Amber Heard fails yet again and ACLU in panic mode

"They did no due diligence!" UCLA in panic mode!

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is in hot water after blindly supporting Amber Heard’s perjured statements. They are now in full on panic mode.

- Advertisement -

Last year Johnny Depp’s attorney, Adam Waldman, revealed that a representative of the ACLU had contacted him after he exposed them for lying about receiving a sizeable donation from Amber Heard. They are now witnesses and possibly defendants in the Depp v Heard defamation suit.

RELATED: Photographic proof that Amber Heard’s assault injuries were fake.

In an interview with The Blast in 2019 Adam Waldman said, “The ACLU, co-conspirators with Ms Heard in her defamation against Mr Depp, also today sought permission to file a ‘friends of the court’ brief. Since the ACLU will be a fact witness, and possibly a defendant in their actual role as ‘friends of the hoax,’ we have denied their request. Ms Heard may have failed yet again in court, but she is succeeding at sucking a number of social movements that have hit rock bottom but are determined to keep digging into her scam.”

ACLU went into panic mode after Adam Waldman exposed them for fabricating documents that claimed that Ms Heard had made a large donation to their charity. After filing a subpoena the ACLU failed to provide receipts for proof of transaction of Heard’s alleged location.

Since Amber Heard testified under the penalty of perjury in the UK court that she had already donated the entire sum of her USD$7 million divorce settlement to several charities, ACLU and other charities that backed her lies are now implicated and may be found guilty of charity fraud and they are panicking after Amber Heard fails to force the VPA to help her out off her situation.

Although Mr Waldman rejected their request for a an amicus brief, they have persisted to demand the court to be heard. However, because they were unable to provide a valid reason for the hearing other than ‘freedom of the press’ their request was denied yet again.

Vera Eidelman, ACLU
Vera Eidelman, staff attorney for ACLU.

The initial letter was sent to Mr Waldman by ACLU staff attorney, Vera Eidelman, and came from the University of Virginia First Amendment Clinic. According to Eidelman’s professional bio she claims to be “protecting freedom of speech in the digital age.”

Jennifer Nelson, staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, escalated the amicus brief request with attorney Ben Chew adding that the brief will focus on Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law

Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organisations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.

Amber Heard, Elon Musk, Ghislaine Maxwell
Amber Heard fails to “fulfil” her promised donations, relies on Musk.

Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued — in this case Amber Heard — makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favourable verdict.

The request for a amicus brief was rejected for several reasons: it was the ACLU who brought this matter to Virginia’s Press Association’s attention, and secondly because of the impact of The Sun DV article that she defended in the UK courts.

Amicus brief request fails: Since ACLU conspired with Amber Heard and lied about receiving donations, they cannot file an amicus brief since they are clearly implicated and will be witnesses or even defendants in the upcoming defamation trial.

Mr Chew fired back at Jennifer Nelson for failing to answer some basic question regarding her request and slammed them for failing to do their due diligence before taking Amber Heard’s side.

“The answer to our question concerned the ACLU would have been most useful to an issue raised by Ms Heard concerning the title of her op-ed. It is disappointing that the VPA chose not to be transparent in that regard,” Mr Chew wrote.

Concluding the rejection with: “But we do appreciate you confirming that the VPA did no due diligent whatsoever prior to taking Ms Heard’s side, and, in particular, did no investigation whether one of the party’s had had previously been arrest for domestic abuse, which is a matter of public record.”

Heard was arrested for domestic abuse against her artist girlfriend by Port of Seattle Police on September 14, 2009, according to Sea-Tac spokesman Perry Cooper.

Heard and her then-girlfriend, painter and photographer Tasya van Ree, got into a heated argument at the airport after Heard allegedly grabbed and struck her ex-girlfriend’s arm. She ended up being arrested and charged for misdemeanour assault in the fourth degree/domestic violence, Cooper said.

- Advertisement -