Legal Color Commentary with Andrea Burkhart

A common question is whether Johnny is going to be able to collect his judgment or whether Amber can wipe it out in bankruptcy. In this video, we'll discuss the bankruptcy process and the "willful and malicious injury" exception, including the case law that indicates the answer to this question could be more complicated than it seems. 00:00 Intro 01:05 What is bankruptcy for? 02:25 There are many debts that can't be wiped out in bankruptcy 02:50 One of the exceptions is for "willful and malicious" injury 03:19 But malice means different things in bankruptcy and defamation 03:41 A federal case tells us what that means 05:50 The willful and malicious injury exception targets deliberate wrongdoing 06:20 Actual malice in defamation can include reckless behavior 08:18 Bankruptcy uses adversary proceedings to resolve issues about dischargeability 08:47 In my opinion the hoax is enough to prove deliberate wrongdoing 09:18 But Johnny probably wants to be out of litigation for a while Related Asked and Andrea'd videos: What are the Depp v. Heard Appeal Deadlines? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJjTcGkpp4&list=PL8WXX74UtY7-IGSZhuUUk8FSjVA08ApZq&index=1

Hereditary monarchies can seem like a strange system of leadership to those of us (like me!) who live under republican systems of government. But Queen Elizabeth II was one of the rare monarchs who embraced the challenge of being born to a great destiny and accepted both the privileges and the burdens with gratitude and humility. It would have been easy for her to whine about her difficulties or shirk her duty to represent her people, as many wealthy monarchs do, but instead she consistently and resolutely put on her game face to be the Queen every day for 70 years. By rising to the challenge of her destiny, the Queen's legacy is a heroic one, and this is why she has been a unifying figure for people around the world. 00:00 Intro 01:05 Queen Elizabeth II exemplifies what makes a monarchy work 01:22 Elected leadership is grounded in ambition, monarchy is grounded in fate 02:29 Great destinies carry great challenges and tests 03:34 The privilege of birthright is weighed down by burden of responsibility 05:03 We have little sympathy for the suffering of the privileged 06:00 The Queen has borne her own suffering in private for 70 years 07:14 Diverse people around the world appreciate her attitude of gratitude 09:30 Embracing the responsibility of leadership despite the temptations of privilege is heroic 11:49 Her example is unifying because we can all relate to the challenges of fate 13:01 As a monarch, she fused the challenge of fate with the possibilities of ambition 14:22 Great leadership like hers is exceedingly rare - now it's Charles's turn to step up

Asked & Andrea'd: Depp v. Heard appeal - Timelines and status In this "Asked and Andrea'd" series, we'll tackle some of the most common questions posed in the comments on this channel. I've recently received a lot of questions about whether appeal deadlines have been met and whether the appeal is moving forward. Here, we break down the rules establishing the appeal process in VA to see where we're at and what's coming. 00:00 Intro 00:21 The bond amount and what's required 02:35 What Amber and Johnny had to do to get the appeal started 03:13 The "perfection" stage of the appeal 05:14 Calculating the briefing deadlines 05:51 Appeal deadlines are often very flexible 07:22 Team Depp will likely show professional courtesy to new lawyers 08:12 Appeals move at a very slow pace because the judgment is presumed valid

In this series, we looked at Morgan Tremaine, one of the Day 22 "randos" who absolutely obliterated Amber Heard's credibility, and why his testimony might provide the best grounds yet for charging her with perjury. "Spicy Draco" the paparazzi dispatcher from TMZ isn't necessarily who you'd expect to be the surprise hero of a celebrity trial, but in just over fifteen minutes on the stand, he exposed the workings of her DV hoax and drew a roadmap for the perjury case against her. In Part 6, we look at what's needed to charge Amber Heard with perjury: A willing prosecutor, and a provable case. We'll explore the elements of perjury: Willfulness, falsity, and materiality, with assistance from applicable Virginia statutes and caselaw. Morgan Tremaine's testimony made a powerful circumstantial case for perjury, but that might not be enough to convince a prosecutor to pursue it, and California's reporter's privilege is a big barrier to using ordinary investigative tools like subpoenas to look for documentary evidence. So, even though Morgan Tremaine's testimony unmasked her as a liar, Amber Heard will still probably skate, which sends an unfortunate message about the value of integrity in the justice system. 00:00 Intro 00:41 Everyone is wondering why some people are allowed to lie with impunity 01:05 Charging decisions are political 03:13 How to prove perjury in Virginia 03:24 Aside - one definition of perjury explains a lot of Amber's testimony 05:31 The definition that applies in light of Morgan Tremaine's evidence 06:37 Examining the "materiality" element in Virginia cases 11:00 Proof challenges: A falsifiable statement is needed 12:55 If Amber transfered the copyright to TMZ, she knows she was lying 13:13 It's material because it's a lie about perpetrating her abuse hoax 14:24 What we got from Morgan Tremaine is a circumstantial case 15:12 So why can't they subpoena proof of the copyright transfer? 16:18 About reporter's privileges 17:44 California's reporter's privilege is constitutional 20:15 It protects any unpublished information, not just the source 21:31 This is why we still probably won't see the perjury charge 22:27 It's a shame because accepting lies undermines the institution of justice Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvFpDUmd5mY&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=1 Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaYO119405w&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=2 Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_DTt6bOOWc&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=3 Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UTu6LIJCx0&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=4 Part 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_My4Xc4eM8s&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=5

Was Elaine fired, or did she withdraw voluntarily, or was her removal mandatory? Elaine's exit wasn't exactly "noisy" but it wasn't silent, either. Amber might try to blame Elaine for her trial loss, but the appellate court won't entertain that. There was no requirement to announce it, so what does it mean that they made her termination so public? We'll look at rules setting forth ethical requirements for both mandatory (must) and permissive (may) reasons for a lawyer to terminate representation of a client. What are those requirements, and do we know which one applies here? Finally, we have to give Elaine credit for that very quiet word choice that spoke very loudly in the context of her exit. 00:00 Intro 00:20 Elaine's statement is noteworthy because it doesn't need to be public 01:24 The practical effect of withdrawal is small at this point 02:30 When lawyers can get out vs. when lawyers must get out 04:50 The rules say what the lawyer has to do to hand over the case 06:06 We don't know why she got out, but we can speculate! 09:05 But we can infer from the publicity that it's not a friendly split 10:25 Is Amber dumping Elaine to set up an appeal issue over bad representation? 11:00 The Sixth Amendment sets a different standard for criminal cases 13:51 In civil cases, you bear the consequences of your choice of lawyer 16:30 Your remedy for a bad civil lawyer is a malpractice suit 16:52 Quiet withdrawals vs. noisy withdrawals 18:34 Elaine actually pulled off a pretty smooth diss with her "pledge" 20:00 Next up: What Ballard Spahr told us about the potential appeal issues Appeal Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erj8DJhN_a4&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_rW_FtHfvMFW2JQzbKF09P&index=1 New Lawyers, Same Problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5v6R7Mqbpk&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_rW_FtHfvMFW2JQzbKF09P&index=2

Amber hired new lawyers for her appeal, so who are they? Winning an appeal requires a different approach than winning a jury trial. Does this new legal team come to the table with the skills necessary to win? Amber has already signaled that she expects her mountains of evidence to - finally this time - carry her to victory. These new lawyers may have good resumes and legal skills, but do they have the ability to manage a relationship with a world-famous difficult client? 00:00 Intro 00:20 Everything else being equal, it's normal to hire a new lawyer for appeal 02:18 The attorneys she has hired are impressive 03:34 Jay Ward Brown is the main asset 05:36 But even great lawyers lose cases sometimes 06:20 In Wynn v. Press, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected his fair report privilege argument 09:57 Brown has a different legal challenge with actual malice than his usual media clients 11:51 It's harder to win on actual malice when there's evidence of knowledge of falsity 13:51 Representing the original source is harder because the source has personal knowledge 14:27 Ballard Spahr statement: We're in it to win it 15:40 Amber has always had a better chance with the law than with the facts 16:15 But the second statement is still hung up on "new evidence" 17:18 Appeals are about review, not relitigation 18:17 Two statements reveal conflicting strategies 19:46 I wonder if Jay Ward Brown is ready for this client management challenge 22:00 Some future videos on the appeal I'll be working on Appeal Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erj8DJhN_a4&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_rW_FtHfvMFW2JQzbKF09P&index=1

In this series, we're going to look at Morgan Tremaine, one of the Day 22 "randos" who absolutely obliterated Amber Heard's credibility, and why his testimony might provide the best grounds yet for charging her with perjury. "Spicy Draco" the paparazzi dispatcher from TMZ isn't necessarily who you'd expect to be the surprise hero of a celebrity trial, but in just over fifteen minutes on the stand, he exposed the workings of her DV hoax and drew a roadmap for the perjury case against her. In Part 5, Spicy Draco drops his killing curse on Amber Heard. The lethal spell comes in the form of a kitchen cabinet video, but the magic is in the story of TMZ obtaining the *copyright.* Because Amber filmed herself making the video, she is indisputably the original copyright holder, meaning that TMZ could only have obtained the copyright from her, and her claim - under oath - that she had nothing to do with it is necessarily a lie. Although Elaine has learned to be more efficient with her cross-exam by day 22, she badly overestimates the power of her counterspell and is leveled by Morgan Tremaine's superior wizardry. 00:00 Intro 00:53 How TMZ got the kitchen cabinet video is not hearsay 02:40 Morgan knows Elaine is struggling, rubs it in 04:19 TMZ puts indicia of copyright ownership on the video 06:07 Telling the story of how the copyright is acquired 10:16 TMZ owning the copyright is devastating to Amber, so let's talk about it some more 10:57 What story do the edits to the video tell? 15:20 Elaine opens weak with cheating implications that don't land 18:08 Team Depp misses the objection 20:00 Elaine's "fame" attack ricocheted back on Elaine, and everyone rejoiced 22:29 Missed the objection again, but the answer doesn't matter 23:35 Elaine wings it, composes terrible questions 27:15 Elaine closes with the only question she should have asked 30:19 The testimony is over - Up next: Talking perjury charges Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvFpDUmd5mY&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=1 Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaYO119405w&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=2 Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_DTt6bOOWc&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=3 Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UTu6LIJCx0&list=PL8WXX74UtY7_Izz_bvEJH_7HFTedRgjtr&index=4

In this series, we first analyzed the Virginia law surrounding public access to court documents, and explained that if Amber Heard thought that the things filed in the court would not be made public eventually, then she may have been ill-advised. After taking a first look at the 6,642 pages of documents unsealed by Judge Azcarate on July 13, 2022, now we'll dig deep and find out what's new, what's logical, and what's spin. All unsealed documents are available for download here: https://andreaburkhart.com/documents (References in this video correspond to the document numbers on that web site.) In this episode, we identify the new evidence revealed in the unsealed documents that have a meaningful bearing on the issues at trial. Did some of the new evidence support Amber's story and make it more beefy? What additional facts did we learn about some of the most central events in the Depp v. Heard saga, including the "bathroom incident"? Along the way, we'll explore how the takeaways from the unsealed files include not just new facts and evidence, but new insights about why Amber treated Johnny the way she did. And, we'll see that the pattern of pain may have started even sooner than we knew. 00:00 Intro 00:52 Distinguishing facts and arguments 01:32 Example - argument that Johnny modified photos 03:28 New evidence about Stephen Deuters texts favors Amber 06:25 Forensic evidence indicates the texts were authentic 07:02 But new evidence also undermines Amber's version of the Boston plane incident 07:58 New transcript reveals Amber admitted Johnny didn't kick her on the plane 09:27 Jennifer Howell gave new insight into background of childhood abuse 12:33 Sept. 2016 argument transcript contains new admissions of violence by Amber 14:59 Transcript shows Amber blaming Ambien for the violence 16:19 Amber mocks Johnny for having feelings of his own 17:30 Amber told all the ob/gyns, but doesn't know their names 20:20 We learned what pathologist Dr. Collins would have testified to 23:45 Amber's PR campaign may have started much earlier than we knew 26:48 Next episode- how the media smear merchants are misinterpreting the unsealed docs Part 0 - Unsealing Confidential Files - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnHxH37gBc&list=PL8WXX74UtY78-Jxr5iShQALmp8We44SBl&index=1 Part 1 - First Look - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lEHIq2UK4&list=PL8WXX74UtY78-Jxr5iShQALmp8We44SBl&index=2 Part 2 - Verdict Unshaken - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEj1p09mM0k&list=PL8WXX74UtY78-Jxr5iShQALmp8We44SBl&index=3

In this series, we first analyzed the Virginia law surrounding public access to court documents, and explained that if Amber Heard thought that the things filed in the court would not be made public eventually, then she may have been ill-advised. After taking a first look at the 6,642 pages of documents unsealed by Judge Azcarate on July 13, 2022, now we'll dig deep and find out what's new, what's logical, and what's spin. All unsealed documents are available for download here: https://andreaburkhart.com/documents (References in this video correspond to the document numbers on that web site.) In this episode, our analysis of the unsealed files begins with answering the basic questions: Was the process fair? Do we see any indication that Amber Heard's complaints about the trial have merit? Is the jury verdict in jeopardy on appeal? Do any of these documents contain information that, had the jury known about it, would have probably changed the verdicts? 00:00 Intro 02:22 Amber's appeal doesn't look any better than it did before 04:02 Therapist notes not in the record, then not arguable on appeal 05:51 Excluding the UK judgment - just one dude's opinion 07:29 But we saw even more logical flaws in the UK judgment 11:58 "Mountains of evidence" excluded? Johnny had more limitations 12:21 Dr. Curry didn't get to do the interviews that Dr. Hughes did 14:02 Elaine opposed cameras when it would expose Amber's lies 15:30 No new indication of jury misconduct 15:55 Who poisoned the atmosphere, Elaine? 17:44 Any cloud on the verdict is dispelled by transparency 20:03 Johnny pushed for transparency from the beginning 21:34 Next video we'll identify the important new facts and new evidence Part 0 - Unsealing Confidential Files - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnHxH37gBc&list=PL8WXX74UtY78-Jxr5iShQALmp8We44SBl&index=1 Part 1 - First Look - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lEHIq2UK4&list=PL8WXX74UtY78-Jxr5iShQALmp8We44SBl&index=2