Mr. Knight, did you ever wear a mesh shirt?
No, I would absolutely never wear that.
At any time during Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard's stay on the property, did you see Mr. Depp?
Become physical with anyone.
Objection leading.
I was going to say, she almost didn't object.
I never saw Mr. Depp get physical with anyone when I saw him.
Why did the judge allow that question then and not before?
Thank you, Your Honor.
Alright, well that's interesting.
That undermines...
You are a pretty big fan of Johnny Depp, aren't you?
You're goddamn right.
I am not.
To be honest, throughout the evening, I...
Sorry, I just asked you one question.
I didn't ask you the rest of that.
You wanted to participate in this trial, didn't you?
Oh, you didn't get the answer.
You didn't get the answer.
I was asked by the attorney, and I wanted to, they asked me, and I said, I'll be happy to come and tell the truth.
You knew this was on camera, that it was being broadcast to a lot of people.
Oh, Elaine, this is terrible.
You saw testimony, did you not in this case, and you...
Seized the moment and responded to the Umbrella Guy.
You're goddamn right I did, Elaine.
No.
It's not going to happen like that, Elaine.
Did you not?
No.
Let him answer.
Overruled.
Yeah, let him answer.
No, Elaine.
No.
Mr. Umbrella Guy is the lead.
You know that he leads one of the most predominant pro-Depth Twitters out there.
I have no idea.
I don't care or follow the Umbrella Guy.
In fact, you do follow a Twitter called Johnny Depp fan, don't you?
Absolutely not.
You don't?
That's your testimony under oath?
It is my testimony under oath.
All right.
And on April 21st...
Well, that's kind of important.
Darn it, this is getting interesting.
Just as I have to leave.
I wasn't here.
And in fact, you tweeted in response to the Umbrella Guy...
Dude, I'm going to see the umbrella guy right now.
Quote, that never happened.
I was with them all night.
Amber was the one acting all jealous and crazy.
Do you recall writing that?
I do recall writing that.
Michelle, can you bring that up please?
The umbrella guy.
I've got that umbrella guy.
Yeah, I'm not going to follow.
Anyhow, it seems to be followed by the lawyers.
You are the most prominent of Johnny Depp Twitters.
Okay.
and bringing in the Hicksville.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
That umbrella guy's Twitter feed is going to be going...
Yeah, it's off the charts.
In real time, you can see it.
It's actually amazing.
I hope Elaine has the receipt to back up that accusation that this guy follows that umbrella guy.
Well, she's working on that.
Did you write and direct a piece called Matters of Consequence back in 1989?
Nate, I'm going to bring you in in a second.
And didn't Mr. Depp's first wife, Lorianne Allison, work as a makeup artist?
Nate, how you doing?
Nate, what's up?
Just listening to the testimony, brother.
I'm going to mute you while they don't talk.
Or mute yourself so we don't hear the fuzz.
I got it.
I'll mute it.
Nate is in the house, people.
Umbrella guy.
Okay.
Well, all right.
Now we have this up.
I'm going to ask you to take a look.
What is Defendant's Exhibit 1903?
Do you see that?
I do.
Okay.
And that's from that umbrella guy on 4-21-22, correct?
Correct.
And it says bringing in the Hicksville incident accusations.
Do you see that?
I do.
And there's clearly Mr. Depp testifying there.
Likely a video, right?
Okay.
And you respond, that never happened.
I was with them all night.
Amber was the one acting all jealous and crazy.
When is this tweet from?
When is this tweet from?
Your Honor, I'm going to move the admission of Defendants 1903.
Any objection?
No objection.
You love this.
Your Honor, the first part of that umbrella guy's tweet should be unredacted for context.
I have no idea what I was replying to.
It's hearsay.
It's a great hearsay, and the context is not necessary.
This is interesting.
First of all, Nate.
Go for it, Nate.
No, I would say it's the rule of completeness where even if it's hearsay, if it's responded to something else to put it in full context, it's the rule of completeness.
So you get to hear both statements if the one statement is allowed to come in.
If not, then both statements aren't allowed to come in.
Okay, interesting.
Now, guys, he is saying the tweet is from April 21, 2022.
It's interesting.
Yeah, this is kind of very interesting.
So they want, I guess, so Team Johnny wants this in, but they just want both the tweet and the response.
Yeah, but the thing is that this tweet coming in doesn't help them at all.
It doesn't help Amber.
Hell no.
Yeah, it hurts.
Thank you.
Okay, 1903 will be in evidence as redacted.
That shows that he's consistent with his testimony.
Yeah, it didn't happen.
She's lying.
And he tweeted about it.
Why would you put that in?
And again, shout out to that umbrella guy!
You can call it to the umbrella guy in this text, this Twitter, right?
I wouldn't call it reaching out.
And in fact...
The umbrella guy is in Mr. Adam Waldman.
Do you know who Adam Waldman is?
I have no idea.
Well, he's testified earlier that he talks to the umbrella guy.
Talks to the what?
He talks to the umbrella guy?
Yeah.
Were you aware of that?
I honestly, this sounds like schizophrenia.
Okay.
Now, four days after this.
She's going to try to make this guy look like a liar, like he's part of the scheme.
You tweeted something pretty nasty about Elon Musk, didn't you?
I did.
Okay, thank you.
So you don't like Elon Musk, right?
Objection relevance?
I'll let her go.
I don't know.
Overruled.
I'll allow it.
So that was the context of that.
I didn't ask you for the context.
I apologize.
Okay.
But you texted something that had swear words in it.
Would you agree about Elon Musk?
Yes.
Dude doesn't like Elon Musk.
Now, let's talk about your...
He just became an enemy.
I'm joking.
...recollections here.
45 minutes to an hour.
Your recollection is that Mr. Depp...
Actually drove there?
Yes.
What type of car was he driving?
An old one that was a convertible.
Don't ask questions, Elaine.
I'm not a car guy, so I couldn't express it.
That's good enough, man.
An old convertible.
And your recollection was this was May of 2013?
Yes.
She's going to go with temperature.
It was cold.
Late May.
Okay.
Now, you said that you spent a total of 45 minutes to an hour.
With Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd, is that correct?
Mostly Mr. Depp, but that's after the tour and after they were checked in throughout the course of the night.
Okay.
And you don't recall any of the people that were there other than Ms. Hurd's sister and the security guard, correct?
I don't recall any of their names.
Do you remember how many of them were female?
I believe it was predominantly female.
Do you remember how many males were there?
I don't, outside of the security guard.
Do you remember what any of the other people looked like?
This is such stupid questioning.
They honestly just seemed like youngsters, for lack of a better term.
I know that previously a couple of them had stayed at Hicksville Trailer Palace.
That's how they knew about the place.
Okay.
So you don't recall seeing how much anybody had to drink that night, correct?
I did not witness that.
And do you recall the use of drugs at all?
I did not witness that.
Okay.
Were you sitting at any point with these people at the campfire?
I was not.
She wants to show that he doesn't have a good memory, but there's a reason why he doesn't remember this, versus why he remembers the damage done to his trailer.
She pulled him for a chat and it was off towards their trailer, like a little bit off towards the dirt.
How many feet were there between the campfire and their trailer?
The campfire and their trailer?
Yes.
Approximately...
30. 75?
Okay.
So where in that 75 feet did Ms. Heard poll Mr. Depp and yell at him and he cowered?
20. Okay.
From the campfire, not the trailer.
So your testimony is that Ms. Hurt grabbed Mr. Hurt, pulled him 20 feet over, yelled at him, and he cowered.
Yes, that's what I witnessed.
Well put, Elaine.
I went inside the house.
So you don't know whether they returned to the campfire or they returned to the trailer?
I do not.
Okay.
And do you know whether there were any disagreements or...
I didn't see anything.
and told them, asked them if they knew how many pounds of pressure it took to break their wrists.
I wasn't there the whole time.
Okay.
Do you, is it your testimony that Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard went last to their trailer, everybody else?
The rest of the people, I think about half of them had already gone to bed and they went...
It was all around the same time at the end of the night.
The rest kind of scattered.
Vicky is on fire.
Right after them or right before, but it was all around the same time.
Okay, so your recollection is that when Amber and Johnny Depp went back to their trailer...
That dissipated.
Everybody then left.
They don't have a lot of time here.
She's wasting a lot of time on this one rebuttal with it.
Yeah, and letting them strengthen their case.
From the trailer that Amber...
I'd say it was about 75 feet away.
Okay.
And the next time that you saw or heard anything was when you went there in the morning and saw the broken scots.
Is that correct?
Yes, I didn't hear anything after I went to bed.
Okay.
And that's the extent of your knowledge?
Yes.
Okay.
I have no further questions.
Yeah, Elaine.
What's that echo?
Hold on a second.
Mr. Knight, how did you get involved in this trial?
I got a text from one of our old employees who I didn't talk to for years.
Objection, hearsay?
Don't tell us what the text said.
Just how did you get involved?
I got a text from...
I got a...
It's still hearsay.
You're under rejection.
I don't think it is.
Thank you.
Go on, Mr. Knight.
I was asked if it was...
Objection, hearsay?
I apologize.
What did you...
I got a text.
You received a text.
Okay.
Yes.
From who?
From a former employee.
Okay.
And how long had it been since you had heard from this former employee?
Approximately five years.
And did you contact Mr. Depp or any of his attorneys?
Objection, leading.
Overruled.
I did not.
How did you get in touch with Mr. Depp's attorneys?
They got in touch with me.
Objection, hearsay.
That's not hearsay.
They reached out to me.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
It's okay.
I don't have an objection right now.
Next question.
And how do you feel about participating in this trial?
Objection.
Relevance.
Intention.
You brought up his intention.
Exactly.
Good.
How do I feel about it?
I don't want to be here.
I'm happy to tell what I saw.
That's the extent of it.
I really don't care outside of that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Knight.
All right.
I assume this witness is not subject to recall.
Is that correct?
All right.
So you're free to go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If this witness were subject to recall, one could say they're subject to total recall.
Hey, Nate, if I leave to pick up a kid...
Apologies.
No, no, no.
I'm picking up my kids right now.
I would stream while I drive, but the luck I have, I don't want anyone accusing me of giving me another traffic violation.
I'm just listening and both hands on the wheel.
If you're running the stream, it's a whole different story.
Okay.
I'll remove myself, leave it going, and I'll get back here as soon as I can.
See if I can make a play date for one of my other kids.
If I drop out, are you still going to run?
I'll come back.
Yeah, the stream will run.
I'll be back.
Okay.
See you soon, man.
Dr. Shah, can you please describe your educational background?
I'm a psychiatrist.
I went to medical school at the University of London in England.
I went straight off to high school.
That's actually the system in the British medical system.
I did two years of preclinical training and then three years of clinical work with patients.
Following that, I moved to New Zealand.
I was ready to tune out.
Now it's getting interesting.
It was an internship in neurology, medicine, surgery, and psychiatry.
I spent three years in New Zealand and I did a year of psychiatry residency training.
Excuse me.
He's nervous.
He coughed.
Let me just drink my bottled water.
What is he drinking?
Oh, it's out of a thermos.
Okay, that's nice.
Following that, I moved here to the United States for the first time and did a residency in adult psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which is in New York.
That was four years of training in the Bronx.
And I also did some subspecialty training in family therapy, couples and family therapy in my fourth year.
And after that, I moved to California.
And I've worked at Stanford.
I studied at Stanford.
I did a fellowship in child and adolescent psychiatry.
And I've been at Stanford pretty much since then.
Dr. Shah, what is your current position?
I'm a professor of psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford.
I also run what's called the Psychiatry Consult Service at the Children's Hospital at Stanford.
What, if any, professional certifications have you received?
I have what's called board certification in adults and general psychiatry.
I obtained that from the American Board of Psychiatry and Urology in 1991.
And then I obtained subspecialty board certification in child and adolescent psychiatry.
One child is taken care of.
That will have the time it takes me to do this.
I'm going to let this run while I run to pick up and come back.
I'm also a member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
I'm also a member of the Academy of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry.
How long have you been practicing psychiatry?
If you include my training in psychiatry residency in the U.S., that would be since 1985.
Is that approximately 35 years?
Yeah, I think so.
People were making the Clarissa joke earlier.
What percentage of your practice involves treating patients?
Hello, Clarissa.
Yeah, approximately three-quarters of my time is working with patients.
I work in the pediatric hospital treating...
See, if this guy's my psychiatrist, he's a little too calm.
...severe medical conditions, but also working with parents of children who have severe medical conditions.
I also consult to the pediatric emergency room, and we evaluate patients who show up with suicide attempts and other serious situations.
What does the remaining quarter of your practice entail?
Domestic violence.
As a professor, I have to do a number of academic activities.
So I do research.
I do a lot of teaching.
I give lectures.
I supervise residents, medical students, and fellows in psychiatry.
I do some administrative work.
Yeah, so it's a pretty diverse...
You know, varied day and week.
Can you tell the jury a little bit about your research and academic work?
A lot of my research has involved looking at the issue of trauma and PTSD in parents who have medically fragile children.
A lot of these parents are naturally really affected by their child's illness and develop trauma symptoms.
So I've developed some interventions to try to help parents provide support and treatment to reduce their symptoms of trauma.
Have you published articles or books in your area of expertise?
Yes, I have.
I've published approximately 70 or...
See you in 15 minutes.
I will be listening, but not participating.
I've also...
Published a number of book chapters on various topics, approximately 30. And I have published three textbooks, one of which has gone into a second edition on topics that are related to my area of expertise.
And one of them actually is about the treatment of PTSD in parents of premature infants.
Have you published a book through the APA?
Actually, all of those books were published through the APA, the American Psychiatric Association.
They have a publishing house and that's been my publishing company.
What is the APA?
The APA, the American Psychiatric Association, not to be confused with the American Psychological Association, is a professional organization that represents psychiatrists in the U.S. The last time I looked at this, I think there's about 37,000 or 38,000 members.
And the APA has many different roles.
One of it is advocacy in psychiatry in the U.S., but it also has an important role in terms of education.
So they host an annual scientific meeting every year in which psychiatrists will present their research.
It publishes a number of journals in the field.
Fairly frequently it publishes guidelines for professional practice or about ethical guidelines that they hope the members will follow as part of their practice.
What ways are you involved with the APA?
I mentioned my publishing.
I also present at the scientific meetings.
I last presented In 2021, during COVID, it was virtually, but on the topic of group therapy for parents with trauma symptoms, I follow the APA and their various guidelines.
I think it's a really influential and important institution.
Going back to your credentials, what, if any, professional awards have you received?
I've been given several teaching awards at Stanford University and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that I mentioned honored me with an award for service to my specialty several years ago.
I don't remember exactly when.
Have you given any public presentations in the field of psychiatry?
Yes, that's part of our work as an academic psychiatrist is to lecture, to give presentations.
So I present fairly frequently at annual scientific meetings, as I mentioned.
I've been invited to give grand round presentations at different medical centers, including University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.
So that's just part of our...
I think our role is to try to educate our colleagues about our work.
Have you testified as an expert in the field of psychiatry before?
Yes, I have.
On how many occasions?
I would estimate in terms of deposition and trial testimony approximately 50 times in the past 15-20 years.
What type of cases did you testify as an expert in?
They're pretty varied.
So some of them have been medical malpractice.
I've also done a number of cases evaluating victims who've been subject to physical or sexual assault or trauma.
What work were you asked to do in this case?
My role in this case was to give my opinions about the Testimony and opinions of Dr. Spiegel, whom you heard from yesterday morning.
And what work have you done to form your opinion?
I was present yesterday in court listening to his testimony.
I have viewed his depositions.
He had two depositions earlier this year, and I watched his depositions.
I've also read a lot of deposition testimony.
For example, testimony...
I've reviewed depositions by many of the therapists involved in this case, including Dr. Banks, the relationship consultant, Dr. Cohen, who was Ms. Heard's therapist.
And I think Dr. Anderson, who I think provided some couples therapy.
I've also reviewed the medical records of Dr. Kipper and Dr. Blaustein and some various email communications.
I think a lot of the information that has been talked about here.
Thank you.
Your Honor, at this time we'd like to offer Dr. Shah as an expert in the field of psychiatry.
Any objection?
we approach okay you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you.
All right.
So, any objection?
No objection, you're right.
All right.
So, he'll be moved as an expert.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah, you testified that you observed Dr. Spiegel's testimony yesterday?
Yes, that's correct.
And to reorient the jury, can you please generally describe the main areas in which Dr. Spiegel testified?
Yes.
Any objection, Your Honor?
They heard what he testified to.
All right.
Foundation to reorient them.
That's okay.
We can move forward.
Okay.
Do you have an opinion of Dr. Siegel's testimony?
Yes, I do.
And what is your opinion?
I have a couple of primary opinions.
The first is that my opinion is that he violated the ethical principles that are outlined in the Goldwater Rule when he gave his opinions about Mr. Depp, specifically with relationship to personality.
My second primary opinion would be that Dr. Spiegel's opinions were unreliable and that he had insufficient information.
Dr. Shah, you mentioned the Goldwater Rule.
What led up to the publication of the Goldwater Rule?
The Goldwater Rule came about in response to an incident that occurred during the 1964 presidential election when Senator Barry Goldwater was running as a Republican candidate.
And there was a magazine called Fact Magazine.
That started a campaign to discredit Senator Goldwater.
And they obtained a mailing list from the AMA and sent out a single survey questionnaire to about 12,000 psychiatrists in the US asking if they felt that Senator Goldwater was fit to run for office.
About 2,000 psychiatrists responded, 1,000 of whom expressed very negative opinions about Senator Goldwater and made comments such as, for example, he was a megalomaniac, he was a paranoid schizophrenic, that he had narcissistic personality disorder.
And as a result of that, he was replaced as a candidate and then went on to sue Fact Magazine.
For defamation of character.
And he was successful in that lawsuit.
And in response to this incident, the American Psychiatric Association that I think was really concerned about how psychiatry was being represented and statements psychiatrists were making about someone they had never met or evaluated, issued the Goldwater Rule.
And the main premise of the Goldwater Rule was that it was improper for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion about a public figure unless they had personally and closely evaluated them.
What justifications did the APA provide, other than the ones you mentioned, for enacting the Goldwater Rule?
They wanted to make sure that Psychiatric illness wasn't being stigmatized.
They wanted to ensure that individuals weren't defamed by statements made by a psychiatrist that weren't backed up by medical evidence.
And they also wanted to preserve the integrity of the psychiatric profession, since I think the public in general and a psychiatrist speaks out publicly and expresses an opinion.
A psychiatric opinion.
People generally like to take that seriously, and the APA wanted to make sure that those opinions were credible and could be relied upon.
Have there been any updates to the Goldwater Rule?
Yes, since 1973, which is when the Goldwater Rule first came out, there have been a number of revisions and publications by the APA.
They're called annotations in psychiatry in which the Goldwater Rule has been better defined and expanded to some degree.
So, for example, in 2017, in this publication, the APA reasserted that it was not ethical to provide a psychiatric or professional opinion about someone who had not been evaluated personally by that psychiatrist.
That it was unethical to provide an evaluation without obtaining consent from that individual.
They also sort of really kind of defined what a professional opinion is and how they defined it is that an opinion that a psychiatrist expresses about someone's speech If that opinion is made using the expertise,
experience and knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry, that is considered a professional opinion.
So it might include making a diagnosis or not making a diagnosis.
And the other, I think, a couple of important things about that 2017 document were that the APA specified that if a psychiatrist is to give an opinion about someone, about the diagnosis or personality characteristics, whatever, that they have to follow an appropriate methodology.
They have to do an evaluation that follows the standard practice of a psychiatrist here in the US.
And if they don't do that, they are considered to be You know, affecting the integrity of both the psychiatrists and the psychiatric profession.
And this revision of the Goldwater Rule definitely received a lot of support.
The president of the APA at the time stated that breaking the Goldwater Rule was irresponsible.
Stigmatizing and definitely unethical.
So that was a very strong statement from the president of the APA.
What other medical organizations have weighed in on this issue?
Yeah, the number of organizations have their own sort of version of the Goldwater Rule.
The American Medical Association that represents physicians in the U.S. has an annual meeting.
And they have what's called a Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs.
And they had a meeting in 2017 in Honolulu.
And they came up with their own statements about the issue of whether physicians can provide opinions without directly evaluating somebody.
And their opinion was that physicians should refrain from giving a psychiatric diagnosis about any public figure, including celebrities.
Are there exceptions to the Goldwater Rule?
Oh, hello, people.
There are exceptions, yeah.
And I think Dr. Spiegel had a lot to say about this yesterday.
Okay, I've been hearing.
I've been hearing it.
Oh, dude's in trouble.
Let's hear the exceptions.
So one good example would be if there was a medical malpractice case or if there was a case that involved a patient who had committed suicide and the court wanted to find out whether the psychiatrist had followed appropriate practice, the expert can review medical records and can give an opinion based on those records, provided those records have sufficient information, for example, about...
The diagnoses, about the treatment, about how the patient was responding or not responding to treatment.
Did you form an opinion about whether Dr. Spiegel complied with the Goldwater Rule?
Well, my opinion is that he did not.
He expressed a number of professional opinions about Mr. Depp that we heard about yesterday.
Again, he did so without evaluation, without consent.
He did not follow the guidelines of the APA in the 2017 revision, where it was considered important that there be sufficient information obtained by that expert to give an opinion.
So I definitely felt that his conduct, unfortunately, did violate the Goldwater Rule.
And specifically, what opinions that Dr. Spiegel gave yesterday do you feel violated the Goldwater Rule?
Narcissistic personality traits.
Yeah, I think there were sort of two primary ones.
The first that you heard about was that Dr. Spiegel had professional opinions about Mr. Depp's personality.
And he talked a lot about how he believed that Mr. Depp had narcissistic personality traits.
Yeah, there you go.
See, I pay attention.
He also talked a lot about narcissistic personality disorder.
So, narcissistic personality disorder is a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
It's called the DSM-5 for short.
Diagnostic manual published by the APA.
Oh, we know what the DSM-5 is.
Okay.
Are they approaching?
Okay, they're approaching.
Two things, by the way.
Yep, bad things come in threes.
I'm driving at the speed limit, and I was listening, but I only messaged once I pulled over.
I'm not taking a chance anymore.
These freaking things.
Imagine Biden being installed through...
Sorry, can't read it, but this is an old Super Chat that I had not gotten to.
And, Viva, aren't those death threats hearsay?
There's exceptions under U.S. law, prejudicial statements made by a party to the suit.
If you want to watch that, Nate Brody did a great breakdown on hearsay once upon a time.
But my personal belief, understanding, is that this judge in this case...
has adopted a very broad and possibly misunderstood application of the hearsay rule.
Because, yeah, the rule typically is you cannot relay in court, out-of-court statements to make evidence for the truthfulness of the statements.
In this case, this judge has not allowed some witnesses to say what people told them out of court, which I think is, even from what I understand of the broad...
Application of hearsay under Virginia law is erroneous.
So I was just talking about narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-5.
So the diagnostic criteria for that are, I'm not going to remember every word about this, but essentially it's a pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration.
A lack of empathy that's demonstrated by that person since young adults.
Johnny has none of that.
And the DSM-5 has nine specific criteria.
And for someone to meet the diagnosis, you have to meet five of those criteria.
I agree with this.
As a psychiatrist, we're trying to make a diagnosis of any personality disorder or any diagnosis in general.
The normal...
Professional guidelines would dictate that we would do a very careful diagnostic interview.
And there are actually interviews specifically written to assess personality disorders.
It's also possible to have the individual fill out questionnaires.
There's something called the narcissistic personality inventory.
This is a 40-item checklist that...
Taps into various components of narcissistic personality disorder.
And it's also possible to get psychological testing, like the MMPI, that I think you heard about in reference to one of the other experts here.
So with all of this information, including collateral information from family members, work colleagues, information of that sort, it is possible to come up with a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.
So in the case of Dr. Spiegel, he had none of this information, even though he came out and stated with what he described as a degree of mental health.
I like this guy.
Mr. Depp had narcissistic personality traits.
And if you remember...
Somewhat towards the end of his testimony yesterday, he was asked to, since he couldn't provide any documentation from the medical record about narcissistic personality disorder or narcissistic personality traits, he was asked about what is referred to a lot in his testimony as record evidence.
So information that he obtained from depositions.
From text messages, from emails, whatever.
So he was asked to give, I think, five examples of record evidence that would make it seem like Mr. Depp met criteria for narcissistic personality traits.
This guy is David Bowie.
And I'll just mention a couple of them, just to illustrate my opinion, is that that testimony did not really...
Hold together.
So he stated, for example, that one of the criteria for narcissism is narcissistic personality disorder is a sense of entitlement.
The example Dr. Spiegel gave is that he believed that Miss Hurd married him for his money.
So clearly, sense of entitlement from a psychiatry perspective, that's very different from a belief that someone wanted you.
For your money.
A second example that was given was that he was asked to give an example of how Mr. Depp had shown that he was envious of others, which is another criterion for narcissistic personality disorder.
And the example that Dr. Spiegel gave is that Mr. Depp was jealous of Miss Hurd because he believed she was having an affair with Mr. Franco.
Mr. Franco.
Now, if we look at these two terms as a psychiatrist, there's a big difference between being envious and being jealous.
As a psychiatrist, when I think about envy, I think about somebody wants something that someone else has.
He's giving his opinion as to how...
My Stewie voice is quite good, actually.
I say.
What the deuce?
Okay, and you mentioned two major examples.
What was the second one?
Johnny Depp is not a narcissist.
That's the bottom.
He's not narcissist personality disorder.
Oh, sorry.
Dr. Shaw, I mean...
You mentioned two major examples of ways Dr. Spiegel violated the cold water rule.
What is the second?
Oh, sure.
So the other big category had to do with Dr. Spiegel's evaluation of Mr. Depp's cognitive abilities.
This is the one that blew my mind yesterday.
His general opinion was that Mr. Depp had deficits in his memory, in his attention.
Compared it to roles he played in commercials.
That he had word-finding difficulties.
Again, Dr. Spiegel did not evaluate Mr. Depp, and the information that he relied upon, there were two pieces of information.
The first was that he watched a very long deposition that Mr. Depp gave the day after, I think, he had flown back from London to the East Coast.
Which he called him an idiot.
He made observations about Mr. Depp's behavior in that deposition.
I forgot that Barnes was live with the Durand today.
And he felt that he could opine or give an opinion about processing speed and other cognitive aspects.
I want this guy to lose his temper.
Like, what the bloody hell?
He also made reference to something you heard about yesterday, this thing called the mini-mental status examination.
This is a brief screen for...
Memory and cognitive functioning that is often done.
I agree.
And he testified that Dr. Blaustein had administered the mini mental status examination.
And although, you know, from the records, all we know is the objection, Your Honor.
Dr. Shah, without going into Dr. Blaustein's record, what information does a mini mental exam provide?
Objection, Your Honor.
No, it's not.
Overruled as to that limited question.
Yeah, so the mini-mental status is a series of about 10 or 11 questions and tasks that someone completes, and you get a score out of 30. What Dr. Spiegel testified was that Mr. Depp could not recall three words after five minutes.
And he used that as an example of Mr. Depp having cognitive deficits that he specifically attributed to Mr. Depp's alcohol and substance abuse.
Checkmate, Andy.
And he really did not have sufficient information.
I like in a mini-mental status exam, it's like taking someone's temperature.
If it's elevated...
Objection, Your Honor.
I'll sustain the objection.
Now it's probably a good time for a break.
Okay.
Sure.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I know you had a break, but we didn't.
So we're going to go ahead and take our afternoon break for 15 minutes.
Do not discuss the case and do not do any outside research, okay?
You can stay right there, Doc.
True Vikes fans sent me...
I'm looking for the tweet, True Vikes.
Okay, so this is very interesting.
This is fun.
This is a little more intriguing now.
You're having a rebuttal expert respond or rebut.
To the Amber expert who we all...
Oh!
They're back in the house.
Get out of here.
Not highlight block.
Sorry.
Didn't mean to highlight that one.
I meant to block it.
Okay.
Take those off.
See if Nate the Great comes back.
No, are there two of them?
Block?
I'd block you too.
Judo block!
Okay.
Remove.
So this is getting interesting now.
This is another psychiatrist.
I don't know who has better credentials.
I just know who I think has better credentials based on presentation and overall delivery.
Also, British accents make everyone sound smarter.
Have you ever met a British person who sounds unintelligent?
I haven't.
And I've seen, like, you know...
What were those movies?
The movie was...
Snatch.
Well, Trainspotting was Scottish.
Anyhow, I'm being...
It's a joke.
It's tongue-in-cheek.
This guy looks credible, and he looks ethical.
And now, this is not a question of saying...
This is not a question of proving that Johnny Depp does not have NPD.
Narcissistic personality disorder.
It's not a question of proving that Johnny...
It's not a question of rebutting that Johnny Depp is not IPV perpetrator.
This guy is making Schmeagel...
I'm not trying to be funny.
Is it Spiegel, Smeagel, or Schmeagel?
This guy's destroying Smeagel.
And this is why, by the way, even if a client asks you as a lawyer or a professional...
To be unethical, to do something which you think might compromise a rule of ethics, how much could they have paid this guy to make this worth it?
How much could he have...
Is it Smeagol?
Is it Smeagol, people?
I don't...
It's Spiegel.
How much could they have paid this guy to destroy his reputation?
Oh yeah, Sid Vicious sounded smart.
It's not Schmeckle.
Keep your Schmeckle and your Schmeagle.
And this guy, he's highlighting the fact that Spiegel is not just that he conducted himself unethically, allegedly, potentially.
It's also that that's the one, two smoking barrels, lock stock and two smoking barrels.
It's that above and beyond that, I can imagine that it might be permissible.
To assess a patient, to try to provide some sort of forensic psychiatric analysis of someone who's deceased.
What could have accounted for something?
Were they in a state of automatism when a certain event occurred?
I can imagine that.
But it's not just that this guy, for no better reason, well, Johnny wouldn't submit to a psychiatric evaluation in the absence of a court order.
It's not just that he broke the Goldwater Rule, which we were fortunate enough to have discovered on our own before they even brought it up.
But he did it so badly.
I declare that Johnny Depp has narcissistic personality.
Not disorder.
He had to back that up.
Traits.
I declare that Johnny Depp is...
He displays narcissistic traits.
I mean, for goodness sake, Johnny's got a lot of problems.
I don't know that narcissism is one of them.
And anybody who's ever dealt with someone who you think might have BPD or NPD, it leaves a smell that you never forget.
And before you even know what it is, you're like, something is off.
Why is it always like this?
Why is it always someone trying to make you feel bad?
Such that you never make that mistake again.
But this guy said, I think he's got narcissistic traits.
I couldn't even remember the reason for which he said it.
Jealousy disorder because he thinks that his spouse, who by many accounts was cheating on him because he thinks that a woman who was cheating on him or had cheated on him might be cheating on him.
Someone might call that envy or jealousy or whatever you want to call it, Dr. Spiegel.
Others might call it...
KYC, know your client, know your partner, KYP.
So this guy is very good.
And there could be circumstances where a forensic psychiatric analysis might be necessary, could be ordered by the court, in which case you're not violating any ethics, presumably if a court orders you to do it.
But this guy, how much could he have been paid?
And he probably thought, if he's been an expert as many times as he said he was, Spiegel yesterday, he had to have known what was coming.
And if he did not anticipate that this was coming, then I actually question whether or not he's testified as an expert as much as he says he has.
Viva Frey.
Sure, he may have some, but that really doesn't mean much.
I mean, that's the thing.
And it's a spectrum.
And you have to complete tests.
And...
This guy is going to be very good.
He's going to be good on cross-examination because it doesn't look like he's going to lose his temper.
Especially bearing in mind the substance of his testimony right now.
Where he is judging someone else on an ethics issue.
He's not going to...
I don't think he's going to screw up.
But they're just destroying that expert.
That expert, the one who comes in to say that Johnny has all of the behavioral traits that Dr. Curry confirmed in a court-ordered psychiatric or in a court-ordered analysis that she determined Amber Heard has.
Yeah.
So there's that.
Lawyer.
What is your professional opinion of Dr. Spiegel's analysis witness?
He's full of poo-poo.
And it's not just that.
It was baseless.
He doesn't know if Johnny's drunk when he's doing the recall test.
You can't screw up if you tell the truth.
My grandmother always said it.
To be a good liar, you have to have a good memory.
And I actually think Mark Twain stole that from my grandmother.
Oh, let's see what we got here.
Does Depp deflect?
Does Depp gaslight?
Does Depp project?
Does Depp claim to be a victim of the real victim?
He is not a narcissist.
And it's Patriot Asylum.
It looks like you might have some experience in dealing with some types of personalities.
Does Amber deflect?
Yes.
Does Amber gaslight?
Yeah.
You didn't get hit, Johnny.
You didn't hit.
Does Amber project?
Johnny, you're jealous.
You think you're jealous and you're envious.
Does Amber claim to be a victim of the real victim?
Yes.
Now the only question is, do you believe that she was a real victim?
And if you do, I guess she's not a narcissist.
She's just a victim.
Team Johnny Viva Fry shirts coming soon.
No, never.
Because if I put up a shirt that said Team Johnny Viva Fry, people would go pull my clips where I said Johnny shouldn't sue because I suspect he's got some very dirty skeletons in his closet that are going to come out in this trial.
People will pull that up because I said that.
I said it based on what I thought would come out in the evidence and now I have to retract, not retract, I have to revise and correct because the evidence is out.
We're on the end of the rebuttal of Johnny Depp to Amber's evidence.
The evidence is out.
Can you imagine this?
Johnny Depp has had a life of drug abuse, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, rehab, in and out.
In all that life, other than setting aside Amber Heard's allegations, in all of that life of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, rehab, struggling to fight his own demons, the extent of the evidence of violence from Johnny to Amber, one picture of a bruise on her arm, Immaculate face.
One picture, or we're not sure if it was one or two pictures, of a bruise, what seems to be redness on her face.
One picture of what seems to be a bruise, but very pale bruise on her eyes.
Followed up by pictures of that evening and the next day on James Corden, Don Rickles special.
Immaculate, immaculate face.
And a few pictures of Johnny Depp sleeping or unconscious.
And Ellen Barkin saying he threw a bottle of wine 35 years ago.
So yeah, when the evidence is out, you have to reassess when the evidence did not bear the fruits that you thought it was going to bear.
Let's see here.
Team Truth.
Let me just go tweet that to someone.
I like Team Truth.
We're going to have this expert.
They're going to finish with his testimony.
They're going to have a cross.
They're going to have a redirect.
I hate noise-canceling headphones.
I have to hear...
Well, I hate headphones because I don't hear my surroundings.
Noise-canceling headphones, I find that they make my ears feel like I'm in an airplane going through the clouds, you know, like they start popping.
I think there's something scientifically unhealthy about noise-canceling headphones.
I cannot stand them.
And I hate over-the-ear headphones because I like hearing my surroundings.
I can only stand over the top the Koss port-a-pros, but I couldn't find them.
And now, thanks to Eric Hundley, I haven't listened to rock music with these, but the sound from my own voice as I stream, it's glorious.
We all have our crosses, but there's no question about that.
And I thought that Johnny had more skeletons in the closet.
Setting aside his crosses to bear, I thought there was going to be hard evidence of what they were accusing him of.
When someone gets absolutely plastered, does MDMA, I imagine them doing very bad things.
Not just passing out.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The video of him smashing the cabinets.
I don't think I have a temper.
I think I might be considered irritable at times.
I've stubbed my elbow and smashed the thing that you stubbed, not your elbow, your head.
Where was it?
It's like reminiscent of the movie A Scanner Darkly.
You remember when Keanu Reeves bumped his head on the cabinet and he described a pain that was just so unfair and so out of, like, I think he described it as unfair.
It was like one of the scenes, one of the rare scenes from that movie I remember.
When he banged his head on the cabinets and he described the pain as so sharp and so sudden and so unfair.
When I bang my head, when I kneel down and the cabinet comes up and I, oh, I smash the freaking cabinet.
When I open a door and it bangs my own glasses and then crookifies my glasses, oh, I slam the, I smash the door.
But in my entire life, I've never laid hands on another person.
Except for that kid Josh in grade 3. I judo flipped him.
And Jamie in grade 5. Jamie was a boy.
We were playing football.
And I open-face smacked him.
Other than that, you'll smash a cabinet door when you...
You'll smash a door when you open it like an idiot onto your own face.
But I thought Johnny...
I thought Johnny was going to have...
Very, very bad things.
Like Hunter Biden type stuff.
And maybe not Hunter Biden, maybe not like evidence of domestic abuse, but Hunter Biden.
Not the underage stuff, but like, you know, that type of inappropriate stuff, which would just destroy a reputation anyhow.
Can you imagine they threw everything in the kitchen sink at Johnny Depp in this trial?
And what evidence?
What history of violence?
Great movie, by the way.
What evidence?
And what brand tarnishing, what reputation tarnishing stuff did they even come up with?
Emily Barkin.
Ellen Barkin.
Ellen Barkin from 35 years ago.
He threw a bottle of wine in a fight.
He was often drunk and we used to hook up when he was drunk.
Look at my glasses right now.
You know what else is also annoying?
Grease.
A disgusting, greasy fingerprint on your glasses.
And then people said, get contacts, Viva.
It'll make it better.
It doesn't make it better.
I found I lost my depth perception when I used to wear those things.
Contact lenses.
When did you first meet Alex, Viva?
Huh?
Alex Jones?
The Duran show is over.
Yeah, I guarantee the people who were watching the Duran anyhow have little to no interest in the Johnny Depp trial and vice versa.
Johnny, oh, Viva.
Didn't Johnny lose a ton of money just before he punched out those cabinets?
So Aunt Patty, I've heard two explanations as to what might have happened.
It was either that he just found out he lost $650 million, which doesn't make sense.
I thought maybe it was $65 million.
Or someone said his mother.
Had passed away.
I'm not sure which one had occurred prior to that, but yeah.
And broken glass.
When I break glass, I can lose it, but not on a human.
But yeah, it's either he lost, he found out that was the morning that he lost $650 million that people had been stealing from him, or some people have been saying it was...
Oh, the Durian.
The Duran Alex.
I met Alex on our channel when they came on for a...
For a sidebar.
Yeah, so people are saying he lost his money.
Yeah, and then you have the guy who was managing his money coming as a witness for Amber saying, we did everything by the books with his money.
We never saw that.
Yeah, look at that right there.
Right here.
It's actually quite good.
There we go.
So yeah, this expert's going to destroy it.
Scammers is right.
And I believe now, I think we might be coming back to the trial.
Has it been 15 minutes already, people?
What am I?
Chopped liver?
I had you on one device.
And Duran Barnes on another.
Well, this is easy to follow.
I mean, this trial, it's easy to follow.
We've really, we've quite clearly gotten past the hump of the interest of this trial, of the interesting testimonies of this trial.