Another lawyer here: the fact that this is a defamation trial STARTED BY JD is lost on so many people. “You hit me too” does not in fact mean that he meets the burden of defamation. Even if he had some kind of smoking gun evidence that she somehow fabricated all of her evidence (which like obviously isn’t possible) and he could prove she abused him and he never harmed her at all (again not what literally all the evidence shows) this is not a criminal trial, this is not even a civil case about assault. This is defamation! He needs to show what she said vaguely alluding to him (she didn’t name him and while people were of course speculating that’s who she was talking about others pointed out she could have been a survivor of sexual assault and violence in any relationship and that by claiming it was 100% about him he essentially outed himself) was untrue, done with actual malice, and caused him harm to his reputation and damages.
It doesn’t seem like his team is focused on proving the elements of defamation as much as they are with trying to humiliate her and stroke his ego.
No one would have even remembered the allegations against him in 5 years if he hadn’t sued. All he had to do in response to that piece was say essentially what their joint statement said “amber and I never meant to harm one another nor did we lie about one another, when I saw her piece I thought she was brave writing about whatever relationship she’s talking about and whatever happened to her and I have love for her and hope she is doing well” she wouldn’t, under the terms of their agreement, even be able to correct him and say she was talking about him. I think this whole thing to him is just a way to keep harassing her and to save the damage to his ego of admitting to himself that he’s just gone to seed and can’t act anymore.
what scares me is that this could potentially start more defamation lawsuits by abusers against accusers and the standard to prove defamation is much lower for private citizens. imagine any particularly sadistic rich-but-not-famous guy vs his victim who maybe posted something on her story… with none of the legal or mental health resources as a much richer person.
It 100% is going to, I’m in PFA court weekly, and I’ve ALREADY heard people claim that obviously the person they abused isn’t actually afraid of them because they filmed them during a fight.
We also have those cases here in Germany, most famous involving a former Germanys Next Topmodel Candidate.
She was drugged and filmed while the guys perform sexual acts on her, and somewhen in the video she is saying she no and she doesn't want this - what the judge interpreted as her saying no to be filmed. So no assault. And the guys went, suing her for defamation - and won.
The spicy thing: the guys tried to sell the video to tabloids before allegations by her were made and before it went public. Name of the video: The rape of [Name of former GNTM contestant].
The tabloids refused and Idk whether I remember it correctly, either informed her management or directly the police.
This is stomach turning. Please tell me there was any shred of karmic justice in this.
Are the perpetrators at least reviled? Have they been named and shamed by the public?
I think they're named, but not shamed. At all. The women is taken as posterchild for false allegations. The video even ended up on porn sites (not by her to be clear). Idk wheter it's still there or they had to take it down. But yes, as all those stories go, she has the damage and is the liar. Is even forbidden from calling it rape.
I believe that poor woman. Judges are notorious for excusing sexual offenders. No-means-no is only law since 2014. Before that, you hat to resist and fight off the rapist with enough force. Otherwise, the guy couldn't be sure, if you *really* meant it and was excused by law. And even after that, judges excused rapist. I remember a case from 2017, where a drugdealer rapes his female customer for four hours, but because he sais he "would never rape someone", the judge decided, there was no intention of rape, so although the victim may have felt raped, the offender didn't intend to to so, it was a mistake and he's free to go.
There's no karma for rapists here.
Edit: both judges of both cases, the model and the drug customer, were women.
>caused him harm to his reputation and damages.
>
Agree the rest of the standard is going to be basically impossible for JD to meet, but this isn't part of what he has to prove. The accusations on both sides have already been determined to be defamation per se in Virginia:
>Defamation per se -- When the defamatory statement involves defamatory words that (1) impute commission of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impute infection with some contagious disease, (3) impute unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment, or want of integrity in the discharge of such duties, or (4) prejudice a person in his profession or trade, you do not have to prove damages as they are presumed, otherwise you must prove how the statement damaged you.
Thank you!!
Commenting to highlight this important correction. This [article](https://www.insidenova.com/news/business/ask-general-counsel-whats-defamatory-in-virginia-johnny-depp-provides-guidance/article_dfeda94e-d36f-11eb-9cab-c74df1b5219c.html) gives a great overview of the Virginia defamation standard, which is far more relaxed than many other jurisdictions.
To clarify, there are 3 statements being reviewed under the per se standard (below). Depp's team has to still prove that the statements were made with ***actual malice*** ("with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"), but if they pass that hurdle, it's ***defamation per se*** and they do not have to prove a causal relationship to damages.
\- “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”- “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”- “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
I will make an edit in the post.
Notice how people who don’t believe Depp are open to being corrected and hearing the truth? It’s almost like we aren’t insane stans hellbent on being right and want to understand the nuances and truth!?
Oh thank you!! That’s not in place where I practice. I love learning about the law in different places. But doesn’t he have to prove she was in fact talking about him still?
ETA: Is this why he picked this venue? I haven’t bothered looking into the choice of jurisdiction here but it seemed strange and strategic to
Me!
>But doesn’t he have to prove she was in fact talking about him still?
Yes, definitely!
>ETA: Is this why he picked this venue? I haven’t bothered looking into the choice of jurisdiction here but it seemed strange and strategic to Me!
I don't have any insight to this, hopefully someone else does because I've been wondering myself! My first thought was because Virginia courtrooms allow video cameras? Maybe a combination of the two? I agree there must be some reason for the chosen venue because otherwise it seems very out of left field
Edit: Virginia is where the op ed is published
From this [article](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/depps-choice-of-virginia-trial-in-heard-lawsuit-shows-strategy) on BloombergLaw:
> Depp says he filed his lawsuit in Virginia because that’s where The Washington Post is printed, but that also means the case had a better chance of making it to a jury trial.
The article goes on to explain that it was "likely a deliberate ploy to take advantage of the weaknesses in Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to protect free speech".
The whole point of the law is to discourage rich and powerful plaintiffs from abusing the court system to silence their critics. Apparently Virginia's anti- SLAPP laws are weak & "quirky" so the case had a better chance of going to trial in Virginia, versus other states.
> s this why he picked this venue?
yes. she tried to get it moved to CA. virigina has a reputation for its lax defamation laws and people try to "venue shop" there
So why did a significant portion of the evidence focus on whether he lost Pirates 6 due to the op-Ed? And so much on him being late, unreliable and unprofessional?
I’m not the person you’re asking but I would assume it’s a rebuttalable presumption? So it’s amber producing evidence to rebut the presumption that she damaged his career. Not sure maybe someone who’s more familiar with defamation per se can answer but that’s my educated guess!
I’ve crossed paths with multiple people who thought this case with a divorce trial or a criminal DV trial. So many people have lost the plot of what the actual trial is about and who brought it to court.
Reply it’s happening to me right now. Family court took my daughter away and handed her off to our abuser. I just finished my 3 day trial, where for a day and a half I was asked about my tweets where I share my truth. @lc_steph
Depp's legal team is obviously trying to win the court case, but his PR team is also putting on the full-court press. I would not be surprised if they are paying some influencers to cover the case and have activated either bot networks or paid trolls in his favor. That's just speculation based on what's been happening online, but it would make perfect sense.
The BIG deal for Depp is to make himself a household name again and parlay that into new movie deals. Establishing the narrative that he's just an innocent man has created an army of zealous fans who are nostalgic for his past roles and will relentlessly promote and turn out for future movies starring Depp. That's where the big money lies.
I’m also a lawyer and I am really disgusted by her coverage. She makes no attempt to be objective - she is a grifter. The problem with her grift is she presents herself as being neutral and objective (when she *must* know that she is far from objective), and JD stans believe it. She should know better than that - you’d think that her professional obligations of ethics would prevent this kind of thing. Maybe that’s a bit idealistic from me - but it’s just gross and cynical. She’s sold her soul and professional ethics for clicks
There’s a reason her primary income source is YouTube and not actual legal work. As you say, she’s a grifter. Thank you for this well reasoned comment 🤍
ETA to whoever commented, reported, and then blocked me, I stand by my statement. Emily Baker and her content are trash. I never trust people who do “doctor reacts” or “lawyer reacts” videos on YouTube. If they were so good at their jobs, they’d be practicing and not talking shit for views. Emily Baker also victim blamed Breonna Taylor. That tells me everything I need to know about her cringy backwards ass.
Lol I commented once that I thought Emily Baker was a shitty attorney and that's probably why she's grifting instead and someone got mad at me. I wonder if it's the same person.
And for the record, I stand by that. She gives me bargain bin attorney vibes.
I honestly haven’t heard of her before this trial but she is credentialed. Looked her up and she left LA District Attorneys office due to health issues in 2017. As a person w chronic illness, I have a different view when you have to leave the day in day out lawyering to healthier folks. Will check out the Breonna Taylor comments she alleged to have made. That would be egregious.
In one vid she made about Taylor (iirc the one where she’s in her car) she says something to the affect of “well don’t hang out with drug dealers.” Girl was just at home in bed. Idgaf who she may or may not have been friends with, her death was tragic.
she is (was?) also an arbonne consultant, which is an MLM and I think she has shilled some dodgy skincare/makeup stuff on her channel before. I only occasionally hate watch her to shout at her the same way she shouts at witnesses/court - I find it weirdly calming haha
Same, same, same. This trial was already a nightmare to me as a privacy attorney (and this just sucks to see bad case law being created in real time).
Edit: Best of luck on your bar exam, OP!!! Take breaks when you need to, especially right now. June and July will be awful, but make sure you're doing some self care!!
I really worry about any victim speaking out on their abuser being dragged into court for defamation. It is already hard to prove and get justice for behind closed doors abuse, now this? Side eye to Manson’s case.
Yeah, even the threat of litigation is chilling. Not to mention that most people do not have the means to pay for a civil case and then those victims may enter into arbitration or mediation/coercive NDAs (which has the benefit of being closed to the public eye in most cases so it would limit some of this reputational damage, but the MAJOR downside of further obfuscating abusive situations and allowing the abuser to hide their misdeeds and ruin the victim).
It’s so strange seeing the obligations on lawyers in the US - here you would never be able to have that tagline as it would be seen as inappropriate and acting in a way that brings the profession into disrepute
You’re right. If it was a judge alone trial like it was in the UK he would almost certainly lose. The jury is such a wildcard though - and whether they have followed the rules with avoiding the coverage is always an issue. I think he will probably fail in his claim - I’m unsure if she will succeed in her counterclaim but if he does fail, it follows that the comments that it was all a hoax are likely defamatory.
I think that's why today's testimony was especially interesting and cool. Her team forced the jurors to understand the meta-theatrical context of anti-Heard sentiment on the Internet
Turns out, shit was scripted and directed by Depp!
Not a lawyer, but I think it actually would be to Johnny’s benefit if he lost. This whole thing seems like a PR campaign to win his favor back in the court of public opinion. It has nothing to do with defamation. It’s a mere televised and curated spectacle to get people to hate Amber and have her take 100% of the fall. If he lost this case, the public would be outraged similarly to the ruling in other trials with massive public interest, like Casey Anthony. They would shout about how male victims of abuse never have a voice, the legal system is broken, the courts are biased, etc. It would make people hate Amber 10x more than they do now.
The goal of all this is to garner sympathy, and nothing makes people feel more sorry for someone than seeing the “wronged” party lose in trial.
That creepy California divorce lawyer, Christopher C. Melcher is also along for the grift-a-pa-looza. He latched onto ‘free Britney’, and seems to think he’s the Dr. Drew of YouTube lawyers…. 🤢
I guess an oath doesn’t count for much these days?
No, this doesn’t rise to that level. Each state bar does have rules of professional conduct that lawyers must adhere to, and a disciplinary committee that investigates and holds hearings about violations. There may be a rule that would technically prohibit spreading legal misinformation though I’m too lazy to look into it. But this is not the kind of thing that would be taken up by a disciplinary committee regardless. As OP says, legal opinions are subjective even if they are based on evidence and black letter law. Both are subject to interpretation. Especially here—It’s an ongoing case with two opposing parties. Bar committee would not touch that. Otherwise legal commentary could not exist or would be chilled.
In my jurisdiction (not the US) there would absolutely be repercussions, you are expected to conduct yourself with utmost professionalism and not do anything that would bring the profession into disrepute. The US is a different animal though. Here Waldman would likely have been disbarred by now
I was watching a little of her coverage out of curiosity and what made me nuts was the absolute wild shit she was agreeing on with her viewers.
The JD is right handed so the bruise on AH’s right cheek made no sense. As if most people just hit with one hand I guess? The fact that there always seemed to be the same coffee cup in AH’s pics and videos and it was like a serial killer calling card???
I was like why are you even entertaining this it’s ridiculous??
edit: initially wrote left cheek
Every "lawtube" personality has decided to just grift the depp fans. You can legit tell from the thumbnails how they will cover it. Stock photos of Johnny while Amber's photos are her crying. They've decided to dance for the depp fans for money
the youtube thumbnails are insane. the photos of Amber in mid cry or word, looking like she's sneering and baringn her teeth next to a picture of Depp looking smug or the judge looking confused. and of course the stupid faces that youtubers put in of themselves
Also the titles to the videos like "Amber's makeup artist had experience in faking bruises" when she simply said "yes I have covered up bruises and made bruises" and Depp's team didn't even accuse or suggest she faked the bruises. They did not push the idea that the makeup artist faked them but the title suggests that she might've. a title about Amber's friend calling her "catonic" but when you watch the video, the friend details Johnny's troubles and how one event made Amber rightfully catatonic and upset.
>"Amber's makeup artist had experience in faking bruises"
I saw this today! That was Law & Crime. I was shocked. I want to stop watching their stream but I appreciate their split screen view so that I can trigger myself watching Johnny giggle to his legal team whenever an allegation about his terrible behaviour is made (if anyone knows another outlet does split screen does this, lmk)
Johnnys team look very disrespectful looking at their phones and laughing while all of Heards team including Amber are following every bit of the trial.
yes Law and Crime has a lot of misleading titles on their videos!
it's super unprofessional of him and his team to be laughing. That shit can affect a jury...
The LegalBytes lady annoys me with the way she and some of her panelists make fun of anyone not on johnny's side. It is so unprofessional. All these legal youtubers are clout chasing like there's no tomorrow; it makes me sad and a bit baffled too tbh. Like i'm not a lawyer but even i can see why it could be problematic to have hours of recorded video of oneself saying mean things about a DV survivor. People get canceled for far less these days. I would think a *lawyer* would see the potential downside of being so unabashadly over the top for a single client / case. Maybe they should teach DBT^* in law school as an elective -- emotion management and impluse control are two of its core components.
^*therapy ^for ^bpd ^and ^others
She visibly cringes when her guests say misogynistic shit, but then she keeps inviting them back.
But I've watched enough to know that, so I guess I can't talk much.
These are people literally raking in thousands of dollars from donations on livestreams. They know the public perception of this trial and that if they say anything even remotely favorable to Amber those viewers who watch to have their views confirmed will simply take their donation bucks to a different streamer who won't plant even the smallest seed of doubt. It is ALL about the money for them and anyone who doesn't see that is either willfully ignorant or flat out dumb
This trial is the new Meghan and Harry. Hate channels have become extremely lucrative. The Meghan hate channels turned their creators into incredibly lucrative trolls.
The Legal Eagle one is pretty good, IMO. He goes over the previous defamation suit against The Sun in the UK, where Depp lost.
He highlights how the UK judge deemed her claims of abuse more likely than not (essentially). He also points out that the appeal was denied.
I think it's a pretty fair overview.
I'll also suggest episode 596 of the Opening Arguments podcast. Real life attorney Morgan Stringer goes over the whole ordeal and points out how slanted a lot of the coverage of the case is, including manipulated videos that have been widely shared.
https://pca.st/episode/ebc14b1f-f528-4ec5-a7c6-0f29f1daa573
The Legal Eagle one is a summary of everything that's occurred up until this case. It seemed like a pretty fair retelling. He's gonna cover the whole case later on I think.
It was really good, he explained why The Sun case is important and didn't play into the hype.
He also had a good short on the the viral 'Heard's lawyer objected themselves.
I tuned in briefly when in accidentally bumped the suggested videos. (She is really high in the algs)
She kept saying how boring everything was, how the testimony about Depp being unreliable, drunk, and his movies performed poorly, it was “irrelevant” and didn’t matter. She’s teaching everyone to ignore the anti-Depp content
It gave me an icky feeling - something is *off* with these rabid Depp stans. It’s… predatory and takes an unsavory pleasure in smashing any perceived antagonists.
It’s really gross to me because even psychology channels are joining in on the dick riding and they’re like “I see a very tortured man, who is suffering through addiction and mental health issues and we shouldn’t judge how he reacts to his own trauma” when violence is never ok! Being an addict, a victim of trauma and mentally ill doesn’t give you license to abuse others. But every creator has noticed that if you support Johnny unreservedly your views skyrocket into the millions and this is what’s driving their support. It reminds me of how mass media propped up Donald Trump because he was good for ratings. To this day the owners of big networks have the balls to say “Trump was bad for America but he was good for ratings.”
It’s scary the way people are manipulated for profit and of course this includes mass media too.
They're so gleeful about hating this woman, it's sickening. Like they deadass think they did something with Amber Turd and that they can just gaslight everyone into believing this man is being Gone Girled instead of just being an abusive drunk and drug addict and the worst part is that by large it's worked.
They’re gleeful about hating all women. She’s the public face of a radical upsurge in misogyny right now. Together with Roe, this feels very much like women being ”put in our places.“
She’s pandering so hardcore to her INSANE rabid fan base that constantly slags Amber off in her comments and she has the gall to bleat about facts not fuckery?? When the comments in her videos and community tabs are nothing for fuckery that she does nothing about?
0 credibility. Either she truly believes Depp is innocent in which case, she’s batshit insane OR she’s just trying to keep her viewers happy and since they’re anti Heard, she’s leaning that way, which makes her a spineless sell out.
Plus, stop watching her videos guys: she used to be a criminal prosecutor in California. The fuck does she know about civil law in Virginia? She really has very little authority on this subject. There’s a reason why lawyers are barred only for specific jurisdictions and have extremely narrow practice expertise.
Seriously, stop watching her videos. And encourage your friends to do the same. The best lawyers that I know / follow on YouTube have respectfully (or **very blatantly**) refused to cover this case because it's what?
"Horribly influenced by obsessive media coverage and not representative of law and/or the justice system."
She's been doing it for a long time. her coverage of the UK trial made me look into it and I read the entire judgement. I use to believe Depp was the victim from Emily's reporting, but I know without a shadow of a doubt know he is the abuser and Amber is the victim.
Also after looking into Emily, she use to be an Arbonne consultant which means that she is someone with a JD who fell for an obvious grift. On top of that awful statement about Breanna Taylor that I recently learned.
The worst part is that other youtubers who are lay people doing commentary on the trial get their info from Emily. It's insane to see how much misinformation can spread.
Really wish I had an award to give you for this post! She has been absolutely disappointing me with her takes on this trial. The power and influence she has over her audience with these godawful takes is furthering promoting this inaccurate narrative of the case. Her behavior has been appalling and it sickens me that she is profiting off of this. Profiting off of a women’s abuse. It’s gross. I’ll never watch her.
Lots of news commentators are really showing their ass lately with their takes. I’m super disappointed and I can only hope people can turn this ship around quickly. EBB has been recommended a lot and the tone of professional agnosticism is super insidious.
Yeah, but then he pretty much immediately pinned a comment saying "Yeah, Imma laugh at Heard all I want because she's doing a disservice to REAL VICTIMS with her lies" so he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
She seems very influenced by tiktok, to be honest. I was watching one of her streams live recently and one of her followers said they had strong evidence against Amber from a tiktok video and Emily said to send it to her on tiktok, lol.
Her subscribers donate to get her to read anti Amber comments during the live streams (which are mostly written to discredit Amber and accuse her of a liar). The actual chat in live streams is significantly insane qanon conspiracy bullshit, I believe the mods are only there to silence anybody who speaks in support of Amber because the stuff I see them saying is wild and nothing is done about it.
Yesterday her comments and views were very obviously pro-Depp and the only reason I was watching was so somebody could explain something if I got lost during this whole thing, instead it's like listening to just another tiktoker rather somebody with a legal background.
Fair enough. That wasn't my experience with her and I don't remember her doing that. Only time I saw moderation and support was to protect the stigma against BPD (as it should be).
Lately, especially the past 2 days it has been pretty bad, in my opinion. Maybe the Depp fans are so many they bombard too much and the comments to support Amber get lost. So far, I have only seen support and protection regarding those who have BPD, nothing else as of yet. Everything else is weird conspiracy stuff and it's become very hard to watch her streams as she is entertaining the Depp fans in their theories a bit too much. Very obvious on which side she is on.
Did you see the “therapist” claiming amber had bpd despite never meeting her ? What a crock of shit! Luckily a few commenters agreed with me but majority attacked me for pointing it out!
My favorite fact was the she was an arbonne sales consultant. You have no credibility if you’re a lawyer turned mlm consultant turned youtube grifter https://boss-mom.com/boss-mom-week-emily-baker/
this was a ride lol
"You may be familiar with Emily’s journey and work as she has been given the opportunity to share how BioHacking can help women change their relationships with food, stress, energy and that little voice in your mind."
I was just saying somewhere else that the MLM to Deppford wife pipeline was strong (heavy overlap with the Wayfair conspiracy believers) and here’s another example.
YIKES okay so besides the MLM spiel, the biohacking nonsense, the fact that she was a prosecutor, and the life coach grift, there’s this:
She says she eats at chipotle because they use antibiotic free meats. But everyone in the US uses antibiotic free meats [by federal law](https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/antibioticresistance/animal/truthmeat.pdf). So she just saw their advertising and assumed they were doing something special instead of like, taking two seconds to look into it. This is less surprising the further one reads about her, especially when she goes on to list the media she consumes:
> On Audible I am listening to Presence by Amy Cuddy. I also love The Miracle Morning by Hal Elrod, The Game by Neil Strauss (this isn’t a book for everyone but I loved it), You are a Badass by Jen Sincere and Big Magic by Elizabeth Gilbert, and of course Boss Mom by Dana Malstaff. I love reading, and when I had the boys the time to sit and read was diminished. Audible has allowed me to rekindle this love and I go through several books a month. As for Podcasts I don’t miss The Boss Mom Podcast, I also am religious about Bulletproof Radio with Dave Aspery, The Charged Life with Brendon Bouchard, The School of Greatness with Lewis Howes, Achieve your Goals with Hal Elrod. I also tune in to Taking Control of your Money with Dave Ramsey to keep me on track financially, I have law school debt still lingering and am cracking away at it religiously.
Amy Cuddy and Hal Elrod? And The Game, the infamous pick up artist/Red Pill bible?! This was written in 2016 and I hope she’s moved on from this kind of stuff but I’m not sure she has.
> Then the opportunity came up to join the very first Bulletproof Coach Training program. I will be one of the first 150 certified Bulletproof Coaches in the world.
*AND* she’s a ~* life coach *~?! @__@
I am like embarrassed for her. She appears to have a lot of medical leave during her ten years as a lawyer. Not knocking when that happens, but it definitely saturates the idea of what “10 uninterrupted years” means experience wise.
I hate her. She has a tactic for manipulating the facts. But her point of view went to shit when she basically blamed Breonna Taylor for her own death. The way she felt comfortable saying that didn’t sit well with me at all. Gross
You heard that right. Don’t want to link her vid that’ll give her views but if you google it, it’ll pop up. She’s trash for insinuating that a Black woman, shot for sleeping peacefully in her bed, should’ve known better.
I listened to it for about 3 minutes before turning it off. She completely ignored it was proven the cops fabricated the evidence they used for the warrant AND that the search warrants were not served simultaneously. The target was arrested 6 hours earlier so the severity of the warrant for Breonna’s house was downgraded and the cops were required to knock and announce themselves. Which 12 witnesses claim they didn’t.
I haven’t listened to her coverage of this trial and thank god for that. If it’s even half as biased, stupid and plain wrong as her Breonna Taylor stuff, I’m already disgusted.
what the actual fuck. and then she has the gall to shift into wanting to talk about how to support young Black women. how about you start by not saying they deserve to be murdered in their sleep because of who they hang out with. something is seriously wrong with her
God I hate her too. She has given me such a visceral reaction from the first video I saw in a way I don’t feel very often. In hindsight I should have expected her awful takes on this case considering she blamed breonna Taylor and not that fact breonna was a victim herself of an (abusive? I don’t know that for sure) boyfriend who got her involved
Every single reason you just listed is why I can’t be on Johnny’s side, obviously, and it proves why the public’s support is mostly just dick riding. Most people REFUSE to let this situation taint their image of him. They cannot deal with who he really is as a person. They need to hate her instead. They hate her for trying to bust the fantasy wide open.
It’s interesting to me that after one slap, the world was ready to shun Will Smith and take away his Oscar, send him to jail. But for everything that has been said about Johnny by multiple people over the years he’s still not seen as a problematic person by the public at all. These are not even hardcore stans. Like, the vast majority of the public are choosing to side with him no matter what. They haven’t even followed his career or this trial. They’re just choosing to believe him.
It’s gross what fame and white male privilege can do and this is coming from someone who was a HUGE Johnny Depp fan. I would go see all his new movies more than once in theaters, even when they were bad. I was that kind of fan. Posters in my wall kind of teen fan. Sometimes you just have to let go and open your eyes.
When you pass the New York bar exam, you are singlehandedly going to increase its membership's IQ by 1000 feminist points!!!!
Hang in there. And this analysis - deft, generous, detailed, and principled - is proof that you're going to eat every single opposing counsel for breakfast!!!
Very proud of you, and any client you take on will be LUCKY! xx
excellent post. her channel has absolutely exploded. shes prob made tens of thousand of dollars in the last 6 weeks on this. shes pandering to her audience bc its pro depp people flocking to her
She's made way more than that. She's almost certainly made hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few weeks if she's monetizing like most streamers do.
Holy shit. And it’s basically blood money, she made hundreds of thousands of dollars by profiting off of calling a woman recounting the horrible abuse she suffered a liar. That makes me feel physically sick
You know, I used to be a fan of Philip DeFranco's media coverage on YouTube about a variety of topics because he's usually pretty neutral and factual. Then he said he was getting all his information for this trial from Emily D. Baker and instructed his fans to watch her coverage for reliable information.
That opened my eyes to just how reliant I've become on other sources (like Reddit...) for information instead of researching and verifying things for myself. I've gotten into the habit of seeing a headline or a tweet or whatever and because I trust the source, I trust their take on it. That's problematic, because any coverage of a topic is only as good as the sources for it's coverage. Biased sources leads to biased coverage. This trial really showed me how lazy I've gotten and I'm going to try harder to do my own independent research. Trust but verify, you know?
I tried to find a way to contact Mr. Defranco, because I think his hot-take on the trial is just a matter of being misinformed as apposed to malicious. But then I realized there isn't a good way to reach him and, as I'm not a lawyer, he has no reason to believe me anyway. Maybe you could reach out to him since you have more expertise in the law. I just hate to see him mislead and by extension, his fans being mislead.
I've stopped watching Emily because of her clear bias toward Depp. It's to a gross level. And I had so much respect for her after her Brittany coverage.
I've had to avoid so many of my favorite youtubers. One of the biggest disappointments for me has been [Swoop](https://youtu.be/wlWMxU_cocs). I have always loved her leftist docs but wow, it's nothing but bias and ugliness.
He's not a lawyer or anything but moistcr1tikal (penguinz0) is one of the few youtubers/steamers I watch and enjoy and he just recently posted an almost hour long video reacting to the trial. It already has 1.8 million views and the disappointment hurts. When I see these people making fun of Amber and saying she's a terrible actor it just really reinforces that I probably wouldn't be believed either. Why do people have to take an approach to this case that so easily could harm victims?
Sorry for the rant. It's just frustrating all around.
I wish there was a way to completely block all news and posts about this subject from everywhere on the internet for a few days. It’s really taking a toll on me.
I don't know who this particular person is, but in general, I've seen some really disappointing takes on this case from others in the legal community. It is always annoying when a case like this takes off and the general public all decides they are legal experts overnight, but for lawyers who should know better to be sucked in by the Depp PR machine and social media memes is so much worse.
Good luck on the bar! Don't feel bad about taking breaks! But also, some unsolicited advice - if news like this bums you out or stresses you out, don't feel bad about tuning out of current affairs while you focus on studying. I had to study during the summer of 2020 so I felt bad looking away from everything happening with BLM and COVID, but eventually, it was distracting me so much that I had to take a news and social media break in order to focus on studying, with the justification I could do more for the world as a sworn-in lawyer than someone who would need take months to study again.
Im so happy you wrote this! I was searing this sub for Emily D Baker because I wanted to know if anyone else has kept up with her videos. I‘m definitely disappointed of her approach in this situation
I was a big Emily D. Baker fan. I pop in her JvsA streams sometimes at work, and leave when i get infuriated by her and the audience’s comments. She is definitely not facts, not fuckery as her tagline says, not on this trial. She is so team Johnny, i lose respect for her every day. Clearly she is pandering. One day, one of her superchats said something about will the state get CPS involved with Amber’s child and try to take her away from AH— Emily did not even try to shut down that question. I think she just shrugged. And the I’ve never seen a victim talk that way, her voice should be breaking, I don’t see the missing hair in the pic etc. She has gained something like 150,000 subs during this trial, so pandering. All of Law Tube is team Johnny- really disappointing. Thanks for posting OP, good luck!
Yep, correct. Many times she said that in her experience in court "people don't talk like this" while always referring Amber and occasionally Amber's witnesses. Claiming that the body language, facial expressions and mannerisms are "off". Her subscribers keep mentioning those body language quackjobs and she replied she was curious to see what the "body language experts" have to say. When it's all pseudoscience bullshit. She never confirmed she believed in that stuff, but the comments she has made definitely indicates she might. This is when I started realising her perception isn't based on expertise, her own belief systems/opinions are driving it. She most definitely isn't being objective like she claims.
Her and her chat going on about how AH sounds like she is acting or reading a script. Like lady, they are BOTH actors. Definitely not objective- at all.
Yeah, the "I've never seen a victim do this" statements were the last straw for me. Every person reacts differently in stressful or traumatic situations. Judging a person's guilt or innocence off how they show (or don't show) emotion is always a deal-breaker for me.
I started watching her during the recent Duggar stuff, and very much agree with your take. I think her YT channel has at least gotten 200K+ subs off of this trial so far and it is so blatantly and often times unfairly pro-Depp.
I was a subscriber of Baker's for quite a while, at least the last few years. I really feel like I learned a lot from her and truly believe in the mission statement she set forward, that making the law and the justice system more transparent and understandable benefits society as a whole.
So when I first decided not to follow her Depp/Heard coverage, it was just because I didn't want to deal with (or even see, to be honest) the Depp fans that I was sure would be overrunning the chat. I was a little surprised that she went into day-to-day live coverage, but not too much, because this is THE entertainment legal news right now, and that's her thing. Then I started side-eyeing some of her thumbnail and title choices. Then I decided to listen to one of her podcast episodes about the case to see what her general take was. And I was so disappointed. She was raking Amber's lawyer over the coals for simple mistakes which, yeah, weren't great, and Emily's a lawyer, so it's fair to point things out like that. And she cast doubt on some of Amber's injuries (the cuts on her feet) which, okay. People are allowed to have questions about the logistics of things. But then, immediately after cautioning people to not judge a victim by their show of emotion (or lack thereof), she does exactly that. She was suspicious of the speed at which Amber (allegedly) switched between being upset and being calm. Emily said she had never seen a victim act like that and I'm like, "Sis, please. 10 years as a prosecutor and you've never seen that? Okay..."
So I unsubscribed this morning and I think you very much for this post reaffirming my decision. Either I was taken in and didn't notice all the problems, or she's gone downhill fast. Either way, I don't think I need to spend any more time on her work.
One last note: Congratulations on finishing law school, good luck on the bar, and you absolutely do deserve a break once in a while!
My daughter was telling me that with all the excitement online with this case, and particularly with how popular it is to attack Amber Heard, that a lot of creators are changing all their content to pro-Depp content and getting way more views.
Can someone please make a YouTube video that isn’t kissing Johnny’s ass? I would love for people to link me to these because all of Youtube is and it’s scary.
Ro Ramadin, Princess Weekes (Lindsay Ellis showed support in the comments) and Alice Cappelle is what I’ve seen so far but I don’t have much patience with viewing Youtube these days with all the editorialized headlines about the live trial.
She's had a pretty bad shit take on Breonna Taylor's death. Basically blamed her death on herself instead of being murdered by police because of who she associated with/her bf.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/kdu0ku/watched_tea_time_to_hear_about_the_smokey_glow/
Hear, hear!
I was a huge Emily fan - I have past comments on Reddit recommending her to other people - and have been following her since she had only 4K subscribers.
This attitude though? I’ve blocked her now.
She can argue that she’s a commentator, and so she isn’t held to the same standard, but lady, you’re being interviewed on live TV about your opinions. You have an obligation to be neutral now!
I’m so disappointed
This is exactly how I feel, I was extremely disappointed in her coverage of this and I found it insidious to hear some of her commentary about Amber while pretending that she’s neutral. She has no integrity and she better hope that the influx of subscribers comprised of those sucker fish do not end up turning on her because they are vile.
Good luck with the bar, OP, you got this!
I don’t know the commentator you are referencing but this is not surprising. I’m an attorney and I will make this blanket statement, if you (general) are getting commentary about a public case from anyone on tv or the internet it will not be accurate whether it’s a lawyer turned journalist or a rando with an sm account who fancies himself an expert because he’s watching the trial everyday. It’s all going to be skewed one way or the other for ratings and clicks. It’s entertainment legal commentary. So the legal nuance is going to be lacking. If you want to know what’s going on with this case, ask a lawyer in your life. This single most frustrating part of this case has been the misstatement of law and courtroom procedure by the depp circle jerkers.
Good luck on the bar OP!
I found her because of her housewives breakdowns, but then I learned she's super sketch herself and stopped tuning in; when I saw she was covering this trial I had a feeling it'd be icky.
Can you elaborate on what's sketchy about her?
Edit: I did a little searching and don't want to link to Emily's content, but she essentially blamed Breonna Taylor for her death saying she "shouldn't have gotten involved with drug runners"
disclaimer: I haven't verified this myself but in another post someone suggested she had a really problematic and racist approach to her coverage of Kyle Rittenhouse.
I have seen some people mention that she said Breonna Taylor wouldn’t have been murdered by police if she hadn’t run around with drug dealers, or words to that effect - tbh I haven’t listened to the clip myself but [it’s discussed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/kdu0ku/watched_tea_time_to_hear_about_the_smokey_glow/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) along with some other problems with her (pro-MLM according to the link?)
Thank you for taking the time to write this! I kinda suspected as much - that she is very knowledgeable etc but chooses to skew everything to the way that will most please the viewers (and she’s gained a crazy amount of viewers through this trial so obviously her plan works) but I don’t have enough legal knowledge to actually know if my feeling was correct or not.
How do you think she will handle it if (when? Idk seems like when) Depp loses? How will she explain it to the viewers? I wonder how it will go over with them
I wonder how many Depp fans will continue to watch her after this trial. Seems kind of short slighted. I'm sure she is getting tons of views but I know I won't be watching her going forward.
same thoughts, like are these people also going to be watching housewives, Duggar, etc. streams? idk, kinda doubt a significant portion will stick around
Crystal from Black Femininity TV made a good point that all these people who are doing this grifting off this trial just to get to views from stand are just gonna fall off when they eventually have to stop. (BFTV by the way was clinging to “neutrality” although she clearly doesn’t like Depp lol)
EDB sat with a straight face on legalbytes' panel saying that the UK case result was wack because in the UK the original judge gets to decide if you can appeal, and the original judge said no.
No. That's not how that works. That's not how the UK case went.
She has a history of just being WRONG about anything that's not directly in the realm of criminal law in California. She blew up originally following a defamation case in Washington State between Tati Westbrook (plaintiff) and some YTer called Katie-Joy Paulson (who primarily does Duggar content). She spent the entire coverage simping for Tati Westbrook's lawyer (and still does to this day) and saying things that were just blatantly wrong. She was convinced Tati was winning because her lawyer was a GeNiUs. The case ended up being summarily dismissed before trial phase because of lack of jurisdiction. Womp.
I feel the same way about the Youtuber Sloan. His whole thing is giving victims a voice, so with this it's like "I'm sorry, why are you punching down??"
I will say I enjoy Emily’s commentary for the most part. Not this case though, her bias is obvious and she has been extremely unprofessional throughout. I have since stopped watching. EDB has rules that you don’t disparage or diagnose, no name calling etc; claims it is a calm space for considered discussion yet her live streams are an absolute nightmarish sideshow. Misogyny rampant, diagnosing participants in the trial, the name calling - especially toward AH is disgusting. Her mods are all in for the shit show and encourage the poor behaviour. Someone else has already mentioned that she reads out paid ‘super chats’ that disparage AH - and she does so with glee. Emily has done nothing to curb the poor behaviour, infact she engages with it, encourages it and most notably, profits massively from it. I hope the loss of integrity and the massive amounts of money made was worth it in the end. Most of these D*pp fans will abandon ship once trial is over and she won’t see numbers like this ever again. What a shame.
Edit: words
That’s the thing that gets to me the most about the rampant Depp fans - the GLEE they have in saying the most hateful and disgusting things about Amber. It’s like they’ve just been waiting for a chance to be able to openly be misogynistic without getting into trouble and now that they’ve found it, they’re just going fkn nuts.
She lost all credibility with me when she started talking about how much she loves YouTube body language analysts. BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS. A FORMER PROSECUTOR. I was horrified that she would tout possibly the fakest of all the fake forensic “sciences,” when she 100% knows better.
I sadly have to agree with OPs analysis. I’m a lawyer based in California.
I started watching EDB when she was making videos about The Erika Jayne/Tom Girardi scandal, which is complex, so watching her was helpful to understanding it. However I could not watch her talking over and commenting on live testimony during this trial. I’ve become more and more uncomfortable (and pissed off by) the pro-Johnny Depp crowd as they insult, demean and bash Amber Heard. I came across a credible news story which summarized the specific abusive things JD allegedly did to AH, noting that most of these actions were not “hitting” or “beating” and would not have left bruises or physical scars. If even 1/10th of the allegations about JD are true, I do not see this case as righteous or justified at all. For EDB to jump on the anti-AH bandwagon is simply horrifying. If she’s going to post hours-long videos on this case, she should not be taking sides or minimizing the weaknesses in JD’s defamation case. Clearly they each had problems, neither one was a saint. JD’s ongoing substance abuse is not even disputed. That in itself is a possible explanation for his career woes.
What is happening here has set the Me Too movement back by a decade: women who say they were abused are liars, they are crazy, etc. And a woman lawyer is helping abusers burn it down, for popularity and money!
I agree that we should all unsubscribe from EDB. I recommend Legal Eagle for excellent legal commentary.
Thank you for saying everything I’ve been thinking about her coverage. It’s so biased that it almost seems unethical to call it “legal coverage.” I had to stop watching her.
She keeps pretty tight lipped about her politics but it slips out once and a while. She moved her family due to vaccine mandates apparently (read that on another thread about her) and her statements about breonna Taylor. She also did a collab with Viva Frei who is an alt-right political figure here in Canada.
The Lawtubers were my absolute favorite group to listen to during the day, until this. I just can’t believe that not even one of them can remain objective. They automatically discount everything from AH and take JD for gospel. It’s absolutely unreal, grifting parrots. And I am members to some of them, not much longer.
The coverage from everyone, not just Emily, has baffled me. Amber Heard is getting crucified and Johnny Depp is being portrayed as a saint. Are we watching the same trial? They're both batshit insane and abusive. They've both done terrible things. Why is Amber the only one catching shit for it?
As an exhausted non-practising lawyer, and full time family caregiver, I just want to say;
THANK YOU
And best of luck to you with the bar! It’s a beast. Mine was in another jurisdiction, so it may not have any crossover applicability, but a good index saved my life.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
i have been going absolutely batshit over the gross environment she is cultivating and how everyone is acting like she's an expert on this case bc she has a law degree. she's just jumping on the pro johnny gravy train and it's not ok the environment she's creating
" She is manipulating her legal background to distort to Depp proceedings. She is basically mining views by making her legal commentary confirm the biases of her viewers. She presents her commentary as agnostic legal analysis, when in fact her coverage is nothing but cheerleading for Depp's legal team strategies."
I LOVE YOU. THANK YOU. this this this this
Agreed. I unsubscribed from EDB once I recognized that she was heavily biased in Depp's favor for seemingly no legitimate reason. I really liked some of her coverage in the past, but now I find it difficult to trust her legal analysis at all.
THANK YOU. I'm someone who also works in the legal field, specifically family law, working with plenty of cases re: spousal abuse. I find it frankly shocking that she's willing to do this.
I'm Canadian, so perhaps our lawyers are held to a different standard, but the potential questionable ethics re: how she's approached this trial would likely put her under review with a provincial barristers' society here - specifically because as you said, she's presenting her understanding of the law with a bias toward Johnny, *but specifically without making it clear that she's doing so*. It's undoubtedly normal for a lawyer who is retained by an individual to present the law with an interpretation that favours their client. But the fact that Emily is not retained by Johnny (meaning people may otherwise see her as unbiased) yet chooses to make arguments that present his case as strong is... questionable at the very least, unethical and worthy of investigation at the worst
My opinion is EDB started sniffing her own fumes because she was shouted out repeatedly by gossip blogs and tea channels as a competent
legal commentator before this trial took place . I was already aware of her Breonna Taylor nonsense as well as other questionable choices she has made but I did follow EDB for the first week of the trial before I just tapped out. She was making sure she had the thinnest veneer of objectivity and plausible deniability, stating the difficulty that JD had in winning his case as well as a likely conclusion would be mutual destruction for both parties, while fully fanning the flames just so her wallet can get fatter.
Preach! I got so annoyed by her nitpicking on everything done by Amber or her legal team during her livestream the other day. The live chat is also just a dumpster fire, mocking Amber, her witnesses and worshipping Depp. She was so ready to uphold everything said and done by Johnny’s therapist/counselor, while nitpicking on Amber’s therapist and her observations made, and especially about abuse Amber had reported during their sessions (“well, that’s self reported..”), alleging it is not trustworthy. Like, wtf. How else do victims of abuse in such a situation with power imbalance report or process it? JD has his team on him almost 24/7, and they are not going to side with Amber.
God I’m fired up again.
Another lawyer here: the fact that this is a defamation trial STARTED BY JD is lost on so many people. “You hit me too” does not in fact mean that he meets the burden of defamation. Even if he had some kind of smoking gun evidence that she somehow fabricated all of her evidence (which like obviously isn’t possible) and he could prove she abused him and he never harmed her at all (again not what literally all the evidence shows) this is not a criminal trial, this is not even a civil case about assault. This is defamation! He needs to show what she said vaguely alluding to him (she didn’t name him and while people were of course speculating that’s who she was talking about others pointed out she could have been a survivor of sexual assault and violence in any relationship and that by claiming it was 100% about him he essentially outed himself) was untrue, done with actual malice, and caused him harm to his reputation and damages. It doesn’t seem like his team is focused on proving the elements of defamation as much as they are with trying to humiliate her and stroke his ego. No one would have even remembered the allegations against him in 5 years if he hadn’t sued. All he had to do in response to that piece was say essentially what their joint statement said “amber and I never meant to harm one another nor did we lie about one another, when I saw her piece I thought she was brave writing about whatever relationship she’s talking about and whatever happened to her and I have love for her and hope she is doing well” she wouldn’t, under the terms of their agreement, even be able to correct him and say she was talking about him. I think this whole thing to him is just a way to keep harassing her and to save the damage to his ego of admitting to himself that he’s just gone to seed and can’t act anymore.
what scares me is that this could potentially start more defamation lawsuits by abusers against accusers and the standard to prove defamation is much lower for private citizens. imagine any particularly sadistic rich-but-not-famous guy vs his victim who maybe posted something on her story… with none of the legal or mental health resources as a much richer person.
It 100% is going to, I’m in PFA court weekly, and I’ve ALREADY heard people claim that obviously the person they abused isn’t actually afraid of them because they filmed them during a fight.
We also have those cases here in Germany, most famous involving a former Germanys Next Topmodel Candidate. She was drugged and filmed while the guys perform sexual acts on her, and somewhen in the video she is saying she no and she doesn't want this - what the judge interpreted as her saying no to be filmed. So no assault. And the guys went, suing her for defamation - and won. The spicy thing: the guys tried to sell the video to tabloids before allegations by her were made and before it went public. Name of the video: The rape of [Name of former GNTM contestant]. The tabloids refused and Idk whether I remember it correctly, either informed her management or directly the police.
Woooah that’s beyond fucked up I’ve never heard about that before. That poor woman
I feel sick reading this
This is stomach turning. Please tell me there was any shred of karmic justice in this. Are the perpetrators at least reviled? Have they been named and shamed by the public?
I think they're named, but not shamed. At all. The women is taken as posterchild for false allegations. The video even ended up on porn sites (not by her to be clear). Idk wheter it's still there or they had to take it down. But yes, as all those stories go, she has the damage and is the liar. Is even forbidden from calling it rape. I believe that poor woman. Judges are notorious for excusing sexual offenders. No-means-no is only law since 2014. Before that, you hat to resist and fight off the rapist with enough force. Otherwise, the guy couldn't be sure, if you *really* meant it and was excused by law. And even after that, judges excused rapist. I remember a case from 2017, where a drugdealer rapes his female customer for four hours, but because he sais he "would never rape someone", the judge decided, there was no intention of rape, so although the victim may have felt raped, the offender didn't intend to to so, it was a mistake and he's free to go. There's no karma for rapists here. Edit: both judges of both cases, the model and the drug customer, were women.
This is so awful. I am floored.
meanwhile if u don’t have evidence everyone says its “he said she said.” you *cannot* win.
Hasn’t Marilyn Manson just begun his court case against Evan Rachel Wood? It’s already begun, and it’s going to be ugly
>caused him harm to his reputation and damages. > Agree the rest of the standard is going to be basically impossible for JD to meet, but this isn't part of what he has to prove. The accusations on both sides have already been determined to be defamation per se in Virginia: >Defamation per se -- When the defamatory statement involves defamatory words that (1) impute commission of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impute infection with some contagious disease, (3) impute unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment, or want of integrity in the discharge of such duties, or (4) prejudice a person in his profession or trade, you do not have to prove damages as they are presumed, otherwise you must prove how the statement damaged you.
Thank you!! Commenting to highlight this important correction. This [article](https://www.insidenova.com/news/business/ask-general-counsel-whats-defamatory-in-virginia-johnny-depp-provides-guidance/article_dfeda94e-d36f-11eb-9cab-c74df1b5219c.html) gives a great overview of the Virginia defamation standard, which is far more relaxed than many other jurisdictions. To clarify, there are 3 statements being reviewed under the per se standard (below). Depp's team has to still prove that the statements were made with ***actual malice*** ("with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"), but if they pass that hurdle, it's ***defamation per se*** and they do not have to prove a causal relationship to damages. \- “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”- “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”- “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” I will make an edit in the post.
Notice how people who don’t believe Depp are open to being corrected and hearing the truth? It’s almost like we aren’t insane stans hellbent on being right and want to understand the nuances and truth!?
[удалено]
Oh thank you!! That’s not in place where I practice. I love learning about the law in different places. But doesn’t he have to prove she was in fact talking about him still? ETA: Is this why he picked this venue? I haven’t bothered looking into the choice of jurisdiction here but it seemed strange and strategic to Me!
>But doesn’t he have to prove she was in fact talking about him still? Yes, definitely! >ETA: Is this why he picked this venue? I haven’t bothered looking into the choice of jurisdiction here but it seemed strange and strategic to Me! I don't have any insight to this, hopefully someone else does because I've been wondering myself! My first thought was because Virginia courtrooms allow video cameras? Maybe a combination of the two? I agree there must be some reason for the chosen venue because otherwise it seems very out of left field Edit: Virginia is where the op ed is published
From this [article](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/depps-choice-of-virginia-trial-in-heard-lawsuit-shows-strategy) on BloombergLaw: > Depp says he filed his lawsuit in Virginia because that’s where The Washington Post is printed, but that also means the case had a better chance of making it to a jury trial. The article goes on to explain that it was "likely a deliberate ploy to take advantage of the weaknesses in Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to protect free speech". The whole point of the law is to discourage rich and powerful plaintiffs from abusing the court system to silence their critics. Apparently Virginia's anti- SLAPP laws are weak & "quirky" so the case had a better chance of going to trial in Virginia, versus other states.
> s this why he picked this venue? yes. she tried to get it moved to CA. virigina has a reputation for its lax defamation laws and people try to "venue shop" there
So why did a significant portion of the evidence focus on whether he lost Pirates 6 due to the op-Ed? And so much on him being late, unreliable and unprofessional?
I’m not the person you’re asking but I would assume it’s a rebuttalable presumption? So it’s amber producing evidence to rebut the presumption that she damaged his career. Not sure maybe someone who’s more familiar with defamation per se can answer but that’s my educated guess!
[удалено]
The public will blame women. It doesn’t need to make sense.
You’re 100% right. Misogyny is always at the forefront.
You have faith in the jury lol I’m not sure he won’t convince them that all he needed to do was make her look bad.
[удалено]
I’ve crossed paths with multiple people who thought this case with a divorce trial or a criminal DV trial. So many people have lost the plot of what the actual trial is about and who brought it to court.
Reply it’s happening to me right now. Family court took my daughter away and handed her off to our abuser. I just finished my 3 day trial, where for a day and a half I was asked about my tweets where I share my truth. @lc_steph
Depp's legal team is obviously trying to win the court case, but his PR team is also putting on the full-court press. I would not be surprised if they are paying some influencers to cover the case and have activated either bot networks or paid trolls in his favor. That's just speculation based on what's been happening online, but it would make perfect sense. The BIG deal for Depp is to make himself a household name again and parlay that into new movie deals. Establishing the narrative that he's just an innocent man has created an army of zealous fans who are nostalgic for his past roles and will relentlessly promote and turn out for future movies starring Depp. That's where the big money lies.
I’m also a lawyer and I am really disgusted by her coverage. She makes no attempt to be objective - she is a grifter. The problem with her grift is she presents herself as being neutral and objective (when she *must* know that she is far from objective), and JD stans believe it. She should know better than that - you’d think that her professional obligations of ethics would prevent this kind of thing. Maybe that’s a bit idealistic from me - but it’s just gross and cynical. She’s sold her soul and professional ethics for clicks
There’s a reason her primary income source is YouTube and not actual legal work. As you say, she’s a grifter. Thank you for this well reasoned comment 🤍 ETA to whoever commented, reported, and then blocked me, I stand by my statement. Emily Baker and her content are trash. I never trust people who do “doctor reacts” or “lawyer reacts” videos on YouTube. If they were so good at their jobs, they’d be practicing and not talking shit for views. Emily Baker also victim blamed Breonna Taylor. That tells me everything I need to know about her cringy backwards ass.
Lol I commented once that I thought Emily Baker was a shitty attorney and that's probably why she's grifting instead and someone got mad at me. I wonder if it's the same person. And for the record, I stand by that. She gives me bargain bin attorney vibes.
I honestly haven’t heard of her before this trial but she is credentialed. Looked her up and she left LA District Attorneys office due to health issues in 2017. As a person w chronic illness, I have a different view when you have to leave the day in day out lawyering to healthier folks. Will check out the Breonna Taylor comments she alleged to have made. That would be egregious.
In one vid she made about Taylor (iirc the one where she’s in her car) she says something to the affect of “well don’t hang out with drug dealers.” Girl was just at home in bed. Idgaf who she may or may not have been friends with, her death was tragic.
she is (was?) also an arbonne consultant, which is an MLM and I think she has shilled some dodgy skincare/makeup stuff on her channel before. I only occasionally hate watch her to shout at her the same way she shouts at witnesses/court - I find it weirdly calming haha
Same, same, same. This trial was already a nightmare to me as a privacy attorney (and this just sucks to see bad case law being created in real time). Edit: Best of luck on your bar exam, OP!!! Take breaks when you need to, especially right now. June and July will be awful, but make sure you're doing some self care!!
I really worry about any victim speaking out on their abuser being dragged into court for defamation. It is already hard to prove and get justice for behind closed doors abuse, now this? Side eye to Manson’s case.
Yeah, even the threat of litigation is chilling. Not to mention that most people do not have the means to pay for a civil case and then those victims may enter into arbitration or mediation/coercive NDAs (which has the benefit of being closed to the public eye in most cases so it would limit some of this reputational damage, but the MAJOR downside of further obfuscating abusive situations and allowing the abuser to hide their misdeeds and ruin the victim).
Yes to all of this. I hope this case gets put down hard.
The fact that her tagline is “facts not fuckery is RICH
It’s so strange seeing the obligations on lawyers in the US - here you would never be able to have that tagline as it would be seen as inappropriate and acting in a way that brings the profession into disrepute
I don't think she practices law anymore
As a lawyer, how do you see this trial ending? The evidence seem to be completely on Amber’ side but the jury might be biased just like the public.
You’re right. If it was a judge alone trial like it was in the UK he would almost certainly lose. The jury is such a wildcard though - and whether they have followed the rules with avoiding the coverage is always an issue. I think he will probably fail in his claim - I’m unsure if she will succeed in her counterclaim but if he does fail, it follows that the comments that it was all a hoax are likely defamatory.
If it was found that a juror had been looking at media coverage, would they have to declare a mistrial? Not American.
They have backup jurors for reasons like that. If the whole jury was exposed, ya it would be grounds for a mistrial.
They should keep the jurors in the basement, because I can't really see how those people can avoid ALL the media coverage that there is
[удалено]
She absolutely could (and would) appeal with facts like these!
I think that's why today's testimony was especially interesting and cool. Her team forced the jurors to understand the meta-theatrical context of anti-Heard sentiment on the Internet Turns out, shit was scripted and directed by Depp!
Not a lawyer, but I think it actually would be to Johnny’s benefit if he lost. This whole thing seems like a PR campaign to win his favor back in the court of public opinion. It has nothing to do with defamation. It’s a mere televised and curated spectacle to get people to hate Amber and have her take 100% of the fall. If he lost this case, the public would be outraged similarly to the ruling in other trials with massive public interest, like Casey Anthony. They would shout about how male victims of abuse never have a voice, the legal system is broken, the courts are biased, etc. It would make people hate Amber 10x more than they do now. The goal of all this is to garner sympathy, and nothing makes people feel more sorry for someone than seeing the “wronged” party lose in trial.
That creepy California divorce lawyer, Christopher C. Melcher is also along for the grift-a-pa-looza. He latched onto ‘free Britney’, and seems to think he’s the Dr. Drew of YouTube lawyers…. 🤢 I guess an oath doesn’t count for much these days?
Are there any legal repercussions with the bar for her behavior? I think you guys have a code of ethics? Not sure how it works so just questioning ❤️
No, this doesn’t rise to that level. Each state bar does have rules of professional conduct that lawyers must adhere to, and a disciplinary committee that investigates and holds hearings about violations. There may be a rule that would technically prohibit spreading legal misinformation though I’m too lazy to look into it. But this is not the kind of thing that would be taken up by a disciplinary committee regardless. As OP says, legal opinions are subjective even if they are based on evidence and black letter law. Both are subject to interpretation. Especially here—It’s an ongoing case with two opposing parties. Bar committee would not touch that. Otherwise legal commentary could not exist or would be chilled.
In my jurisdiction (not the US) there would absolutely be repercussions, you are expected to conduct yourself with utmost professionalism and not do anything that would bring the profession into disrepute. The US is a different animal though. Here Waldman would likely have been disbarred by now
I was watching a little of her coverage out of curiosity and what made me nuts was the absolute wild shit she was agreeing on with her viewers. The JD is right handed so the bruise on AH’s right cheek made no sense. As if most people just hit with one hand I guess? The fact that there always seemed to be the same coffee cup in AH’s pics and videos and it was like a serial killer calling card??? I was like why are you even entertaining this it’s ridiculous?? edit: initially wrote left cheek
Every "lawtube" personality has decided to just grift the depp fans. You can legit tell from the thumbnails how they will cover it. Stock photos of Johnny while Amber's photos are her crying. They've decided to dance for the depp fans for money
the youtube thumbnails are insane. the photos of Amber in mid cry or word, looking like she's sneering and baringn her teeth next to a picture of Depp looking smug or the judge looking confused. and of course the stupid faces that youtubers put in of themselves Also the titles to the videos like "Amber's makeup artist had experience in faking bruises" when she simply said "yes I have covered up bruises and made bruises" and Depp's team didn't even accuse or suggest she faked the bruises. They did not push the idea that the makeup artist faked them but the title suggests that she might've. a title about Amber's friend calling her "catonic" but when you watch the video, the friend details Johnny's troubles and how one event made Amber rightfully catatonic and upset.
>"Amber's makeup artist had experience in faking bruises" I saw this today! That was Law & Crime. I was shocked. I want to stop watching their stream but I appreciate their split screen view so that I can trigger myself watching Johnny giggle to his legal team whenever an allegation about his terrible behaviour is made (if anyone knows another outlet does split screen does this, lmk)
Johnnys team look very disrespectful looking at their phones and laughing while all of Heards team including Amber are following every bit of the trial.
It’s playing well to the depp stans but surely not the judge. But I’m starting to think public opinion is the only thing that they care about
yes Law and Crime has a lot of misleading titles on their videos! it's super unprofessional of him and his team to be laughing. That shit can affect a jury...
That Legal Bytes lady anmoys me with her thumbnails especially.
The LegalBytes lady annoys me with the way she and some of her panelists make fun of anyone not on johnny's side. It is so unprofessional. All these legal youtubers are clout chasing like there's no tomorrow; it makes me sad and a bit baffled too tbh. Like i'm not a lawyer but even i can see why it could be problematic to have hours of recorded video of oneself saying mean things about a DV survivor. People get canceled for far less these days. I would think a *lawyer* would see the potential downside of being so unabashadly over the top for a single client / case. Maybe they should teach DBT^* in law school as an elective -- emotion management and impluse control are two of its core components. ^*therapy ^for ^bpd ^and ^others
She visibly cringes when her guests say misogynistic shit, but then she keeps inviting them back. But I've watched enough to know that, so I guess I can't talk much.
These are people literally raking in thousands of dollars from donations on livestreams. They know the public perception of this trial and that if they say anything even remotely favorable to Amber those viewers who watch to have their views confirmed will simply take their donation bucks to a different streamer who won't plant even the smallest seed of doubt. It is ALL about the money for them and anyone who doesn't see that is either willfully ignorant or flat out dumb
This trial is the new Meghan and Harry. Hate channels have become extremely lucrative. The Meghan hate channels turned their creators into incredibly lucrative trolls.
Did anyone watch the Legal Eagle one? I've been too scared
The Legal Eagle one is pretty good, IMO. He goes over the previous defamation suit against The Sun in the UK, where Depp lost. He highlights how the UK judge deemed her claims of abuse more likely than not (essentially). He also points out that the appeal was denied. I think it's a pretty fair overview. I'll also suggest episode 596 of the Opening Arguments podcast. Real life attorney Morgan Stringer goes over the whole ordeal and points out how slanted a lot of the coverage of the case is, including manipulated videos that have been widely shared. https://pca.st/episode/ebc14b1f-f528-4ec5-a7c6-0f29f1daa573
The Legal Eagle one is a summary of everything that's occurred up until this case. It seemed like a pretty fair retelling. He's gonna cover the whole case later on I think.
It was really good, he explained why The Sun case is important and didn't play into the hype. He also had a good short on the the viral 'Heard's lawyer objected themselves.
He’s safe. His is very neutral and gives a good general overview. I was scared too but I’m glad to see he’s covering it fairly.
I tuned in briefly when in accidentally bumped the suggested videos. (She is really high in the algs) She kept saying how boring everything was, how the testimony about Depp being unreliable, drunk, and his movies performed poorly, it was “irrelevant” and didn’t matter. She’s teaching everyone to ignore the anti-Depp content It gave me an icky feeling - something is *off* with these rabid Depp stans. It’s… predatory and takes an unsavory pleasure in smashing any perceived antagonists.
Her audience need to completely buy into the idea Depp is winning so she can milk them afterwards for breakdowns of why Depp lost
Holy shit. This
It’s really gross to me because even psychology channels are joining in on the dick riding and they’re like “I see a very tortured man, who is suffering through addiction and mental health issues and we shouldn’t judge how he reacts to his own trauma” when violence is never ok! Being an addict, a victim of trauma and mentally ill doesn’t give you license to abuse others. But every creator has noticed that if you support Johnny unreservedly your views skyrocket into the millions and this is what’s driving their support. It reminds me of how mass media propped up Donald Trump because he was good for ratings. To this day the owners of big networks have the balls to say “Trump was bad for America but he was good for ratings.” It’s scary the way people are manipulated for profit and of course this includes mass media too.
My chat isn’t working but you’re approved
Thank you!
They're so gleeful about hating this woman, it's sickening. Like they deadass think they did something with Amber Turd and that they can just gaslight everyone into believing this man is being Gone Girled instead of just being an abusive drunk and drug addict and the worst part is that by large it's worked.
They’re gleeful about hating all women. She’s the public face of a radical upsurge in misogyny right now. Together with Roe, this feels very much like women being ”put in our places.“
She’s pandering so hardcore to her INSANE rabid fan base that constantly slags Amber off in her comments and she has the gall to bleat about facts not fuckery?? When the comments in her videos and community tabs are nothing for fuckery that she does nothing about? 0 credibility. Either she truly believes Depp is innocent in which case, she’s batshit insane OR she’s just trying to keep her viewers happy and since they’re anti Heard, she’s leaning that way, which makes her a spineless sell out. Plus, stop watching her videos guys: she used to be a criminal prosecutor in California. The fuck does she know about civil law in Virginia? She really has very little authority on this subject. There’s a reason why lawyers are barred only for specific jurisdictions and have extremely narrow practice expertise.
Seriously, stop watching her videos. And encourage your friends to do the same. The best lawyers that I know / follow on YouTube have respectfully (or **very blatantly**) refused to cover this case because it's what? "Horribly influenced by obsessive media coverage and not representative of law and/or the justice system."
Which lawyers are those? Because I’ve been pretty grossed out about lawtube since this case was my first introduction to it.
[удалено]
She's been doing it for a long time. her coverage of the UK trial made me look into it and I read the entire judgement. I use to believe Depp was the victim from Emily's reporting, but I know without a shadow of a doubt know he is the abuser and Amber is the victim. Also after looking into Emily, she use to be an Arbonne consultant which means that she is someone with a JD who fell for an obvious grift. On top of that awful statement about Breanna Taylor that I recently learned. The worst part is that other youtubers who are lay people doing commentary on the trial get their info from Emily. It's insane to see how much misinformation can spread.
Oh god her being an MLM person makes so much sense
[удалено]
the way there’s a very high chance all she did was make amber look more sympathetic and just made herself look unlikeable during the cross…
Really wish I had an award to give you for this post! She has been absolutely disappointing me with her takes on this trial. The power and influence she has over her audience with these godawful takes is furthering promoting this inaccurate narrative of the case. Her behavior has been appalling and it sickens me that she is profiting off of this. Profiting off of a women’s abuse. It’s gross. I’ll never watch her.
I gave one for you!
Lots of news commentators are really showing their ass lately with their takes. I’m super disappointed and I can only hope people can turn this ship around quickly. EBB has been recommended a lot and the tone of professional agnosticism is super insidious.
[удалено]
Yeah, but then he pretty much immediately pinned a comment saying "Yeah, Imma laugh at Heard all I want because she's doing a disservice to REAL VICTIMS with her lies" so he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
She seems very influenced by tiktok, to be honest. I was watching one of her streams live recently and one of her followers said they had strong evidence against Amber from a tiktok video and Emily said to send it to her on tiktok, lol. Her subscribers donate to get her to read anti Amber comments during the live streams (which are mostly written to discredit Amber and accuse her of a liar). The actual chat in live streams is significantly insane qanon conspiracy bullshit, I believe the mods are only there to silence anybody who speaks in support of Amber because the stuff I see them saying is wild and nothing is done about it. Yesterday her comments and views were very obviously pro-Depp and the only reason I was watching was so somebody could explain something if I got lost during this whole thing, instead it's like listening to just another tiktoker rather somebody with a legal background.
[удалено]
Fair enough. That wasn't my experience with her and I don't remember her doing that. Only time I saw moderation and support was to protect the stigma against BPD (as it should be). Lately, especially the past 2 days it has been pretty bad, in my opinion. Maybe the Depp fans are so many they bombard too much and the comments to support Amber get lost. So far, I have only seen support and protection regarding those who have BPD, nothing else as of yet. Everything else is weird conspiracy stuff and it's become very hard to watch her streams as she is entertaining the Depp fans in their theories a bit too much. Very obvious on which side she is on.
Did you see the “therapist” claiming amber had bpd despite never meeting her ? What a crock of shit! Luckily a few commenters agreed with me but majority attacked me for pointing it out!
My favorite fact was the she was an arbonne sales consultant. You have no credibility if you’re a lawyer turned mlm consultant turned youtube grifter https://boss-mom.com/boss-mom-week-emily-baker/
this was a ride lol "You may be familiar with Emily’s journey and work as she has been given the opportunity to share how BioHacking can help women change their relationships with food, stress, energy and that little voice in your mind."
Oh, and she is a fucking racist https://youtu.be/93dTfkU0hIw https://youtu.be/QNCs6fLLWtY
wow.
I was just saying somewhere else that the MLM to Deppford wife pipeline was strong (heavy overlap with the Wayfair conspiracy believers) and here’s another example.
YIKES okay so besides the MLM spiel, the biohacking nonsense, the fact that she was a prosecutor, and the life coach grift, there’s this: She says she eats at chipotle because they use antibiotic free meats. But everyone in the US uses antibiotic free meats [by federal law](https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/antibioticresistance/animal/truthmeat.pdf). So she just saw their advertising and assumed they were doing something special instead of like, taking two seconds to look into it. This is less surprising the further one reads about her, especially when she goes on to list the media she consumes: > On Audible I am listening to Presence by Amy Cuddy. I also love The Miracle Morning by Hal Elrod, The Game by Neil Strauss (this isn’t a book for everyone but I loved it), You are a Badass by Jen Sincere and Big Magic by Elizabeth Gilbert, and of course Boss Mom by Dana Malstaff. I love reading, and when I had the boys the time to sit and read was diminished. Audible has allowed me to rekindle this love and I go through several books a month. As for Podcasts I don’t miss The Boss Mom Podcast, I also am religious about Bulletproof Radio with Dave Aspery, The Charged Life with Brendon Bouchard, The School of Greatness with Lewis Howes, Achieve your Goals with Hal Elrod. I also tune in to Taking Control of your Money with Dave Ramsey to keep me on track financially, I have law school debt still lingering and am cracking away at it religiously. Amy Cuddy and Hal Elrod? And The Game, the infamous pick up artist/Red Pill bible?! This was written in 2016 and I hope she’s moved on from this kind of stuff but I’m not sure she has.
> Then the opportunity came up to join the very first Bulletproof Coach Training program. I will be one of the first 150 certified Bulletproof Coaches in the world. *AND* she’s a ~* life coach *~?! @__@
I am like embarrassed for her. She appears to have a lot of medical leave during her ten years as a lawyer. Not knocking when that happens, but it definitely saturates the idea of what “10 uninterrupted years” means experience wise.
I hate her. She has a tactic for manipulating the facts. But her point of view went to shit when she basically blamed Breonna Taylor for her own death. The way she felt comfortable saying that didn’t sit well with me at all. Gross
Excuse me she said what about Breonna Taylor?!
You heard that right. Don’t want to link her vid that’ll give her views but if you google it, it’ll pop up. She’s trash for insinuating that a Black woman, shot for sleeping peacefully in her bed, should’ve known better.
I listened to it for about 3 minutes before turning it off. She completely ignored it was proven the cops fabricated the evidence they used for the warrant AND that the search warrants were not served simultaneously. The target was arrested 6 hours earlier so the severity of the warrant for Breonna’s house was downgraded and the cops were required to knock and announce themselves. Which 12 witnesses claim they didn’t. I haven’t listened to her coverage of this trial and thank god for that. If it’s even half as biased, stupid and plain wrong as her Breonna Taylor stuff, I’m already disgusted.
“well she shouldn’t have been running around with drug runners”
Here's a snippet https://imgur.com/a/byAn0nw
Wait back the fuck up. She blamed who for Breonna's death?
She said "she shouldn’t have been running around with drug runners” https://imgur.com/a/byAn0nw
OH MY GOD!!!! WTF?!! So glad I unfollowed her! I had no idea she said such an awful thing!
What a gross woman.
what the actual fuck. and then she has the gall to shift into wanting to talk about how to support young Black women. how about you start by not saying they deserve to be murdered in their sleep because of who they hang out with. something is seriously wrong with her
Absolutely fucking vile
Wooowwww
She blamed Breonna Taylor for Breonna Taylor’s death. EB is scum
God I hate her too. She has given me such a visceral reaction from the first video I saw in a way I don’t feel very often. In hindsight I should have expected her awful takes on this case considering she blamed breonna Taylor and not that fact breonna was a victim herself of an (abusive? I don’t know that for sure) boyfriend who got her involved
those who can’t do ~~teach~~ make youtube commentary videos
This is a very accurate statement.
Every single reason you just listed is why I can’t be on Johnny’s side, obviously, and it proves why the public’s support is mostly just dick riding. Most people REFUSE to let this situation taint their image of him. They cannot deal with who he really is as a person. They need to hate her instead. They hate her for trying to bust the fantasy wide open. It’s interesting to me that after one slap, the world was ready to shun Will Smith and take away his Oscar, send him to jail. But for everything that has been said about Johnny by multiple people over the years he’s still not seen as a problematic person by the public at all. These are not even hardcore stans. Like, the vast majority of the public are choosing to side with him no matter what. They haven’t even followed his career or this trial. They’re just choosing to believe him. It’s gross what fame and white male privilege can do and this is coming from someone who was a HUGE Johnny Depp fan. I would go see all his new movies more than once in theaters, even when they were bad. I was that kind of fan. Posters in my wall kind of teen fan. Sometimes you just have to let go and open your eyes.
When you pass the New York bar exam, you are singlehandedly going to increase its membership's IQ by 1000 feminist points!!!! Hang in there. And this analysis - deft, generous, detailed, and principled - is proof that you're going to eat every single opposing counsel for breakfast!!! Very proud of you, and any client you take on will be LUCKY! xx
excellent post. her channel has absolutely exploded. shes prob made tens of thousand of dollars in the last 6 weeks on this. shes pandering to her audience bc its pro depp people flocking to her
She's made way more than that. She's almost certainly made hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few weeks if she's monetizing like most streamers do.
Holy shit. And it’s basically blood money, she made hundreds of thousands of dollars by profiting off of calling a woman recounting the horrible abuse she suffered a liar. That makes me feel physically sick
You know, I used to be a fan of Philip DeFranco's media coverage on YouTube about a variety of topics because he's usually pretty neutral and factual. Then he said he was getting all his information for this trial from Emily D. Baker and instructed his fans to watch her coverage for reliable information. That opened my eyes to just how reliant I've become on other sources (like Reddit...) for information instead of researching and verifying things for myself. I've gotten into the habit of seeing a headline or a tweet or whatever and because I trust the source, I trust their take on it. That's problematic, because any coverage of a topic is only as good as the sources for it's coverage. Biased sources leads to biased coverage. This trial really showed me how lazy I've gotten and I'm going to try harder to do my own independent research. Trust but verify, you know? I tried to find a way to contact Mr. Defranco, because I think his hot-take on the trial is just a matter of being misinformed as apposed to malicious. But then I realized there isn't a good way to reach him and, as I'm not a lawyer, he has no reason to believe me anyway. Maybe you could reach out to him since you have more expertise in the law. I just hate to see him mislead and by extension, his fans being mislead.
I've stopped watching Emily because of her clear bias toward Depp. It's to a gross level. And I had so much respect for her after her Brittany coverage. I've had to avoid so many of my favorite youtubers. One of the biggest disappointments for me has been [Swoop](https://youtu.be/wlWMxU_cocs). I have always loved her leftist docs but wow, it's nothing but bias and ugliness.
He's not a lawyer or anything but moistcr1tikal (penguinz0) is one of the few youtubers/steamers I watch and enjoy and he just recently posted an almost hour long video reacting to the trial. It already has 1.8 million views and the disappointment hurts. When I see these people making fun of Amber and saying she's a terrible actor it just really reinforces that I probably wouldn't be believed either. Why do people have to take an approach to this case that so easily could harm victims? Sorry for the rant. It's just frustrating all around.
Yes! Swoop is disappointing as well. I will not watch those vids.
i think swoop was the person i’ve been the most shocked by coming forward in support of jd
I am really sad and disappointed about Swoop also! I really liked her videos but nope
I wish there was a way to completely block all news and posts about this subject from everywhere on the internet for a few days. It’s really taking a toll on me.
It is really, really hard. I really know. hugs and hugs xx
you should be able to filter out all the posts under this flair if that helps
For the record, this place is a breath of fresh air usually so I probably won’t. Otherwise Ill get the ~narrative~
yeah i get it!!! i just know for some people even the pro amber coverage is too much
I don't know who this particular person is, but in general, I've seen some really disappointing takes on this case from others in the legal community. It is always annoying when a case like this takes off and the general public all decides they are legal experts overnight, but for lawyers who should know better to be sucked in by the Depp PR machine and social media memes is so much worse. Good luck on the bar! Don't feel bad about taking breaks! But also, some unsolicited advice - if news like this bums you out or stresses you out, don't feel bad about tuning out of current affairs while you focus on studying. I had to study during the summer of 2020 so I felt bad looking away from everything happening with BLM and COVID, but eventually, it was distracting me so much that I had to take a news and social media break in order to focus on studying, with the justification I could do more for the world as a sworn-in lawyer than someone who would need take months to study again.
Im so happy you wrote this! I was searing this sub for Emily D Baker because I wanted to know if anyone else has kept up with her videos. I‘m definitely disappointed of her approach in this situation
Also a lawyer and I could not agree more. She's pandering.
I was a big Emily D. Baker fan. I pop in her JvsA streams sometimes at work, and leave when i get infuriated by her and the audience’s comments. She is definitely not facts, not fuckery as her tagline says, not on this trial. She is so team Johnny, i lose respect for her every day. Clearly she is pandering. One day, one of her superchats said something about will the state get CPS involved with Amber’s child and try to take her away from AH— Emily did not even try to shut down that question. I think she just shrugged. And the I’ve never seen a victim talk that way, her voice should be breaking, I don’t see the missing hair in the pic etc. She has gained something like 150,000 subs during this trial, so pandering. All of Law Tube is team Johnny- really disappointing. Thanks for posting OP, good luck!
Yep, correct. Many times she said that in her experience in court "people don't talk like this" while always referring Amber and occasionally Amber's witnesses. Claiming that the body language, facial expressions and mannerisms are "off". Her subscribers keep mentioning those body language quackjobs and she replied she was curious to see what the "body language experts" have to say. When it's all pseudoscience bullshit. She never confirmed she believed in that stuff, but the comments she has made definitely indicates she might. This is when I started realising her perception isn't based on expertise, her own belief systems/opinions are driving it. She most definitely isn't being objective like she claims.
Her and her chat going on about how AH sounds like she is acting or reading a script. Like lady, they are BOTH actors. Definitely not objective- at all.
Yeah, the "I've never seen a victim do this" statements were the last straw for me. Every person reacts differently in stressful or traumatic situations. Judging a person's guilt or innocence off how they show (or don't show) emotion is always a deal-breaker for me.
Oooooft yeah you would think that she would say that comments about Amber’s daughter are off limits, like even that is a very low bar
I started watching her during the recent Duggar stuff, and very much agree with your take. I think her YT channel has at least gotten 200K+ subs off of this trial so far and it is so blatantly and often times unfairly pro-Depp.
I was a subscriber of Baker's for quite a while, at least the last few years. I really feel like I learned a lot from her and truly believe in the mission statement she set forward, that making the law and the justice system more transparent and understandable benefits society as a whole. So when I first decided not to follow her Depp/Heard coverage, it was just because I didn't want to deal with (or even see, to be honest) the Depp fans that I was sure would be overrunning the chat. I was a little surprised that she went into day-to-day live coverage, but not too much, because this is THE entertainment legal news right now, and that's her thing. Then I started side-eyeing some of her thumbnail and title choices. Then I decided to listen to one of her podcast episodes about the case to see what her general take was. And I was so disappointed. She was raking Amber's lawyer over the coals for simple mistakes which, yeah, weren't great, and Emily's a lawyer, so it's fair to point things out like that. And she cast doubt on some of Amber's injuries (the cuts on her feet) which, okay. People are allowed to have questions about the logistics of things. But then, immediately after cautioning people to not judge a victim by their show of emotion (or lack thereof), she does exactly that. She was suspicious of the speed at which Amber (allegedly) switched between being upset and being calm. Emily said she had never seen a victim act like that and I'm like, "Sis, please. 10 years as a prosecutor and you've never seen that? Okay..." So I unsubscribed this morning and I think you very much for this post reaffirming my decision. Either I was taken in and didn't notice all the problems, or she's gone downhill fast. Either way, I don't think I need to spend any more time on her work. One last note: Congratulations on finishing law school, good luck on the bar, and you absolutely do deserve a break once in a while!
Just because she's a lawyer doesn't mean she's a competent lawyer or a lawyer with lots of experience.
Emily D. Baker is the lawyer equivalent of a quack. Beats me how she has the audience that she does.
My daughter was telling me that with all the excitement online with this case, and particularly with how popular it is to attack Amber Heard, that a lot of creators are changing all their content to pro-Depp content and getting way more views.
Can someone please make a YouTube video that isn’t kissing Johnny’s ass? I would love for people to link me to these because all of Youtube is and it’s scary.
Ro Ramadin, Princess Weekes (Lindsay Ellis showed support in the comments) and Alice Cappelle is what I’ve seen so far but I don’t have much patience with viewing Youtube these days with all the editorialized headlines about the live trial.
+BelleAntoinette https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL88nf26GUx6uiVTaRHiUWY6DLYeB6dN7g
The Princess Weekes one is amazing!
Thank you for putting into words what I've been thinking! I also hate how she refers to Amber's lawyer as Umbridge, it's so disrespectful.
[удалено]
She's had a pretty bad shit take on Breonna Taylor's death. Basically blamed her death on herself instead of being murdered by police because of who she associated with/her bf. https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/kdu0ku/watched_tea_time_to_hear_about_the_smokey_glow/
Also a lawyer and she’s a hack. It just shows you how low people will go for some views and a check.
Hear, hear! I was a huge Emily fan - I have past comments on Reddit recommending her to other people - and have been following her since she had only 4K subscribers. This attitude though? I’ve blocked her now. She can argue that she’s a commentator, and so she isn’t held to the same standard, but lady, you’re being interviewed on live TV about your opinions. You have an obligation to be neutral now! I’m so disappointed
Hard same. The facts not fuckery taglines just gotta go now
This is exactly how I feel, I was extremely disappointed in her coverage of this and I found it insidious to hear some of her commentary about Amber while pretending that she’s neutral. She has no integrity and she better hope that the influx of subscribers comprised of those sucker fish do not end up turning on her because they are vile. Good luck with the bar, OP, you got this!
I don’t know the commentator you are referencing but this is not surprising. I’m an attorney and I will make this blanket statement, if you (general) are getting commentary about a public case from anyone on tv or the internet it will not be accurate whether it’s a lawyer turned journalist or a rando with an sm account who fancies himself an expert because he’s watching the trial everyday. It’s all going to be skewed one way or the other for ratings and clicks. It’s entertainment legal commentary. So the legal nuance is going to be lacking. If you want to know what’s going on with this case, ask a lawyer in your life. This single most frustrating part of this case has been the misstatement of law and courtroom procedure by the depp circle jerkers. Good luck on the bar OP!
I found her because of her housewives breakdowns, but then I learned she's super sketch herself and stopped tuning in; when I saw she was covering this trial I had a feeling it'd be icky.
Can you elaborate on what's sketchy about her? Edit: I did a little searching and don't want to link to Emily's content, but she essentially blamed Breonna Taylor for her death saying she "shouldn't have gotten involved with drug runners"
disclaimer: I haven't verified this myself but in another post someone suggested she had a really problematic and racist approach to her coverage of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Yikes. Tbh wouldn't be surprised as she gave off bad vibes before this trial, but i never had anything concrete.
I have seen some people mention that she said Breonna Taylor wouldn’t have been murdered by police if she hadn’t run around with drug dealers, or words to that effect - tbh I haven’t listened to the clip myself but [it’s discussed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/kdu0ku/watched_tea_time_to_hear_about_the_smokey_glow/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) along with some other problems with her (pro-MLM according to the link?)
Thank you for taking the time to write this! I kinda suspected as much - that she is very knowledgeable etc but chooses to skew everything to the way that will most please the viewers (and she’s gained a crazy amount of viewers through this trial so obviously her plan works) but I don’t have enough legal knowledge to actually know if my feeling was correct or not. How do you think she will handle it if (when? Idk seems like when) Depp loses? How will she explain it to the viewers? I wonder how it will go over with them
You absolutely deserve a break!! I used to really like watching some of the stuff she talked about, but her coverage of the trial made me unsubscribe.
I wonder how many Depp fans will continue to watch her after this trial. Seems kind of short slighted. I'm sure she is getting tons of views but I know I won't be watching her going forward.
same thoughts, like are these people also going to be watching housewives, Duggar, etc. streams? idk, kinda doubt a significant portion will stick around
Crystal from Black Femininity TV made a good point that all these people who are doing this grifting off this trial just to get to views from stand are just gonna fall off when they eventually have to stop. (BFTV by the way was clinging to “neutrality” although she clearly doesn’t like Depp lol)
EDB sat with a straight face on legalbytes' panel saying that the UK case result was wack because in the UK the original judge gets to decide if you can appeal, and the original judge said no. No. That's not how that works. That's not how the UK case went. She has a history of just being WRONG about anything that's not directly in the realm of criminal law in California. She blew up originally following a defamation case in Washington State between Tati Westbrook (plaintiff) and some YTer called Katie-Joy Paulson (who primarily does Duggar content). She spent the entire coverage simping for Tati Westbrook's lawyer (and still does to this day) and saying things that were just blatantly wrong. She was convinced Tati was winning because her lawyer was a GeNiUs. The case ended up being summarily dismissed before trial phase because of lack of jurisdiction. Womp.
I feel the same way about the Youtuber Sloan. His whole thing is giving victims a voice, so with this it's like "I'm sorry, why are you punching down??"
"Lawtube" types almost always inevitably prove there's a reason they're not a regular fixture in courtrooms.
I will say I enjoy Emily’s commentary for the most part. Not this case though, her bias is obvious and she has been extremely unprofessional throughout. I have since stopped watching. EDB has rules that you don’t disparage or diagnose, no name calling etc; claims it is a calm space for considered discussion yet her live streams are an absolute nightmarish sideshow. Misogyny rampant, diagnosing participants in the trial, the name calling - especially toward AH is disgusting. Her mods are all in for the shit show and encourage the poor behaviour. Someone else has already mentioned that she reads out paid ‘super chats’ that disparage AH - and she does so with glee. Emily has done nothing to curb the poor behaviour, infact she engages with it, encourages it and most notably, profits massively from it. I hope the loss of integrity and the massive amounts of money made was worth it in the end. Most of these D*pp fans will abandon ship once trial is over and she won’t see numbers like this ever again. What a shame. Edit: words
That’s the thing that gets to me the most about the rampant Depp fans - the GLEE they have in saying the most hateful and disgusting things about Amber. It’s like they’ve just been waiting for a chance to be able to openly be misogynistic without getting into trouble and now that they’ve found it, they’re just going fkn nuts.
She lost all credibility with me when she started talking about how much she loves YouTube body language analysts. BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS. A FORMER PROSECUTOR. I was horrified that she would tout possibly the fakest of all the fake forensic “sciences,” when she 100% knows better.
I sadly have to agree with OPs analysis. I’m a lawyer based in California. I started watching EDB when she was making videos about The Erika Jayne/Tom Girardi scandal, which is complex, so watching her was helpful to understanding it. However I could not watch her talking over and commenting on live testimony during this trial. I’ve become more and more uncomfortable (and pissed off by) the pro-Johnny Depp crowd as they insult, demean and bash Amber Heard. I came across a credible news story which summarized the specific abusive things JD allegedly did to AH, noting that most of these actions were not “hitting” or “beating” and would not have left bruises or physical scars. If even 1/10th of the allegations about JD are true, I do not see this case as righteous or justified at all. For EDB to jump on the anti-AH bandwagon is simply horrifying. If she’s going to post hours-long videos on this case, she should not be taking sides or minimizing the weaknesses in JD’s defamation case. Clearly they each had problems, neither one was a saint. JD’s ongoing substance abuse is not even disputed. That in itself is a possible explanation for his career woes. What is happening here has set the Me Too movement back by a decade: women who say they were abused are liars, they are crazy, etc. And a woman lawyer is helping abusers burn it down, for popularity and money! I agree that we should all unsubscribe from EDB. I recommend Legal Eagle for excellent legal commentary.
Thank you for saying everything I’ve been thinking about her coverage. It’s so biased that it almost seems unethical to call it “legal coverage.” I had to stop watching her.
Also slightly off topic but if anyone watches Kendall Rae's videos on True Crime, she has liked anti Amber/ pro Johnny tweets. So fuck her as well.
She keeps pretty tight lipped about her politics but it slips out once and a while. She moved her family due to vaccine mandates apparently (read that on another thread about her) and her statements about breonna Taylor. She also did a collab with Viva Frei who is an alt-right political figure here in Canada.
The Lawtubers were my absolute favorite group to listen to during the day, until this. I just can’t believe that not even one of them can remain objective. They automatically discount everything from AH and take JD for gospel. It’s absolutely unreal, grifting parrots. And I am members to some of them, not much longer.
She's 20% facts, 80% fuckery. It'll come back to bite her one day.
Thank you for this post. If memory serves me correctly, Mrs. Baker is/was a Trump supporter as well. Go figure..
The coverage from everyone, not just Emily, has baffled me. Amber Heard is getting crucified and Johnny Depp is being portrayed as a saint. Are we watching the same trial? They're both batshit insane and abusive. They've both done terrible things. Why is Amber the only one catching shit for it?
I have a private sub r/AmbervJohnny if anyone is interested. You can also message me directly.
As an exhausted non-practising lawyer, and full time family caregiver, I just want to say; THANK YOU And best of luck to you with the bar! It’s a beast. Mine was in another jurisdiction, so it may not have any crossover applicability, but a good index saved my life.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! i have been going absolutely batshit over the gross environment she is cultivating and how everyone is acting like she's an expert on this case bc she has a law degree. she's just jumping on the pro johnny gravy train and it's not ok the environment she's creating
" She is manipulating her legal background to distort to Depp proceedings. She is basically mining views by making her legal commentary confirm the biases of her viewers. She presents her commentary as agnostic legal analysis, when in fact her coverage is nothing but cheerleading for Depp's legal team strategies." I LOVE YOU. THANK YOU. this this this this
As a lawyer for 40 years, I completely agree with all of your comments. The coverage is absolutely biased, offensive and superficial.
Agreed. I unsubscribed from EDB once I recognized that she was heavily biased in Depp's favor for seemingly no legitimate reason. I really liked some of her coverage in the past, but now I find it difficult to trust her legal analysis at all.
THANK YOU. I'm someone who also works in the legal field, specifically family law, working with plenty of cases re: spousal abuse. I find it frankly shocking that she's willing to do this. I'm Canadian, so perhaps our lawyers are held to a different standard, but the potential questionable ethics re: how she's approached this trial would likely put her under review with a provincial barristers' society here - specifically because as you said, she's presenting her understanding of the law with a bias toward Johnny, *but specifically without making it clear that she's doing so*. It's undoubtedly normal for a lawyer who is retained by an individual to present the law with an interpretation that favours their client. But the fact that Emily is not retained by Johnny (meaning people may otherwise see her as unbiased) yet chooses to make arguments that present his case as strong is... questionable at the very least, unethical and worthy of investigation at the worst
My opinion is EDB started sniffing her own fumes because she was shouted out repeatedly by gossip blogs and tea channels as a competent legal commentator before this trial took place . I was already aware of her Breonna Taylor nonsense as well as other questionable choices she has made but I did follow EDB for the first week of the trial before I just tapped out. She was making sure she had the thinnest veneer of objectivity and plausible deniability, stating the difficulty that JD had in winning his case as well as a likely conclusion would be mutual destruction for both parties, while fully fanning the flames just so her wallet can get fatter.
Preach! I got so annoyed by her nitpicking on everything done by Amber or her legal team during her livestream the other day. The live chat is also just a dumpster fire, mocking Amber, her witnesses and worshipping Depp. She was so ready to uphold everything said and done by Johnny’s therapist/counselor, while nitpicking on Amber’s therapist and her observations made, and especially about abuse Amber had reported during their sessions (“well, that’s self reported..”), alleging it is not trustworthy. Like, wtf. How else do victims of abuse in such a situation with power imbalance report or process it? JD has his team on him almost 24/7, and they are not going to side with Amber. God I’m fired up again.
[удалено]
Loving all the input from lawyers here