NO ONE Could Have Got This Wrong!

[@ldfm-z5r]

She “remained financially independent during their entire marriage?!” What a joke. She and her friends lived off of him and his generosity!! Just one example is her two bottles of wine a day habit at $500 a bottle. (Brought out in trial). She could in no way live the lifestyle she did on her own money!!

[@Hello_11345]

And the extortion letter she sent JD and his lawyers after she filed divorce where she demanded the penthouses, all utilities and fees paid in perpetuity, as well as demanding $50,000 per month in “support” for the rest of her life, his paying for her lawyer fees, paying for all expert assistance, court fees paid, and the suv. If she was financially independent then she wouldn’t have demanded all of that “for forever!” With an “or else” threat at the end!

[@rburns9730]

Not to mention she flipped out when Depp served her with an eviction notice for one of his properties. There is a recording where Depp said she could stay months beyond the eviction date to move out. It is my understanding the eviction was a necessary formality so she and her entourage couldn't claim squatters rights after the divorce.

[@hannahsarthub]

Exactly. Being financially independent when you are married, to me means that you share the expenses of daily living, including food expenses, drink, and rent, which seems unlikely given the amount of property that was taken up completely by her and her friends. To me it is more likely that she actually means that she still bought stuff for herself during their marriage, which I absolutely believe.

[@Ladybug211211]

The financial guy said since she moved out Johnnys wine bill became virtually nothing from $50k monthly. So did she pay for her wine consumption? No, he did.

[@mushymarlin]

@@hannahsarthub dont forget, she bought him a knife as a gift lmao

[@superstormday993]

I truly appreciate your continued analysis of this trial and issues.

[@zoeys290]

That certainly shows why she kept saying I pledged it ! 👍

[@zuzannarzeczkowska4586]

The thing that I cannot understand is that she lies to stop being called a liar and don't pay pledged money to stop being called a gold digger. Smartest steps to take, really...

[@mobilechaosyt]

So she pledged to donate $350k per year and didn't get sued by JD until after the 3rd payment should have been made, or a total of 1 million. I wonder if the jury would not have judged as harshly if she had at least donated what she pledge up to the time of the lawsuit.

[@dp1275]

People keep saying she got 7 mill from divorce but if u listened to whole trial u would have heard the testimony of divorce lawyer. Extra money was added , plus possessions, plus taxes and more. In fact, she received around 40 plus from divorce settlement

[@hazelangus]

I don't think she actually received that though. I think she did demand a heck of a lot because she wanted everything tax-free, but I don't think we are aware that she got that, are we?

[@deedeeannash]

Pretty simple.... she's using a semantic trick to lie to the court.

[@heatherbaker8596]

Amber had the money for 13 months before Johnny sued her, if she had the money one week why didn't she hand it over the next week, simple she never intended to hand it over, she wanted to use the interest or to spend it on herself.

[@xephorce]

I am looking forward to the made for tv movie "Dropping The Duce. The Amber Heard Story."

[@diannaleefolkers-sarber2393]

AH should have a Pinocchio warning before she speaks.

[@KingOfFvckingEverything]

Good video. If she wanted “nothing” (which the early extortion letter she sent to JD refutes), she would be better off to just donate the full of $3.5 million to both foundation, or whenever the installments came in, so,it in two and sent to them. - unless of course she wanted to invest this money elsewhere and make money maybe donate some to them in the side, but never millions as she doesn’t have it. Imagine how desperate one must be to get praise, look good to lie like this and think she will never be caught? These things comes out, always do… PS. The draft by ACLU Shawn in this video was just a draft I believe, it was never signed by her afaik. I thought maybe Elon Musk told her to use the term pledge because he quite recently (was forced to?) enter Gates, Bezos Giving The Pledge Foundation..

[@stillraven9415]

The fact that she kept correcting Camille's question of "donated" to "pledged" shows she fully knew the difference. Amber is a gold-digging liar!

[@Lapinporokoira]

Camille: said you donated Amber (to Jury) yes, I pledged

[@deang5622]

Careful, you might be able to prove she is a liar, but can you prove she is a gold digger? She might sue...🤪

[@junediston9068]

Tart

[@petermastenbroek7719]

She sure is a lying disgustingly dishonest abusing gold digger.

[@kafkaesk_]

@@deang5622 It's so easy to cheat the court in the USA. If AH sues her, she can just say that "I used synonymously "gold" and "Johnny Depp", I meant that "AH is Johhny Depp's digger". 😂 😂 😂 😂

[@BunnyTheChi]

Johnny paid for the penthouses her family and friends lived in. I read he was paying to "top up" the debit card for Rocky. He was completely supporting her and all of her extended circle of friends, which is disgusting. I believe she took the photos and videos from the beginning to keep in her back pocket in the event there was a divorce and things were not going her way. She's a horrid human being.

[@vijayakoothan]

She would have had the plan to divorce him once all assets were extracted.that was the plan for marriage and the honey sweet talk just to seduce.I just can't imagine this character still walking free .

[@ED-es2qv]

The real test of “using pledge and donation interchangeably” is to find a single time she called it a pledge before she was confronted with her lie. I have seen many times she said donated, and zero times she said pledge.

[@rahul4321moju]

You are absolutely spot on. That would be a great test.

[@chevlife3311]

Try taking a PLEDGE off your taxes vs a donation. IRS would tend to have a different take.

[@rubylively4958]

I know on one of her publicized statements she said she donated it and it was ‘all gone’

[@hivemind3000]

Very good point!

[@dp1275]

The REAL test is, is she stupid when it comes to intelligence around vocabulary, plus all the skills of manipulation. NO! She is far from stupid in that area. She is delusional about her power and mentally ill but she s very intelligent in ways that don t involve emotion. Every 14 yr old knows the difference.

[@dorothy135]

All I can say thank goodness there was camera in the courtroom. Can you imagine how the mainstream media would have reported on all of this?

[@Emmm777]

Like they still are? After all these years I'm finished with NBC.

[@lindaefraim5895]

Johnny knew that, therefore he want the camera in there because he knew the media would twist it and they try even if we all can watch it

[@Ocrilat]

The 'financial independence' thing was rubbish as well. Part of the divorce settlement had Johnny Depp on the hook for $15 million for debt they generated. That sounds to me like Johnny paying her way, not her paying her own way.

[@papersongs3482]

She was not financially independent. She wasn't paying to live there and obviously JD picked up the alcohol bill. What did she actually pay?

[@starkiller9897]

Johnny not only paid for her but her sister & her family & her friends for years!!

[@Ocrilat]

@@starkiller9897 Well sister, family and friends I can chalk up to Johnny being generous. But she didn't seem to pay her own way for anything. THAT I will call her out on.

[@hoptoit5910]

And if she was so ‘independent’ why did she demand ALL the penthouses and for JD to pay ALL costs forever relating to those penthouses (amount other things) She’s such a liar

[@hoptoit5910]

@@papersongs3482 Exactly. She paid nothing at all. He supported her 100% as well as her freeloading friends

[@HandmadeDarcy]

Don't forget she said "I shouldn't have had to donate that money to be believed." to Savannah Guthrie. I don't think she ever had any intention of fulfilling the pledge beyond the first payment, it was all just show to make her testimony technically not perjury.

[@sodoffbaldrick3038]

I'm sure she never meant to pay any of pledges...why else would she object to Johnny making the first payments, and then insist the money be paid directly to her. Johnny had her figured out early on.

[@hope-cat4894]

I'm sure the parents of those poor kids _loved_ hearing her say that during the interview. 😑

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

"No, you shouldn't have to donate the money to be believed - but that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that you made a *promise* to donate it, of your own volition, and then, falsely claimed that you *fulfilled* that promise to falsely promote your credibility as a a witness, and then continued to fail to fulfil that promise while arguing in bad faith about it. You didn't lose credibility because you didn't donate it; you lose credibility because you *lied about it and then lied about lying about it*."

[@Kutie500]

The judge totally believed everything she said because of that pledge, that pledged made her case believable, without that pledge she wouldn’t have had any credibility.

[@AkumakoCross]

Specifically, she said “IN AN EFFORT to be believed.” Technically it is right that a victim shouldn’t have to give away their money/divorce winnings to be believed, it’s the In An Effort bit that gives it away that it was a PR ploy.

[@walbathreadkiller]

I appreciate you taking the time to let us know more about the law. You explain things in easy to understand ways. Blessings

[@jonfreeman9682]

She volunteered squat. Only time she was ever there was for a photo op to generate publicity. Without cameras or paps she would never go there on her own to do squat.

[@jordanwilson8724]

AH: I am finacially independent. Also AH: Johnny pay my taxes, give me your dog, some cars, penthouses, oh and remember under california law I'm actually entitled to more than this because I never signed that prenup so you're lucky I'm only taking this much.

[@DelicateTitanium]

If she was being truthful, the answer to the question she was asked regarding why she hasn't fulfilled her pledge is not because JD sued her, it would be because the pledge is over a period of 10 years so of course it wouldnt have been completed. However she can't be truthful so has to throw JD under the bus by blaming him. I don't believe she ever had any intention of actually paying it at all!

[@Kutie500]

if this case hadn’t exposed her, she would have lied to her boy friends claiming JD hadn’t given her the divorce settlement, then beg them to help fulfill her pledge, the way she fooled EM, and have him pay part of it for her.

[@Voodoofairy88]

She never signed the pledges, so that too is a lie

[@nadir8804]

She simply thought that with that comment she could "clean" her reputation of being a gold-digger, as she'd already been finger pointed for being one but didn't actually think of paying it at all anyway. As we saw, it back-lashed and worsened with all her attempts to justify her not fulfilling her signed agreement to pay by pledge or not.

[@polly5961]

@@Voodoofairy88 ABSOLUTELY CORRECT 💯! AH REFUSING to sign the form (brought up in court) AH ASSumed that she'd be off the hook & wouldn't have to pay up. CONniving little demon she is! SCREW 🪛 the ACLU it's the thought of the children at the hospital that will go without certain things that $3.5 million dollars would have most definitely provided... I hope that child of hers won't ever NEED services from that hospital or ANY hospital.

[@jfraserfisher]

She needed to also cover not making the payments later as well, she had no intention of completing the donations. If she said I am going to pay over 10 years, she knows people won't forget and she will be expected to honour it. This way she blames Johnny and never completes the payments. Let's face it the 7 million is probably gone now anyway, she has lived lavishly with very little income since Aquaman and Aquaman 2.

[@rtos]

To put it in a nutshell the UK justice system is broken. Shocking that a judge who had a conflict of interest was allowed to try it.

[@Vincent_Beers]

The case in the UK wasn't against her, it was against the publisher. Completely different burden of proof. All they had to do was prove they trusted their source and didn't publish it maliciously. It wasn't a question of whether it was true and AHs involvement was only as witness to say she supplied the information. The US case was against her to prove her claims were lies and done maliciously.

[@SquirrelGamez]

@@Vincent_Beers But she was proven to have supplied false information, which the publisher willfully published. Even if they don't do an appeal, they should have to, at the very least, make public apologies and retract everything. If they don't, then I would think J.D. would have grounds for an appeal or a new trial? Then again' I'm not very law-savvy, especially not in countries that aren't mine.

[@BowsettesFury]

Not shocking, was apparently hidden and convoluted to figure out. That makes it harder for his “peers” to assume any wrong doing would happen. Now that it has been made apparent he was flawed the case shoved have automatically been reopened. But that just makes sense, so it most likely won’t happen.

[@Ginger-Tom13]

@@Vincent_Beers I’m glad you mentioned this. Far too many people think that the UK case was JD versus AH.

[@jonfreeman9682]

UK system is the oldest most revered system in the world and it works. The problem is this particular judge is crooked. It's too much power to give to one judge. In a jury system the judgment is distributed to members of the public randomly selected so there's no personal bias and if there were the power isn't concentrated on one individual. So the only way for the jury to be corrupt is they were all on the take. And that happens too.

[@diamonddiva3204]

so if she says she was financially independant from him why was she so worried about her and her friends being 'evicted after 21 days when she filed for divorce wouldnt she have had the finances to get somewhere else to live? which seems to me like she WAS after JDs money and property also even IF she was paying once a year why wasnt the installment paid in the 13 months when JD finished paying her the divorce settlement and then suing her surely 1 payment was due i think she had NO INTENTION of paying those installments

[@theaccidentalsenior]

It is hard to find a place in 21 days. That being said, I believe she and her friends were taking JD for a ride.

[@gleefulme9617]

@@theaccidentalsenior I found a place to live in 3 weeks two different times.

[@1957marjorie]

@@theaccidentalsenior When you listen the one of the audios between JD and AH he pointed out that she could stay longer than the 21 days as he was not going to through her out!! Also, my from my understanding, I thought things got really bad in Australia was because she found out she was not in his Will 🤷‍♀️

[@HiroForever]

Yep. She was demanding guarantees they wouldn’t be ‘homeless,’by requiring JD sign over the three homes ASAP. These people are pretty unbelievable. I suppose it seemed preferable to remain in the mansions rent free and receiving all those free, relaxing massages at the on site spa. Well. Not free to JD. BUT.

[@ChaCha-lt8rx]

Exactly..there were many of them to house share...plus she did have her own place but gave it up when realising that she and her cronies could sponge off johnny full time

[@GrampiesCorner]

She pledged it over ten years so she could invest the 7.5 million and use the interest earned on it to pay the pledges without losing the principal. In other words she still would have the 7.5 million at the end of ten years. This proves she in fact did lie about not wanting anything from Johnny, this clearly shows she was after the money otherwise she would have donated right away the 3.5 million to each charity.

[@thekitowl]

But AH refused to sign the pledge agreement so there was no plan to pay any money.

[@sallymascorro7313]

You are so right I totally agree with you 💯

[@AncientGleek]

She didn't pledge anything. The pledge form was drawn up by ACLU after Ed White sent the first cheque for $100k (JD wanted to pay the money directly to the charities on her behalf presumably because he knew she would never follow through with the donation but she demanded the rest be paid directly to her tax free because she didn't want him to have a tax advantage from donating it to charity.) She never signed or returned the pledge form to ACLU and doesn't seem to have any such arrangement with CHLA so she obviously had no intention of fulfilling her stated intention of giving it all away which was probably just a PR stunt. Also during the marriage she was only earning around $10K a month but was spending at least $44k. So much for being financially independent she and her sister and friends were living off JD's dime for years.

[@chunkymonkey7439]

" I wanted nothing " except for 3 penthouses, Range Rover, 50 thousand dollars a month for the rest of her life and legal fees. That's not financial independence just a gold digger. " I wanted nothing " was only to make her look good.

[@hawkeyescoffee6399]

And all the bills and utilities paid on said penthouses too.

[@dianecharest8365]

I don't know how she got anything, being married for just under 2 years. I thought you had to be married for 10 yrs. And i do understand that hers was blackmail.

[@npats550]

@@dianecharest8365 I think, (I am not a legal scholar, or living in the USA), that in California law, 10yrs, is more to do with the amount of alimoney. Unless the law has changed, if I remember correctly, there was a similar issue bought up with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. They had been married for 10years, but if the 11th yr was reached, before the intent, or filing a petiton for divorce, then she would have been eligible for about half of what he had during the marriage. Hence the "sudden" divorce, from him, according to Kidman, who later also said she had actually become pregnant and miscarried due to stress, (it was said that the couple were not able to have biological children together, which is why I mention it and also, one of the reasons they adopted) although these days, I am more and more cynical about the entertainment industry, with all of these lies and allegations of a bu$e, of all kinds and "showmances". Also, with this case, there was no pre nup, although Johnny wanted a post nup drawn up, but she refused-alledgedley.

[@aBBy-pq4tx]

She uses Nothing and Everything ‘synonymously’

[@rebeccaabram2312]

@@dianecharest8365 There was no prenup, one of the triggers for the Australia incident IIRC was the discussion of a post nup, basically she was banking on that AND the threat of filing of the Protection order would get JD to just pay her to go away.

[@MrPixiepantz]

I'm on the organ donor register so I've pledged any usable organs for others to use after my death. If pledged and donated can be used synonymously then I'm in serious trouble.

[@99fruitbat94]

😂😂😂

[@BellaLola26]

Best comment!😂😂

[@bonitasmith8880]

😂😂😂

[@BlueFlowerMesa]

😂😂😂 Good point! Be afraid, be very afraid. 🤣

[@donnamauriello8444]

Can’t believe a word this woman says!!! Her friends and family literally lived on JD for years, trips, food, housing, vehicles, security etc, she’s just a complete user and abuser

[@billybatson2149]

A piece of shite would be an accurate description.

[@FullBloodedMetalHead]

If its so "preposterous" then why did she explode when he tried to get her to sign a Post-Nup?

[@watcher4279]

Is that not perjury saying she donated the money in the UK court case?

[@deang5622]

If she said it in Court then yes (unless she wasn't sworn in under oath but I think that highly unlikely in a case of this magnitude and in the High Court). If she wrote it in her evidence submission to the UK court - and I haven't seen the written evidence to know - then it is perjury or the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[@Emmm777]

@@designingmama9803 That case needs to be re-opened. It sounds like corruption if the Judge was involved in any way.

[@hawkeyescoffee6399]

@@deang5622 BBB has explained before that in the UK the statements provided are classed as the statement in chief (or something like that), basically they technically hold more weight than the testimony on the stand. So using donate in the statement is very much the same as perjury on the stand. Personal anecdote, I'm in the UK, when I was doing jury duty (some years ago) we were instructed to find the defendant not guilty because the key witness had a slight difference in his testimony compared to his statement to the court. We weren't instructed to compare the two and decide for ourselves the reliability or anything like that, in fact they didn't even point out what it was (I think it was something to do with the time of the incident from what I recall from where the legal objection was made and we were sent out for them to deliberate a point. But we were ultimately just told there's a discrepancy and therefore case closed. After you give your verdict they then tell you all about what a scumbag the defendant actually is, with past convictions etc...the case was an assault on two police officers, he had a record as long as my arm, including previous assaults and assault on a police officer; he was so obviously guilty that it was painful to see the smirk on his face when he walked free.

[@hawkeyescoffee6399]

@@Emmm777 unfortunately they cover their backsides in cases like that. Unless enough of a public fuss is kicked up.

[@joeshmoe7485]

"...donated the entire settlement..." "...given the entire sum.." These words describe an event in the past tense. She said (in court) that the money had been 'given away' However the money was not given away. This was a falsehood, an untruth, in short a lie. Amber was caught in a lie and this undermined her credibility a lot. It wasn't the only lie she was caught in. Then she tried to play it off as "pledged" instead of donated implying that these words commonly mean the same thing. So not only is she a liar, but she also thinks we're all stupid. That's what did her in.

[@jensenon]

Not to mention she tried to compare her “Donations” to buying a house. That you don’t pay for it all at once. She’s proved that she’s not only a vindictive liar but also a dimwit.

[@reginaheath6131]

She needs to be charged with perjury in 3 countries.

[@mickk8519]

Yes, she stated in that tv interview before she knew she was being sued, she stated she'd donated all the money, given it all away, and it was now all gone.

[@vijayakoothan]

Exactly she thinks every else is stupid except herself.what an ostrich cheeky ostrich.

[@Gmjd64]

That’s complete rubbish she and her friends lived off johnny’s money through their whole relationship !

[@HandmadeDarcy]

Exactly! Most people have to pay most of their income for housing, utilities, and food. Talk about spoiled Hollywood brat.

[@candyhembree7252]

They supposedly spent $2 million a month of Johnny’s money. Amber married Johnny for fame and money no other reason. She’s a really bad person 😉

[@Gmjd64]

@@candyhembree7252 exactly she planned it all from the beginning !

[@DJCallidus]

I know if I pledged to do the washing up and didn't do it, I'd be in big trouble. 😅 Thanks BBB

[@gaz-gemw5801]

Nice one lol lol 😂😂😂😂👏👏

[@deang5622]

You want to get yourself a dish washer

[@slister45]

AH stated during the Dateline interview that she "shouldn't have had to donate" or "earmark" the entire divorce settlement to charity to prove that she wasn't a golddigger. Maybe not, but she did. What she didn't do is donate it, and she lied about it. I'll bet she never thought that the Dutch talk show interview would come back to bite her. Every time I hear her say, ever so melodramatically, "I wanted nothing," it makes me cringe. And the fact that she wouldn't even sign the pledge forms from the ACLU is highly suspicious.

[@nadasimich1267]

Very cringe 🤮

[@zagor1453]

She is a gold digger ,,,,most woman are ,,..

[@charzemc]

The pledge form wasn't even produced by ACLU until they were subpoenaed by Johnny's team & then they were dodgy. Written on a letterhead that wasn't in use in 2016-17. It was on letterhead for the centennial in 2020.

[@dianemcghie3422]

This comment 👌

[@slister45]

@@zagor1453 That, sir, is not true and you know it. And even if, let's just say, it were true that most women rely on the economic power of men to survive. It wouldn't be true if women had economic power equal to that of men.

[@rubylively4958]

Has anyone checked Amber's story about working at the children's hospital for over 10 years?

[@astrialindah2773]

Right? We all know it's a lie.. because she said it.

[@kimfournier1120]

Good question. Did she even "step" in the building at all?

[@DJCallidus]

Staff and volunteers are data protected. You could probably sniff around and ask some people that work there, however it would likely have to be "off record", so not deemable as evidence.

[@Cool.Cat.Flannegan]

I don’t need proof. She’s a liar and a self-involved malign human being. A siren who lures men and woman into her net of deceit.

[@thechancellor3715]

@@DJCallidus list of employees and dates of service is not privileged.

[@Secret_Squirrel_Scottishgamer]

The first time she used pledge instead of donation is when she knew she was caught out "in the trial" every other time before hand on tv shows etc she used only the word donated not pledged.. Exactly the same style of bull crap she continually uses throughout her life - Tell lies changed them to fit her narrative.

[@deang5622]

Because if she continued to use "donated" under cross examination, counsel for the plaintiff would have exposed her as a liar and committing perjury in open court, so to prevent a charge of perjury being levied against her, she had to, on the spot, use the word "pledge" instead. The word pledge doesn't mean that the money has been given, just promised. And that avoids any charges of perjury. However, in her written testimony to the court, the partial text of which is visible at start of this KZbin video, that written submission says she donated the money. She lied. So in court, to get herself out of this hole, where she clearly says donated in her evidence-in-chief, but verbally says under oath "pledged" she then has to say she used the words pledge and donated interchangeably. Let's face it, everyone knows (if you are over 18 years of age) knows the difference between pledge and donate.

[@Emmm777]

@@deang5622 She was exposed to the world as being a liar. The video on Danish TV was the best thing that the jury could see.

[@keikoandgilly]

Amber Heard: "I wish to be financially independent" Also Amber Heard: *Getting sued by her insurance company for funding her legal defence*

[@SweetOne.]

Insurance paid her legal fees and she said she used her divorce settlement to pay her legal fees... someone needs to check those lawyers for double billing ;)

[@kerryhuawei3576]

Amber heard states that she had worked at the children's hospital "for well over a decade", I've looked around the internet and can't find anything written about this. Has anyone seen anything at all concerning this or is it another exaggerated statement or just a plain untruth?

[@ayceleijae]

You know darn well if she did there would be documentation plastered all over so that everyone knew what she was doing, she’s such a liar

[@RachelGedney]

Enlightening! Still have to question why payments were set over a 10 year period when she had the whole 7m dollar in hand and didn't want it!!! If she was financially independent as she claimed, it would have been easy to pay it all in one go surely???? 🤔

[@williamjenkins4913]

Exactly. Even painting her in the best light possible she still conned Johnny out of a 7 million dollar loan.

[@bluelantern9]

It’s for tax purposes

[@RachelGedney]

@@bluelantern9 I know, it also enables her to invest it and gain interest! That said, I doubt it was for tax purposes in her case, unlikely she ever intended to complete payments, this was, as is everything in her case, for show!

[@lightgiver7311]

She originally refused to sign a pledge form for the ACLU. Also, when she was staying in The Hamptons and all the photos of her at TJ Max were taken, she was staying with Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

[@BabyKangaroo279]

I'm guessing that's her new bank?

[@leonorrivera6379]

her new sugar daddy? disgusting!

[@heidimounsey3132]

Perhaps Anthony Romero (of the ACLU) may be the baby’s daddy?

[@elliethacker9394]

Her next victim..🤬🤬🤬

[@Ancientreapers]

Oh thanks. I thought I remembered something about that. I just did a comment about the Children's Hospital of LA and it doesn't seem she did that with them. It was an open pledge it seems and just on a verbal promise with no time line.

[@TheRealVeeBee]

I heard that she never signed the document sent to her from the charity! She’s just shady as hell and can not be trusted on any level! Nuts! We all should be grateful she has not crossed any of our paths! 😅

[@cananga984]

What kind of “financial independent from him during the marriage” is free loading your friends in his houses and pass the bill to Mr. Depp desk *according to her (was) assistant

[@sambas9257]

Has anyone finally understood how much money she effectively donated from her pockets to these two charities?From what i remember and have understood ...at the end she donated only 350k to one of the two charities. That's it. Some anonymous donators added other 1.2 milions fulfilling Amber Heard's pledge to the same charity. So at the end one charity receive something like 1,5 milions and 0 the other (instead of 3,5M and 3,5M)?Why they all continue to speak about the fact she didn't completely fulfill her pledge?She DIDN'T even TRY. She never came near!!!

[@sodoffbaldrick3038]

Johnny made the first payments, and Elon paid the rest of what little has been paid. The two men paid that in her name. I believe none of the money was actually paid BY her.

[@chrispetersen4863]

If I recall correctly, (and I could be mistaken) JD actually paid the first $350k to CHLA, and Elon paid $350k to the ACLU. I am going from memory, so the amounts and who they were paid to may be mistaken, but it was testified to in the Virginia case.

[@bklynfinesse8709]

She didn't plan to donate the full amount. She had 13 months to do it.🤥🤥

[@arbiter1]

@@bklynfinesse8709 she planned on 10 years to do it but had NO problem saying on day 1 it was all gone and donated. She is full of it. She loved living on his $ and being "finacially independent" was bogus as she couldn't get any good rolls without johnny because she sucks as acting.

[@farzanamiah7737]

500k from Elon musk, 100k from jd and another from 350k from fidelity (makes altogether 1.3million - including amber 350k)

[@susanwehe8270]

I have to admit when listening to the trial when she compared pledging /donating to buying a house. I know that if I pledged to pay the bank and didn’t, I’d not have a house. They really seem to take paying a note very seriously….

[@aum0aumgood]

yes and speaking as if donating to CHLA ACLU is an aquisition to use profit resale... hum always truth revealed in heards fraud deceptions...

[@laurelwoodward2700]

Her video where she said "Seven Million dollars was donated". The inflection of her voice saying "seven million" suggests that she really did not want to donate it and she made a great effort to say "seven million". Listen to her inflection in those two words.

[@drendaparfitt7417]

Yup, I heard that.

[@sharonjuniorchess]

$350,000 per annum on $7m is actually 5% interest. Maybe she thought she could use the tax deductions & interest on the principle to discharge her "pledge" whilst keeping the principle amount to herself. At this point I would put nothing past this conniving & vindictive monster. Unfortunately (for Amber) the Virginia courts are demanding $480,000 per annum plus $10.35m as a bond if she wants to appeal the judgement. Somehow I don't think that it is going to happen.

[@mandieemberton2705]

Yep, I'm sure it was Elon Musk that pointed this out to her and sorted this over 10 year bit with ACLU, but she never signed the forn when they originally sent it to her, and didn't ACLU say they'd received nothing since 2018? May be she spent so much of the $7m there's not enough interest on the smaller bit that remains and she doesn't feel inclined to part with it?!

[@sharonjuniorchess]

@@mandieemberton2705 You are correct. The UK judge took her word and rejected claims that Amber was a gold-digger. But Johnny sought proof and got court permission for the Virginia trial to show that Amber never paid a dime out of her divorce settlement to the ACLU. Interestingly Amber's lawyer Elaine publicly told the media that "she cannot pay johnny because she doesn't have any money". But now that the judgement has been finalised Johnny can petition the courts to get Amber to account for where all her money went just in case she has tried to hide it. Amber does what Amber wants to do but she does not think things through and brings all this stuff onto herself. I believe that she is currently hanging out with the head of the ACLU and its interesting that they are still trying to use her as their voice for victims when she has been exposed as the abuser.

[@sas2300]

Let's be honest the statement that AH made claiming that she had "donated her entire divorce settlement to charity" was false. If she had done that, or even intended to do that, why would she do it over 10 years, rather than just giving the entire sum to the charities, because she had already recieved the entire $7m settlement. I submit that she pledged to donate the money over a 10 year period, because as an actor and celebrity she would likely expect to recieve movie deals and endorsements during that 10 year period that would amount to significant monies enabling her to pay $350k a year to the ACLU comfortably whilst keeping the millions that she recieved from JD 'in the bank'. So in summary she was never donating her entire divorce settlement to charity, that is a fact based on her pledge form.

[@williamjenkins4913]

Yes. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she planned to pay at all what she did was con Depp out of a 7 million dollar loan.

[@petermastenbroek7719]

She had no intention ever to pay the monies she had promissed, that's why she didn't want Johhny to make these donations in her name in one go, she is a criminal she tried (quite successfuk yoo) to ruin Johhny's life, while constantly cheating on with different partners. She is, and will always be a terrible pos.

[@mollysmith2510]

This is just to show how manipulative she is. Saying one paid and actually not paying but intending to pay is distorting truth. And she seem to be master in distorting facts.

[@chamoo232]

The reason why shes donating over 10 years is on the pledge form where she decided to send the money. Notice the "tax deductible"? Yeah. She spent the 7 million and was hoping her career would bring her million dollar roles every year and she could then donate 700 000$ per year as a way to not pay taxes

[@annicecooper8105]

@@chamoo232 finances from divorce settlement aren't liable for tax though as they are not considered earnings in California. JD would need to pay tax on it as earnings but not Amber.

[@AnnieNakki]

I want to know: did AH really work as a volunteer at children's hospital for over a decade? I'm not sure I believe that.

[@deang5622]

Who knows. She seems to have told so many lies, you can't trust anything she says.

[@reginaheath6131]

I doubt it. It would have interfered with her other hobbies

[@LoquaciousByNature]

Johnny sure spent a lot of his own money, for the lifestyle of someone who claims to be financially independent. She and her freeloader sister and friends were all living off Johnny. So I guess freeloading is synonymous with financially independent.

[@aum0aumgood]

receipts expose Heard's "financially independent " Lies Heard's statements after the fact... conflict with poor actress wannabe , help me bs... " can't pay verdict judgement." insurance fraud... lawsuit covers attorney in willful malicious fraud that is premeditative Decem er 2015 as threatened ... and premeditative in July 2018 policy purchase pre Washington post ...aclu Heard conspired lies...

[@TheOneSoulMate_]

Love your channel! You are on top of it with research and facts! Thank you!

[@lozunicorn]

I've been wondering that since AH's claim to have paid the divorce money, and the judgements against her that the Op-Ed was both malicious and based on falsehoods, could/would this class her as being of bad character and therefore class some or all of her evidence at the High Court as dubious as to it's veracity? Thanks for all your work and content 🦄

[@andydudley1775]

not with out a promise of a better job for the judges son like working at tesla maybe.

[@deang5622]

No. The judge said in his judgement that he found the claims to be substantially true. Which means he knows some of it wasn't.

[@Hello_11345]

@@deang5622 but he based that on the fact, to him because of her testimony, she proved to NOT be a gold digger because she donated her entire divorce settlement - so that means she had no reason to fabricate the abuse allegations because she gained nothing in doing so! So it’s a huge issue that the UK justified his finding her accusations to be reliable was because she had no reason to invent the allegations because she wanted nothing and in fact gained no money but instead donated her entire $7 million settlement. So it doesn’t end where you think it does and is only a small part of why the judge said he believed the abuse allegations as substantially true.

[@TM-tx9ct]

I don't know how involved you were at the time of the UK trial, but the ACLU refused to give the information when it was requested before the trial begin. Amber's UK team put a lot of blocks in the way at the time too. No payment schedule from the ACLU was forthcoming at any point during the trial and only a dodgy note on the wrong style of headed paper was presented, saying thanks for the pledge. I have never seen in any documents this schedule before, which would suggest that it was made up after the UK case in readiness for the US trial. The Children's charity which she uses for photo opportunities, which is very different from volunteering, sent in a copy of a request for information on if she still intended to make any further payments, having received one from Johnny's accountant. They got no response. It seems odd that one charity would have a 10 year schedule, (only advised by anyone after the UK trial) and the other charity had no schedule. The charity which is lying, is the same one who wrote the Op Ed with Amber. Oh yes she did know all along, and so did 'the esteemed learn-ed judge'.

[@watcher4279]

This is one of only a couple of channels to be relied upon.

[@shirleyswaine4701]

Just because someone is financially independent - and comfortably so - does not disbar them from being greed for more, even to the detriment of someone else. For some people, they never have enough. I have experienced this in my own family

[@4my4blessings]

Just curious if she claimed the "pledge" amount each year against her taxes... because if she did... that's an income tax fraud thing... that is serious in the states.

[@reginaheath6131]

Wondered that myself. Her finances need to be combed through

[@margiebracken6678]

She kept saying she was financially independent from him during their marriage. Did she pay for anything. It seems he paid for everything. She lived in his penthouse. Lavish vacations, food, wine, cars etc. How is that financially independent.

[@suzannefernandez470]

Pledge means I promise...to this or that Donated means you DID IT! That was so stupid of AH to try pulling. It's insulting to know she thinks we're all dumb.

[@CliveExton]

As usual.... very interesting thank you. This however, has got me thinking about a new possible point(?) If we are querying everything she says - has anyone actually looked in to her statement regarding the Children's Hospital - "I had been working there as a volunteer for well over a decade". If you go back 10 years from when she would have made the pledge - does it make sense? Would she have been doing that "pre-Johnny"? Did the decade include her time she was with Johnny? What is her idea of being a volunteer? It maybe nothing, but as your deep dives keep on revealing so much, I thought I would mention it! Thanks again for all your wonderful videos.

[@andord123]

Heard: “financially independent”. Heard’s TRO request for $50k a month: “Johnny is extremely wealthy, he refuses to give me any direct financial support”

[@lindaefraim5895]

She sued him for $100 million because she thought shy could treated him into silence but when a victim had enough the victim no longer care

[@llh2385]

OMG there is no arguement that a promise is in no way equal to the act of giving. You either gave what you promised or you didnt. How the hell is this a mystery?

[@farzanamiah7737]

i agree with this statement. she didnt sent her divorce settlement payments from the pledge form in the past 6 years. its simple she didnt pay at all - there is no mystery!!

[@jw325]

So she was financially independent minus her demands for sole use of vehicles and penthouses that JD had paid for? That's really sounds like someone who is financially independent doesnt it.

[@nomadscavenger]

Thanks for explaining this key point that helped the jury in VA to look at another reason to believe she's a liar. And, now to appreciate even more JD'S lawyers' expertise in finding AH'S weak spots! For me it's ironic because she must have thought she would meet those pesky obligations w/i 10 yrs..at some point. Why she didn't explain this to that jury at that time seems to be a big mistake; she isn't lying about what she apparently intended to do (did she forget her contract w/ACLU, Children's Hospital?). Or was she over-thinking how to explain a 2 yr. gap in missed yrly. paymts?Instead she adds another lie to the mix about why she hadn't done the whole shebang for each one, gets befuddled and ridiculous about semantics and firmly states she had to fight JD's suit! However, she had over a year and a half of having $6.9 million of her divorce settlement, none of which was donated...all she needed to DONATE was just $650,000+- for one year. Too hard to part with? (It's supposed Elon's $500,000/ to each charity would keep both from wondering what was up, and not make any embarrassing inquiries). It's possible she actually felt guilty about partying/blowing lots of $ that whole time knowing there's so much more in the bank? Perhaps, its also reasonable to speculate she believed she had another 8+ years to get some other gullible schmuck to pay them for her. Liars sooner or later lie for no reason and hoist their own petard (sp?), I'm thinking...Thanks again. So interesting and info totally unsuspected if I understand it correctly. Hoping UK travesty gets smashed to bits!🤭👏🤗

[@yvonnebrown7096]

Nocely worded

[@williamjenkins4913]

Even if she fully plan to meet that pledge it was still super shady. Depp offered to just give them the money himself and she refused. I was confused by that but now I know about the 10 year timeline it makes sense to me. She got that money to play with and her decade long payment plan was a cover to make it so she technically wasnt lying.

[@GoodtoGaia]

Past tense verb. Clear as day.

[@chrisose]

So the question that needs to be asked is whether Heard kept up with the annual 'donations' and 'pledged'. I would be willing to bet that she only made the first installment so that she could claim that she made a donation. It would also be interesting to see how this is reflected in her tax filings over the last 6 years.

[@EvelineUK]

She used 'donated' when asked about it on Dutch TV, to make herself look good, yet in court she uses 'pledged'. She knows the difference quite well.

[@GuessJess]

Essentially, this video is the polite way to say that AH knew exactly what she was trying to do, she is a bold faced liar, she thinks most people are dumb enough to believe that the terms “pledge” and “donate” can be used synonymously, and she tried her best to pull a fast one on the jury by having an argument with Camille about semantics.

[@xTerminatorAndy]

Very well explained Mr. Belt. thank you :-)

[@edwinjunior]

Why was she so evasive of the question then? Why did she fight so hard to not have the ACLU release documents on the "pledged funds" Why did she use "donated" openly in the UK court and on a talk show as opposed to "pledge" knowing quite well that she "pledged" the money, not "donate"? Why did she lie in court that she uses "pledge" and "donate" synonymously knowing that the two words don't mean the same thing? Nah, she knew what she was doing, she was definitely lying. She had complete money she alledgedly "pledged" to the ACLU and children's hospital for 13months why didn't she donate it like she pledged if she wanted nothing? Makes no sense if you ask me.

[@jaunitapretorius5292]

Thank you for explaining this However she had the full divorce settlement for 13 months Even if she pledged the amount till today how much did she actually pay of her own money even if there was a payment plan in place with the ACLU. The second fact is that she understands the difference between pledge and donate as she said in the Spanish video I donated not pledged The full amount and stated how she split it AH thinks the average person is uneducated

[@saytunfoo5681]

It is true (in Commonwealth countries at least) that getting fresh evidence in after a trial is an uphill task. The Courts are loathe to admit further evidence after the case has closed, and they constantly stress the need for finality in the proceedings. I feel that reopening the case in the UK with this "new" evidence is like flogging a dead horse. In addition, the admission of fresh evidence is always discretionary which means that the Court can still dismiss the application even if it had merits. A better approach, in my opinion, is for the Crown Prosecution Service to open an investigation into Amber Heard for perjury and it is my opinion that this would be a relatively easy case to prosecute given that she has given written statements in the UK which turned out to be false in the Virginia trial (the transcripts will be proof of that, and the UK Court can take judicial notice of the Virginia proceedings and the transcripts).

[@saytunfoo5681]

@Vintage Bollinger Johnny's barrister argued before the 2 judge Court of Appeal (for leave to appeal) that Johnny had his suspicions about Amber’s evidence at the time of the trial but he had no evidence to support the suspicions. There is a rule against "fishing for evidence". In short, Johnny must have a basis to believe that the evidence exists and that the evidence must be relevant to the issues at trial. Johnny's barrister also argued that Amber took every available step to suppress the evidence. The fact that she was a witness, and not a party to the proceedings, makes it a little more tricky because the test is that the documents sought against a non-party must be "relevant and necessary". While these 3 words seem simple to understand linguistically, they are fraught with legal difficulties.

[@reginaheath6131]

Agreed

[@tankgirl6446]

She volunteered for CHLA my ass! It was for good PR 1000%

[@TheMistressMindSet]

Uh oh, clip had very quiet sound. 😱🤣 I’ll share the petition again. Let’s get those signatures! 🧐

[@BigBossTV7]

Everyone has a gift or a talent. AH's gift is LYING.

[@hazelwitch61]

Thanks for your due diligence in the case. I want to point out something, mind you I have not read all comments so sorry if it's been raised already. I have worked in non for profit charities in Australia for many years. However I do understand that if a PLEDGE has been made that person is sent out the thank you letter accompanying the letter of thanks will be the PLEDGE as per what you showed BUT what I not heard said or seen is that document being signed. If it is not signed really if a charity wanted they would have a right to claim the PLEDGE. I have not known of any charity making that stand. It is a legal document which should be signed and returned. Just say a person who was living up to their PLEDGE and suddenly died that charity would have a case on any estate. So is the document signed if not I would say from experience that she was never going to follow through. Cheers from South Australia

[@AelleIti]

That judge haven't met every type of golddigger. There are different types but they have one goal in mind, getting someone else to financially support them. She's the golddigger that pretends to be financially independent all while scamming others out of their money with false love and lies.

[@ericelliott227]

Thank you for playing that clip again as it reminded me of something: AH claims to have been volunteering working at the Children's Hospital for a decade. There is no way she has done one minute of that! It goes against her being! AH cares only about AH, period, end of story. She looks down on everyone else, there is no way she could humble herself enough to volunteer anyplace for two seconds! This was just another lie on a pile of lies taller than Mt. Everest.

[@reginaheath6131]

Agreed.

[@Susirajantakaa]

Maybe she first heard about the Children's Hospital over a decade ago, and to her that equals as volunteering 😁 Just like pledge - donate 😉

[@ericelliott227]

@@Susirajantakaa Yes, I think you nailed there. That is how my monster interprets things. To her it is always "well, my friend is a lawyer, doctor, whatever" or she will read a sentence on the internet or someone like a salesperson or something will tell her something and she is an instant expert. She is an expert on every subject in her mind. You should see how angry she gets when she gets called out by anyone who really does know even the basics about something.

[@aum0aumgood]

yes ... a decade of CHLA... pre TheRumDiary proof is where? and post JohnnyDepp May2016 to present ... she even boasted more pr regarding ACLU in heard's gave it all 7 million of JohnnyDepp's charity donated... but stopped Depp direct pays after first 100,000.00$... ... ha...as stated

[@ericelliott227]

@@aum0aumgood Exactly, they never have receipts! JD on the other hand has video of himself visiting the sick children as Capt. Jack Sparrow! Sure, the video was arranged and not spontaneous, but it's still a receipt. AH doesn't even have such a video (receipt) other than her shopping at TJ Maxx or whatever. Somehow, not the same as visiting a hospital with sick children and being able to talk details about it in interviews! Yeah, Johnny has done that as well for the stuff that was not filmed!

[@darrylblanch8463]

"It's all gone". She said that when talking about the "donations" in the Dutch interview

[@SaltStorm007]

Hope you had fun on your holiday💯

[@MyCoachLorraine]

It is acceptable to say I pledged to donate. But that's not what she said she said she donated no confusion there

[@dr.a.995]

She’d been volunteering for “well over a decade” at the Children’s Hospital of LA?! If this statement was true, it sounded outlandishly false. If false, this statement sounded typically false. Anybody prove it? What exactly qualifies as “well over a decade?” To me: 15 years. I cannot conceive this person doing good deeds for a period longer than something measured in a half-hour. One half-hour.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

It wasn't tested in cross examination because it was such an outrageous lie, the other party could not have imagined it was not true. It seems ridiculous that she can away with a lie, because it was so outrageous that the other party couldn't believe it possible. But importantly not filling in the pledge form means she didn't pledge either! Another lie!

[@jamesfoster7160]

What Amber meant when she said "financial independence" was, She spent Johnny's money and kept her own!

[@harmon1286]

Definitely explains her ‘attempts’ throughput several court proceedings to exasperate her generosity with a Veil of Deceit…! Pathetic…!

[@BigBossTV7]

Donate from Latin, means to GIVE. Pledge from Norman root to mean to PROMISE. Two totally different worlds. Thanks for highlighting the utter FAILURE of the UK verdict.

[@Ancientreapers]

7:22 From what I remember hearing she never did those pledge papers with the Childrens Hospital of LA. I was just listening again to the testimony/deposition of Candy Goldbronn (the corporate designee of the CHLA) and it seems to be an open pledge with no guarantees and no time line for installments from Amber.

[@lucysilvestri87]

1 thing I don't understand is that if I remember correctly during the trial, JD was going to donate the $7,000,000 to the ACLU and Children's Hospital himself. Although AH was complaining that JD only wanted to donate that money himself because he would get money back from his taxes. Then she goes onto the show to say she donated that all the money to the ACLU and Children's Hospital and wanted NOTHING!!!!! How do you explain THAT?????

[@jessicawilkerson6294]

It would seem to me that a Judge regardless of whether he may have made a bad judgement call or not, would have the utmost respect for law. One might even think that it would be a priority to correct an unfair judgement that was based upon witness testimony that the world now knows was a lie!

[@dianecharest8365]

He was up against a powerful newspaper. No way was he gonna win.

[@dash5257]

She had the money for over a year BEFORE Johnny sued her. She could have donated it before she got sued. She never was going to give that money away!

[@WaynesWorld69]

So can this be appealed in the UK due to her assumed perjury?

[@cathyleach9064]

BBB has a petition to have the UK case looked at, it's half way down on the description page.

[@WaynesWorld69]

@@cathyleach9064 signed! And chipped in. This needs to happen.

[@razorblade136]

I’ll bet my house that Aturd was spending Johnny’s $$$$$ but still keeping her accounts seperate!!!

[@Korrin1]

The way the pledge is structured is deliberate. It corresponds to approx interest income earned on $7M. After 10 years she would still have most of the principal. Interest income is taxable, but the deduction should offset most of that. This was structured so she could keep the divorce settlement while stating she “gave it away”. It’s deliberate, and there is no way at all she could not understand that.

[@linzi94]

The pledge form only surfaced at the time of the appeal hearing conveniently. It was also printed with the ACLU centenary logo which first appears in 2020. So, if she pledged this at the time of the divorce the form would be from 2016 or 2017 when divorce was final. Further, why did she not just say pledge back at then, why did Musk make payments in her name, why did she fight hard not provide donation receipts? Why did CHLA send her a letter in 2019 asking if she still intended to gift them money?

[@sher568]

Amber did not sign a “pledge form” that would make the pledge donations legally binding.

[@criss8836]

I am financially independent not you, Amber. I pay my house loan, I paid my car. I pay gas and maintenance for my car. I pay for my food and my dog's food. For my clothes, for my drinks. I pay ALL of my bills and taxes. When with Johnny, you never did any of this. Financially indipendent my ass.

[@mattmarkus4868]

My admittedly rather uneducated impression of the UK justice system is that it is weak. How he was found to have committed 12 acts of physical or sexual abuse and therefore allowed to be publicly called a "wife beater" is ridiculous based on what we saw at the Virginia trial, where 7 regular people unanimously agreed that there wasn't a single one that could be believed. Yet one man in the UK said it happened. It made me proud of the US justice system. It actually worked, regardless of all the bullsht you heard.

[@debikaip3699]

Do you think Amber had anything to do with Johnny’s accountant & the missing , 600 million. Do you think they all filled there bank account until they got caught? Who ever was involved & it could be many! I have a feeling that Amber took the money , she made the video in the kitchen the day Johnny found out, the money was missing & Amber laughed at him. 🤷‍♀️ Now she can’t pay anything or anyone because everyone will wonder where all the money is coming from? 🤷‍♀️ I could see this happening!

[@bobcosmic]

No one could have got this wrong meaning someone could have got this wrong ! 😉

[@kimfournier1120]

There is always a first time for everything.

[@TownAndCountryGirl]

there is no way this gal is well read....it's pretty clear she's a high school drop out...both JD and EM were stroking her big time while referring to her as intelligent....news flash....just because she uses a few words with more then 6 letters does NOT equal intelligence....it cracked me up to hear how proud she was of herself using the term non sequitur on one of her recordings of her and Johnny.....ha ha hilarious...when not rehearsed in advance, it's pretty clear she is of average intelligence at best

[@wildkitties4]

Thank you for again explaining this in a way that is easy to understand while still being respectful, even though that is hard to do after so many months of seeing and hearing AH’s side.

[@Vortiporius_]

The important thing of note here is this... She did plan to donate the whole 3.5 Million.... Over 10 years, so not initially. So she could use the divorce money to make financial investments and profit off interest, thus benefitting from the marriage financially.... Smart way to trick the public, but definitely the move a gold digger would make.

[@Vacaiable]

I donate small amounts of money to charity here in Norway. I am allowed to get the tax back on the amounts I donate, so in practice I get about 33% back in tax relief for the donations. However there are limits each year to how much can be tax deducted. That will be why Amber Heard stretched out the pledge over 10 years, because then she could get a tax rebate on the full 7 million, because her ( then ) projected earnings would allow a charitable deduction of 350 thousand dollars a year. This is probably standard advice from her accountant. It is still not true though, that she " donated " 7 million dollars.