Johnny Depp Finally Clears His Name

(Not yet proofed for spelling and grammer, but I promised this post and here it is. I'll correct later tonight).

Last week, actor and musician Johnny Depp finally won his 6 year battle to clear his name of accusations that he physically abused his ex-wife Amber Heard during their relatively brief but very toxic marriage. You can watch the court deliver the verdict here.

Here is Johnny's post-verdict statement of gratitude, issued by his publicist as he remains in Europe touring with Jeff Beck at performances where he is treated by fans to standing ovations.

The jury gave Johnny a home run on all three statements he claimed were false, defaming and made with malice. For each statement, the jury had to answer 6 questions. [More...]

All three statements pertained to Amber Heard's 2018 Washington Post Op-ed in which she did not include Johnny Depp's but it was clear (and the jury specifically found) she was referring to him. The op-ed was in both the print and online editions. These are the three statements:

  • "I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath." (headline to article which Amber Heard repeated in a tweet with the link to the op-Ed) and some other comments which the jury found amounted to a re-publishing of the headline
  • "Then, two years ago, I became 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."
    • The jury awarded Johnny Depp 10 million in compensatory damages and 5 million in punitive damages. Like I said, a home run. The judge later reduced the punitive damages to $350,000. which is the maximum under Virginia's statute.

      As to Amber Heard's counterclaim, she alleged three statements by Johnny's former lawyer, Adam Waldman, were defamatory to her. (She alleged Johnny was liable for them because the lawyer acted as his agent/representative). The jury found Heard did not carry her burden of proof as to two of the three statements -- the jury did not even find the first two statements were false. The lawyer's third statement was found to be false, defamatory and made with malice. (Johnny was held liable under an agency theory, that Waldman was acting as his agent at the time).

      All three statements were made in a single interview with the lawyer that appeared in England's The Daily Mail:

      • Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield, depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sexual violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp. (Not defamatory, even though the word "hoax" is used.)
      • "Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist and then placed a second call to 911. (False, defamatory and made with malice. Emphasis by me as to the parts that could be considered defamatory. They match the police testimony at trial and the admissions of the lawyer as to what he said. The jury did not find the use of the word "hoax" itself to be false and defamatory in the first and third statements, so it has to be the remainder of the quote the jury found false.
      • "We have reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp." (not defamatory, even though it uses the word "hoax").

      On the second trip back to Johnny's apartment, the officers found no evidence of spilled wine, and the place wasn't roughed up. The three women present (Amber, her sister and her former friend Rocky) were not cooperative with the police. Shorter version: There was no evidence the second police visit that night was a set-up by Amber and her friends so only the second statement by Waldman was false and defamatory.

      The jury awarded Amber $2 million in compensatory damages and rejected her request for punitive damages. Her lawyer mentioned her legal fees so far were $6 million. Several media outlets have written that the insurance company for Amber's homeowner policy is covering the fees.

      I am glad Johnny Depp won so decisively. He did not deserve to have to go through this. Not every drug or alcohol abuser resorts to domestic violence. How much money he makes and how he spends it is his business. Not ours.

      The long and short of it in my view is that Johnny's legal team outclassed Amber's legal team and ran rings around them. Amber's lawyers couldn't keep up. They didn't have the same handle on the evidence. Their courtroom skills were fair to poor. The most glaring examples were when Amber admitted under re-direct examination by Johnny's super fast-on-her-feet lawyer Camille Vasquez, that she did in fact write the op-ed about Johnny.

      The second was when Amber's female lawyer Elaine tried to question Amber on re-direct in the counterclaim part of the suit and in rapid fire, Camille objected to about 30 questions as leading, hearsay, irrelevant to issues in the case, lacking foundation, outside the scope of cross, etc. Almost all the objections were sustained. Elaine finally gave up. There are tik-tok videos of the episode, it was so unbelievable that an experienced lawyer got so flustered she couldn't get a proper question out.

      In my view, Amber Heard and her legal team failed miserably. Her lawyers claimed she had a "First Amendment" right to publish the op-ed. That fizzled quick. Amber's continual assertions that she is just a Proud and Patriotic American exercising her rights was a joke, especially after admitting multiple times she struck Johnny. When Johnny Depp's former girlfriend, super-model Kate Moss, testified by video from the U.K. that Johnny never threw her down any stairs when they were on vacation as Amber had testified she had heard, and in fact Johnny was not even in the room but had rushed back in after she fell to help her, I think that sealed the verdict against Amber.

      It is true that public opinion weighed heavily in Johnny's favor starting with his own testimony at the beginning of trial. During Amber's testimony, she admitted punching Johnny. In my view, and this is solely my opinion having watched almost all the trial testimony on You Tube, she came across as unconfident and often non-responsive (no matter what was asked, she would look at the jury and tell them what she wanted to tell them, rather than answering the question like she was supposed to.)

      Amber seemed to me and thousands of others who watched parts of the trial as playing a role -- the victim-- and it came across to me as a performance. The abuse episodes she brought up dramatically increased in number and intensity between when she testified at earlier depositions and at this trial. The "rape by bottle" incident was one such newly disclosed incident -- one for which she denied seeking medical attention. She delighted in filming and recording Johnny, but curiously didn't take photos or selfies of the injuries she claimed to sustain.

      Another instance: Amber had always maintained her first year of marriage to Johnny Depp was "magic" and then in the second year, drinking and drugs turned him into a monster. But during this trial, she said the physical abuse (of which none was proven during the trial) -- being slapped by Johnny -- began during their honeymoon. Inconsistencies in Amber's testimony were everywhere.

      As Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez pointed out in closing, no one other than Amber testified Johnny Depp had ever physically abused any woman, and not a single woman in his 40 year dating history had ever come forward to make such a claim against him.

      Amber's sister and friends were not helpful. Her sister and her former friend "Rocky" lived for years in one of Johnny Depp's LA penthouses, without having to pay rent. At times, to me, they came across like a family of grifters.

      Amber also didn't come off well when she tried to explain why she do what she pledged at the time of her divorce settlement agreement: She would give the $7 million she was awarded to the Children's Hospital and the ACLU. In fact, she gave a fraction of it.

      On Tuesday, a prerecorded deposition from Candie Davidson-Goldbronn, a representative of Children's Hospital Los Angeles, said the organization only ever received $250,000 directly from Heard, in addition to a $100,000 payment made by Depp's money manager as part of her divorce settlement. That's far less than the $3.5 million she had pledged to the organization. The representative said they followed up with Heard's contact about whether to expect any future payments on that pledge and never received a response.

      Earlier in the trial, a representative of the ACLU said the organization only received three payments made in Heard's name, totaling $950,000. They said only one came directly from Heard, while another was from Depp's money manager, and the third was believed to be from Musk.

      Other testimony hurting Amber: The former producer from TMZ who filmed Amber getting a TRO against Johnny in 2016 testified as to how he got the tip and what he was told. He was told Amber would be going to the LA courthouse the next day with her publicist to get a TRO against Depp and that she would stop on the way out so that TMZ could get a photo showing the "bruise" on one of her cheeks. The tip obviously came from Amber's camp, and in fact she did stop and her cheek was photographed. Amber's lawyer accused him of testifying for his 15 minutes the same. He cleverly retorted that he could same she was doing the same thing by representing Amber.

      Another Amber misstep: Maybe she thought a Virginia jury would be all Republican white women. The jury was anything but. She should have dropped her "it's my constitutional right as a patriotic American" argument. She came off like a child of Donald Trump with that line, which she repeated and repeated towards the end.

      Amber's most unpardonable sin, however, again in my view, was her turning her head after being asked every question to answer directly to the jury. I'm surprised his lawyers didn't object. (Camille once told her to stop arguing to the jury as no question was on the table, but I don't recall an objection to her turning to answer every question to the jury. Jurors are spectators, not trial participants. Lawyers question witnesses, and the witness is supposed to answer the lawyer's question while looking at the lawyer -- no one else. Amber's continuous and very distracting turn of her head to face the jury before answering any question made it appear she was trying to curry favor with the jury and it didn't work (and was improper in my view). I'll add a 9th Circuit judge's explanation of why this is improper when I find the case I recently read on it.

      No one expected Johnny Depp to win this case, after he lost a similar case in the U.K. I think there are three reasons for Johnny's win: (1) Johnny was a very credible, humble and thoughtful witness. (2) Amber was a terrible witness. (3) And Johnny's lawyers were in a league of their own compared to Amber's lawyers.

      Johnny Depp brought in lawyers from an internationally renowned law firm with offices in several countries. The ones trying his case were from the firm's Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group . Check out the credentials of Benjamin Chew, the leader of his trial team. Here are the credentials of Camille Vasquez, who has become elevated to "rock-star status" in the eyes of Johnny Depp's fans. (Rightfully so, in my opinion, with one exception: She wrote out her entire closing argument and read it word for word to the jury, rather than just referring to it for the points she wanted to remember to make and speaking extemporaneously. )

      Depp's law firm, Brown Rudnick, issued this press release after the trial, praising the trial team.

      Partner Ben Chew led the BR litigation team, which also included partners Wayne Dennison and Rebecca MacDowell Lecaroz, and associates Stephanie Calnan, Andrew Crawford, Yarelyn Mena, Jessica Meyers, Samuel Moniz and Camille Vasquez.

      Here is the firm's list of all of its partners and associates just in the Litigation and Arbitration section.

      Shorter version: The jury used its common sense in evaluating the different versions of events presented by the parties and witnesses from both sides and found that all three of the defamatory statements Depp complained of were in fact false and made with malice. It awarded Depp 15 million damages and $5 million punitive damages (later reduced by judge to $350k which is statutory max in VA for punitive damages). The jury found Depp's former lawyer Adam Waldman made one defamatory statement with malice to Heard and awarded her $2 million compensatory damages and no punitive damages.

      Congratulations to Johnny Depp. He did what he set out to do: He got to tell his side of the story in his own words to the world. He cleared his name as to allegations of physical abuse. He won.

      Let them both move on. We should all move on too. The only message I find from this case is a welcome one: No one should be deemed credible and able to destroy another person's career based solely on their gender. Everyone deserves their day in court.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Sunday Open Thread: In Other News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2022 at 04:30:23 PM EST

    I haven't been seeing much news (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2022 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    so I guess I'm not as tired of this as others.  

    It was good hearing your version.


    Looking forward to your elaboration (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 07, 2022 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    on the point of a witness's turning toward the jury to give her answers. I thought it was common for trial lawyers (I am not a trial lawyer) to suggest this to witnesses, by framing questions like, "Please tell the jury how ...." or "Explain to the jury why ..." and "Tell the jury, please, what happened next." Obviously, if it comes off as phony, overly rehearsed, or insincere, that's bad tactics. But it never occurred to me that it might be improper.

    A judge in the NDTX (Dallas) (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 01:33:07 AM EST
    named John McBryde has as his trial scheduling order a reminder for lawyers about what they may not do with a witness in front of the jury:

    From his Order in Overstreet v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co,2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197649, or on PACER, Case No. 20-CV-242, on page 15 of his 16 page order titled ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE AND PROVIDING SPECIAL PRETRIAL
    INSTRUCTIONS. It's in the section "Reminder to Attorneys of Procedures To be Followed in Jury Trials" and then the subsection "Questioning of Witnesses:

    (f) There will be no playing to the jury, or currying favor with the jury, such as starting a question with "explain to the jury" or "tell the jury," et cetera, and such as making a special point to look toward the jury while the witness is answering a question or while the attorney is asking a question, et cetera.

    (g) The court prohibits flirting by a party, an
    attorney, or a witness with any member of the
    jury, such as establishing eye contact with a
    member of the jury, leering or otherwise paying special attention to a member of the jury, looking over to the jury after asking a question to see what the jury's reaction to the question might be, or after a witness has answered a question to see what the jury's reaction to the answer might be, or instructing a witness to look toward the jury when answering a question.

    All witnesses should focus their attention on the questioning attorney when answering a question, and should be informed that they are required to do so. In other words, try the lawsuit as if there
    was no one in the jury box.
    Of course, you will be trying to influence the jury by the evidence you offer and the statements you make at the end of the case. (My emphasis)

    This Judge has some odd requirements for his trials: Opening arguments are limited to five minutes per side and, get this, closing arguments are limited to 10 minutes per side! (same order)

    This isn't the case I was referring to initially, as I think that case was from a district court in the 9th circuit, and the  name began with an H, but it appears to have gone down the rabbit hole of my computer and I haven't found it again on Lexis yet.

    It was a better reference because the judge explained why witnesses must not look at the jury.


    Clarence Darrow would be unhappy. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    His closing argument for the defense at the close of the 1932 Massie-Fortescue murder trial in Honolulu clocked in at nearly five hours. And that was not at all unusual for him. He was by most all accounts a gifted orator and a master in the art of the closing trial argument. His rhetorical assault against capital punishment in the sentencing phase of the Leopold and Loeb murder trial in 1924 took him 12 hours before he finally finished.

    Different era (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    Before cell phones, the internet, t.v. and really even radio.

    Juries loved and expected to be entertained.

    The speeches at Gettysburg, except for Lincoln's, were very long affairs as was the custom of the day.


    Historical footnote: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 11, 2022 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    Clarence Darrow's closing argument in the Massie-Fortescue murder trial was broadcast live from Honolulu across the country by CBS radio and other networks. I believe this was the very first time the media was allowed to air a proceeding live from an American courtroom.

    Sadly, what that nationwide audience heard was not Darrow's stirring call for justice for the wrongly accused but rather, an unconscionable defense of lynch law and the so-called white man's code of honor made on behalf of a haughty and privileged heiress to the Bell Telephone fortune and her feckless naval officer son-in-law.

    Thankfully, Darrow's entreaties to the jury fell on deaf ears, and Grace Bell Fortescue and Lt. Thomas Massie were found guilty. Being that this was Darrow's final case and appearance in a courtroom, it was not exactly the liberal lion's finest hour as a trial attorney, it was a dubious way to ring down the curtain on a storied 50-year legal career.

    But as Darrow subsequently admitted in his autobiography, he took the case because he and his wife had always wanted to see Hawaii and of course, Grace's brother offered him a then-princely retainer of $30,000 (plus all expenses) to defend his sister, which is the equivalent in today's money of $$629,570 for three months' work.

    We all have our price, I suppose.


    Darrow was accused of (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 13, 2022 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    bribing jurors in LA.  And decided to go back to Chicago.

    But what stuck with me most was learning he was almost always broke.


    Someone who knew them (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 15, 2022 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    said Darrow hated mankind, but loved his fellow man, while his partner Edgar Lee Masters loved mankind and hated his fellow man.

    10 Minutes (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    Well, that is still too long--for t.v.

    Every case is different. But I would take the time you need.  As long as you are making new points, and the jury is paying attention.  And, I guess as long as the Judge will let you keep going.    


    Interesting observation. I always (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 07, 2022 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    prepped witnesses to turn to the jury, not towards the judge or me.

    Hmm, (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    credibility is everything.

    Some lawyers tend to try to script everything in a trial.  Not possible.

    Let people be who there are.   If that is not good, well then, settle the case.


    But, a very (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    good trial attorney with an international law firm did just that.  

    And it worked, or he won, but who knows if the tactic itself helped or hurt.


    I thought Amber's sister Whitney (none / 0) (#5)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 08:56:27 AM EST
    was a good witness for her.  Had Amber testified like Whitney (not arguing every minor detail) it might have changed things.  

    Now it will be interesting to see what kind of acting roles Depp and Heard are offered.  I'm also curious how this verdict will impact the lawsuit Depp's friend Marilyn Manson filed against Evan Rachel Wood.  

    Great write up!

    Thank You! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 10, 2022 at 01:37:12 AM EST
    I still have to fix the spelling errors. I don't know if I've ever mentioned this but the box to write a post on TalkLeft is no bigger than the comment box. I could probably pre-write the posts in Word or Wordperfect but then I'd have to go back and insert all the links and it's not worth it.

    The site I'm still planning on converting to one day (http://premium.talkleft.com) has a much bigger writing screen.

    Not much of an excuse, I know. Again, thanks to you and Captain for the praise.


    The ACLU has doubled down (none / 0) (#6)
    by ladybug on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    on its support for Amber, and this is most likely where she picked up her free speech argument.
    As the nation's oldest free speech organization, we fight for the freedom to speak out about barriers to gender justice.

    The ACLU may have erred in promoting Amber and the WAPO op-ed before they had all the facts, before any court case had been brought about the domestic abuse, and when they had only Amber's word. But they are doubling down even after this case, and Amber's lawyers are blaming everything but themselves in post-trial appearances. I wonder if this case is ever going to end on Amber's side. But I suspect Johnny will not go after the money he won.  I think it is very unseemly and surprising that Amber's attorney is attacking the jury, among other things, after the verdict.

    The ACLU did not "double down" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    The post you linked was published on May 18, two weeks prior to the verdict. The ACLU defended itself, calmly and factually, against the untrue charges that it had traded an "Artist Ambassador" title for a pledge of substantial contributions, and that ACLU staff had in fact written Heard's WaPo op-ed, which was the subject of the libel suit.
       Policing the strict rules allowing defamation damages only in limited circumstances for untrue factual assertions included in public statements of public interest concerning public figures or matters of general policy concern is very much a free speech/First Amendment issue.

    The "First Amendment" defense is not (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    a jury argument, is the thing. It is a legal argument that has to be made to the judge. The jury is not the arbiter of constitutional law. Pitching it to the jury is just another example of bad coaching by her lawyers (or perhaps disregard by Heard of her lawyers' advice).

    Thank you for this correction. (none / 0) (#13)
    by ladybug on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    This is why I always respect and welcome your comments!

    I think ACLU had to make a statement because their image was tarnished during the trial. Probaby Amber's strongest claim was for her free speech. I would get into more of a discussion about this with you but I am limited in my comments.

    Jeralyn, I wasn't aware of the blog-clogging rule and was not aware I was violating it, but if I try not to be repetitive, would you consider putting me on probation instead? :)


    Reading a closing argument (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    That would lose a lot of impact of directly talking to the jury, one would assume.  

    This is a critique that has been made (none / 0) (#10)
    by ladybug on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    but overall Camille's closing was light-years better than Amber's lawyer Elaine, who was not scripted but meandering. Throughout the trial, Amber was a terrible witness, her lawyers were outperformed, and her evidence did not support her claims. It is interesting that the jury also awarded something to Amber, which suggests they may have been split on some issues.

    Clarence Darrow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    would give closing arguments of six hours or more.  One of his more famous closing arguments lasted 12 hours.

    Tell me those were scripted.

    He was reported to have never lost a jury trial in Chicago.  But LA--different story.  He ran into trouble in LA.


    I think it was Gautama Buddha (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    who first said, never marry a trophy wife (in the parlance of our times) twenty years younger than yourself and proceed to be wasted during most of your time together.

    Then why bother having (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    a trophy wife?

    That said, I would say Depp was at least as much a trophy as she was.

    But I might be biased


    He's gonna be atrophied (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    if he doesn't get his sh*t together with all that partying.

    There will always and forever be only one Keith Richards. They come along rarely.


    You mean (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    it was not true love?

    "When Johnny Depp's former girlfriend" (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    When Johnny Depp's former girlfriend, super-model Kate Moss, testified by video from the U.K. that Johnny never threw her down any stairs when they were on vacation as Amber had testified she had heard, and in fact Johnny was not even in the room but had rushed back in after she fell to help her, I think that sealed the verdict against Amber.

    Well, that's pretty damning testimony.

    Did Heard's lawyers know Moss was going to testify? Did they try to get her excluded?

    From what I understand, (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    (the lawyers here can correct me if I'm wrong), Kate Moss was not scheduled to testify until Heard open the door for her testimony by indicating that Depp threw her down the stairs.

    It is not a good thing when the opposition (Depp & attorney) do a happy dance or high five after you make a statement on the witness stand.


    Holy chit. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 06:46:21 PM EST
    Her lawyers must have pre-researched Moss's side of the story, right? And told Heard not to say anything about it?



    Found it: (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 07:04:25 PM EST
    "During her testimony, Heard tried to explain why she admittedly resorted to violence against Depp, but in the process she made what looks like a costly misstep.

    It was so fast you could have missed it -- but Depp's defense team didn't:

    Heard justified laying hands on Depp by alluding to the rumor that Depp had pushed model and then-girlfriend Kate Moss down the stairs many years earlier.

    Heard testified that in the moment, "I don't hesitate. I don't wait. I just, in my head, instantly think of Kate Moss and stairs.""


    A problem is that Heard appears to have started (none / 0) (#23)
    by ladybug on Wed Jun 08, 2022 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    the rumor herself during the UK trial, as discussed here.

    There were so many inconsistencies like this that it was hard to believe her on more credible claims.


    So she knew it was not true. (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 09, 2022 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    But she still said it in a court of law where she knew everything she said would be tested for truthfulness...

    I read today that Amber Heard's (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    homeowners insurance paid her legal fees. And that OJ's homeowners insurance paid for his civil trial.

    How about the female suing GEICO (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2022 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    b/c she contracted an STD in a car insured by GEICO?

    Wow. I bet whoever manufactured the tires (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 20, 2022 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    also has deep pockets to go after...