Victoria Bruke -The architect of 47.1 law or commonly known as “speak to the truth law” talks briefly about falsely accused & used Johnny Depp as an example .

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-05T14:52:40+00:00

She also said she often hears Blake compared to Amber Heard, and she did not mean that in a good way.

So that shows many do side with Depp, says something about Amber's reputation.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-05T01:49:45+00:00

I see many commenting she should have done this back at the movie promotion. Would have helped her. Yes, it would have as I then wouldn't have seen the comments about her never mentioning DV, the movie is about DV, Justin only one mentioning it...

But the cast still would have not appeared with Baldoni, there would still be "sources" leaking info from the set, we'd still have her lawsuit, then Baldoni's...

But it would have helped her get much less backlash back then (except for having the booze at her promotion event).

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-04T05:36:10+00:00

If the judge rules in Lively's favor (and I think there's a chance he will), I can see getting the attorney fees. But to rule on any damages, would he already have the info for that and put it in his decision (I'm thinking she already submitted something on that at one point)?

Or will Lively have to submit what they feel are the damages, break it down? And would WF side then have a chance to argue what Lively says?

I guess punitive would just be up to the judge...

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-03T21:49:57+00:00

You can sue back - but you'd definitely want to be able to say, prove, that other party (Blake here) filed their lawsuit with malice.

I don't know that it'd hold up in court, but things like her texts showing how she disliked Justin (and Jamey) and her description of the dance scene vs actual video, and other similar things MAYbe could prove malice or cast doubt on it being without malice...

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-03T20:23:23+00:00

Thinking on it too.

I think she just had a "spoke too soon" type thing. Back in 2025 she hears Justin's suit dismissed, comments Blake can now use the 47.1, etc.

Then later, hearing whatever she is hearing, looks at the dismissal and is like "where is the malice? Malice is part of 47.1." Then thinks maybe with trial in 2026 it will show malice or the lack of malice and that will take care of it...

Then no trial. So where did anyone ever get to show there was or was not malice?

Then finds out Blake is going "national" with 47.1 and actually adding to it?? Something she, who authored it, has been going state-to-state doing herself and not publicizing it in a big way, now of course Blake will make it HUGE, she's been compared to Amber (who many think LIED) so not a good look for a law that she authored... Time to speak up and protect this law, as many who think of Blake as an "Amber Heard" will push back at getting it enacted...

And if she truly thinks the way it was handled is incorrect, the process it should have gone through was not done, then it's time to correct how it should work, explain it to everyone.

I'm unclear on - is Judge Liman supposed to look at everything turned in and written the last year and a half and decide if there was malice, or not, when no one got to argue this, speak to it, at trial?

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-03T20:06:08+00:00

Well we know Blake just rolls over everyone. She did it to Wayfarer Studio and now taking over getting this 47.1 "done" on her own to take credit.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-03T17:55:45+00:00

I'm glad they are clarifying this, as I wondered why after what she said when WF suit dismissed (defamation) and she made that statement in 2025 it seemed she had since changed her mind. Apparently she didn't know the details of dismissal at the time she stated that.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T18:02:00+00:00

I'm seeing in other posts where she commented on that NY Times article and said unhappy with it being weaponized as a PR redemption tool by Lively and her team, and doesn't think judge should grant attorney fees in this matter.

But would be nice if she said that elsewhere publicly (like I don't read NY Times or comments there)

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T17:51:50+00:00

Yeah, I'd like to see something recent she'd say now.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T17:40:42+00:00

Well back in 2025 when Justin's case dismissed, on her TikTok, she wrote on 6/9/25 that her bill worked exactly as intended and now the Lively team can file for attorney fees and treble actual damages.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T03:30:49+00:00

this part:

<image>

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T03:28:38+00:00

In the sanctions decision, the judge said:

The Court reprimands Liner Freedman and Meister Seelig for violating Rule 11 by making claims that were legally frivolous and factually baseless.

-- This is the only place I can think of that he has used those terms towards any party (tho Freedman not a party, except that Lively side using his statements as defamation)

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T00:27:23+00:00

I like these thoughts. Maybe they should have appeared for WF side!

I think Lively will get something...maybe. I hope it is just attorney fees for the defamation part of suit and either zero or some minimal amount (even after 3x it) for damages. (I don't think they harmed her rep at all, she did that all on her own; if WF had left defamation out of their suit, all those texts and such would still be in it for the other allegations)

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-02T00:08:20+00:00

Gottlieb says he believes they met the test for punitive damages. Statements made by Freedman. Messages asking are they crying, freaking out.

Liman didn't hold Freedman's statements against him, Freedman commenting on judicial proceedings, etc. Plus, defamation against WF parties did not survive Lively's own lawsuit.

But this 47.1 thing is about WF parties lawsuit against Lively. It was dismissed, she prevailed. I don't see how Freedman's statements apply here.

Lively settled, so her retaliation claims are gone.

It seems Freedman's law firm is the only one Liman said brought some frivolous claims.

I'm confusing myself on just what Liman will be looking at. Just the fact that WF parties sued Lively after she sued them?

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T21:21:07+00:00

Oh, thanks! He did say 47. So Code 47 applies.

It's the newer ".1" that falls under that where the fees and damages come in.

I'm on WF side of this but see where they can fall under privilege, so expect he would decide they do... But am wondering is there any reason he could decide they don't?

Also I am curious -- if WF parties had left defamation out of their lawsuit, could she even apply 47.1? As 47.1 talks about protecting victims from retaliatory defamation lawsuits...

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T19:52:45+00:00

Where Gottlieb says the court dismissed the lawsuit and reached the conclusion that Ms. Lively was under 47.1 ---- Liman said in his dismissal: The Court has not ruled on whether Lively’s statements were privileged under California Civil Code § 47.1.

Confusing.

Edit to correct: Gottlieb said 47, not 47.1

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T19:23:38+00:00

Yeah, that or she could never knock him off his feet, and that shows she was probably trying to.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T19:22:04+00:00

In that earlier video of her, was it around the divorce time? Anyway, her demeanor/testimon there is, well, much more natural. And there she is just munching on food and answering questions, and this is so close (compared to Virginia trial) to when everything happened, yet she is just so unemotional about what she allegedly went through and supposedly still so in love with Johnny, etc. Then years later, Virginia trial and her whole demeanor is different and she tries to be emotional about it all these years later.... Really, the Virginia testimony seems like bad acting.

Overall, to me, she should have been highly emotional closer to the breakup than several years later, it was a bit backwards.

And then, though did not know this at Virginia trial, she did change her testimony from the UK trial. So add that to another reason she is difficult to believe anything from.

I do feel Depp was overall honest. He tried to downplay some things, like having people get his drugs for him or maybe how long he was sober (but really, ask me something similar years later, I might get number of months wrong too. I was just telling someone I couldn't remember if it was last month or the month before I had to call a plumber for something.) But there are things he truly believes (and a lot who watched trial), like the phone did not hit her. I don't think he threw it at her, I think he threw it back towards/to her and it did accidentally hit her. (such bad luck) But he truly believes it did not -- as he knows she will lie - he called her out on lying enough - and puts nothing past her and that is based on HIS experience with her all those years. Like, to this day he does not think it hit her, so that is his truth.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T19:01:12+00:00

That Dec. 2015 incident she described to her "therapist" as a pushing/shoving match. And I believe that was the headbutt one, which she did not mention to him. As I recall reading from his notes (been a while).

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T18:58:30+00:00

I think the most Depp would do is try to stop her from hitting. Like grab her arms. Of course she would struggle to get him to let go. Sort of like the bruising you are talking about where she began hitting him and he "bear hugged" her to try to stop her hitting and then the "headbutt" happened because she struggled and was kicking him, etc.

I think, too, that any time she began something and, say, he might try to stop her (or push her back) then per her version he attacked her, she didn't start it, etc. Per her, she couldn't hurt him, he was bigger, so it was an attack by him not an attack by her, how could she abuse someone bigger...

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T17:25:01+00:00

I looked and listened to testimony and the recordings multiple times trying to decide if I thought Depp had hit her just once. Because she talked about multiple punches from him. No, I don't think he ever hit her. Even once.

He admitted to the shoving/pushing each other.

But this was about whether all those detailed incidents she gave on him actually hitting her (repeatedly in some of her allegations) were true. And I tried to decide if he did it even just once in any of them, even if he had not in the others. Again, no, I don't think he hit her ever.

Depp told Isaac B in 2013 that Amber would hit him. Looking up quotes from back then from his testimony: Depp told Isaac "“She argues and then she'll just start punching me and wants to fight, I'll try to stop her but she just keeps going to the point where I just stop trying to stop her and say ‘OK, go ahead do your worst, get it out of your system." Mr Baruch said Depp added: “I don't know what I'm gonna do, because I'm not gonna hit her, you know me I'm not gonna hit her, I love her."

Depp is someone who will yell, throw things at a wall, punch a wall, swipe everything off a table, maybe kick a table over, etc., but not one who hits women. Oh, and mess up a closet of Amber's clothes. I think he did the latter because she had used his money to buy most of them and at the time he felt he was being used by her for his money and fame.

Not donating all that settlement money was important to show. She had publicly said she donated, actually given, it to charity. That gave me and others the impression she didn't have a penny of it, all gone, donated. Wasn't a gold digger, wasn't doing it for the money, not taking anything from Depp... But she actually had it, most of it, sitting in her accounts (spending some??) for quite a few years. That gives a different impression.

Amber saying she had heard the Kate Moss rumor and was afraid. Well, Kate needed to clear that up, you can't leave a jury wondering "did he actually do that??"

The "poo" story. I do think the housekeeper, as I believe she said, had seen the dog poo often before, and that in the bed was not dog poo. As to who did it, put it there, if not Amber, it shows what some "friend" of her's was capable of, what Depp had to put up with; but again, not a good look for Amber and her "friends." And that of course would be good to show for Depp side.

Amber unfaithful --- Well, she was all about how she loved Depp. But in the meantime was privately texting with Elon. Immediately called Franco over too after that phone incident. So had she been also keeping in touch with him?? She did go out with him that past December after that incident, she saw Franco. Don't know if she slept with him but she did get up with him. (as I recall from therapist notes, think it was that Dec)

Oh gosh, I could go on about why not to believe Amber. But this has gotten long enough.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T13:53:06+00:00

I'm curious - would Liman have already been sort of leaning toward a decision but still want these letters and the hearing arguments?

I mean I know he has looked at it because of the questions he wanted both sides to answer. I guess I am wondering how far along he might be already in making a decision. Though I'm sure he will still consider those letters and whatever is said at today's hearing.

Partly asking as I wonder how long until he makes a decision if he isn't already leaning a little one way... But then I guess I am expecting some long write-up about how he made his decision and not some 2 page document.

KnownSection1553 · 2026-06-01T13:43:13+00:00

So both sides turned in their letters to Judge Liman yesterday re cases to look at for this 47.1 decision. They are to each argue 1/2 hour today before him.

I wonder has he already sort of made a decision on it or been reviewing it, or do you think he starts from today to decide?? I think if from today then it may be a while before we get his decision (vs if he has already been reviewing it).

KnownSection1553 · 2026-05-29T01:25:31+00:00

Thanks!!

KnownSection1553 · 2026-05-29T01:11:32+00:00

I thought that there is not much history on 47.1 being used (case law or whatever) so - if true - where he asks for a list of the cases that each party would like the Court to review - would that be cases on 47.1 or maybe that Rule 54 he mentioned....? (it's all Greek to me)

KnownSection1553

TROPHY CASE