Forgot your password?

Forgot your username?


Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 127
  1. Back To Top    #21
    Status
    Offline
    Governor HateForTheMasses's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16,111
    Threads
    304
    Mentioned
    1016 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Insufficient evidence for charges in the eyes of police doesn't necessarily mean that nothing happened, does it? (Any legal experts here?)

    Ultimately, I don't know where the truth lies in this situation, and I haven't myself seen all the pics that have come out; however, there was apparently a call, with an associated report, to police at the time of the recent incident. I do agree that the timing is a little suspicious overall... but if she was abused, she was abused. And, I do remember -- vaguely -- the Kate Moss history, so allegations of this sort aren't entirely out of the realm of JD's past history. My inclination is to think AH is telling the truth, regardless of the motivation suggested by her timing, but I obviously wasn't there. I'm interested to see what the video is that apparently (per TMZ) exists. In terms of the timing, it could be that the timing is convenient where AH's giving herself the spotlight is concerned; however, it's also possible that the recent major stressor(s) for JD could have increased his likelihood of being violent, particularly if stress contributed to substance use.

    Where the money is concerned, my understanding is that what she's entitled to by California law in the absence of a pre-nup is not JD's fortune but half of the money that he made during the period of their marriage, up until the point of separation. While I'm sure that's still a large sum, it's nowhere near his net worth (or shouldn't be, anyway). Where the upcoming Alice movie is concerned, would there have been more to be gained financially by delaying separation/divorce proceedings until after the movie's wide release if money were a major motivator? I'm sure there was a lump sum attached to Depp's role, but would there also have been income attached to movie proceeds? I don't entirely understand how these things work in Hollywood. Does anyone have any idea?
    http://www.ibtimes.com/what-johnny-d...imated-2374812

    This says that he's already been paid for Alice. Nice chunk too.

  2. Back To Top    #22
    Status
    Offline
    🎼🎶🎵🎶 Feelin' Groovy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Cruising Altitude
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    11,128
    Threads
    44
    Mentioned
    360 Post(s)
    Points
    13,549
    Level
    40
    The lack of a pre-nup reminds me of Sir Paul McCartney who didn't have one when he and Heather Mills divorced. He remarried afterwards, and declined it with wife #3. I admire his level of romanticism ~ and trust.

  3. Back To Top    #23
    Status
    Offline
    Governor 1979's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,020
    Threads
    11
    Mentioned
    743 Post(s)
    Points
    1,119
    Level
    34
    Thanks for the IBT link, @HateForTheMasses. I hope IBT didn't report that enormous personal net worth of JD's as its clickbait title and lead-in if AH is in fact only seeking what California law entitles her to. Reporting 400 million if the number is a fraction of that strikes me as manipulative, but maybe they've seen documentation to indicate that she's seeking more than the "usual" sum?

    What's still a little unclear to me is which of JD's movies would actually have paid out when. Alice and Black Mass were actually filmed in 2014, before the two were married, whereas the likely even more lucrative Pirates of the Caribbean movie (whichever number that franchise is sadly now up to) was filmed in 2015, having been delayed due to some production issue or other. Regardless, I'm sure the 15-month income number is substantial and likely includes revenue sources beyond those movies he filmed in any given year... I just don't know that any of the specific numbers reported accurately represent of the sum actually in question.

  4. Back To Top    #24
    Status
    Offline
    Governor HateForTheMasses's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16,111
    Threads
    304
    Mentioned
    1016 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Thanks for the IBT link, @HateForTheMasses. I hope IBT didn't report that enormous personal net worth of JD's as its clickbait title and lead-in if AH is in fact only seeking what California law entitles her to. Reporting 400 million if the number is a fraction of that strikes me as manipulative, but maybe they've seen documentation to indicate that she's seeking more than the "usual" sum?

    What's still a little unclear to me is which of JD's movies would actually have paid out when. Alice and Black Mass were actually filmed in 2014, before the two were married, whereas the likely even more lucrative Pirates of the Caribbean movie (whichever number that franchise is sadly now up to) was filmed in 2015, having been delayed due to some production issue or other. Regardless, I'm sure the 15-month income number is substantial and likely includes revenue sources beyond those movies he filmed in any given year... I just don't know that any of the specific numbers reported accurately represent of the sum actually in question.
    Don't get lost in the details. This ones pretty simple. Tens of millions are on the line at the minimum. Whether that be 34.238463847 million, 19.2483726 million, or even 48.4837262 million the point remains the same. The gold digger is seeking a lot of money that she didn't earn.

  5. Back To Top    #25
    Status
    Offline
    Governor 1979's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,020
    Threads
    11
    Mentioned
    743 Post(s)
    Points
    1,119
    Level
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by HateForTheMasses View Post
    Don't get lost in the details. This ones pretty simple. Tens of millions are on the line at the minimum. Whether that be 34.238463847 million, 19.2483726 million, or even 48.4837262 million the point remains the same. The gold digger is seeking a lot of money that she didn't earn.
    Or, she's seeking what she's entitled to by law as someone filing for divorce from someone who earns a lot of money, whatever her reason for filing (which could very well include abuse... or might not). If JD didn't want her to have money he earned during their marriage, he should have asked for a pre-nup; it certainly wasn't his first relationship rodeo. Whether she "earned" it in your estimation is irrelevant because, unless some other specific legal stipulation applies in this case, she earned it according to the law by virtue of being his spouse. So, yeah, it's probably pretty simple.

    As for my questioning the monetary specifics, they largely stemmed from curiosity revolving around something I don't know much about, not to mention plain old run of the mill nosiness, and my specific questions were stimulated by the contents of an article you yourself provided a link to. As I'm sure you can read, I clearly said myself that I'm sure the number is substantial regardless. Er, I mean... I am robot. Numbers... numbers... cannot compute without accurate black and white values... circuit overload... aaahhhhh.

    For the legal crew (if there is one), out of pure curiosity, would the spousal support being sought be based only on the money from the marriage itself, or can it be based on maintenance of standard of living, as well? I don't know how divorce stuff works beyond the limited info reported in some of the articles I looked at in relation to this story, which really only mentioned the 50% of earned income thing.

  6. Back To Top    #26
    Status
    Offline
    Governor HateForTheMasses's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16,111
    Threads
    304
    Mentioned
    1016 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Or, she's seeking what she's entitled to by law as someone filing for divorce from someone who earns a lot of money, whatever her reason for filing (which could very well include abuse... or might not). If JD didn't want her to have money he earned during their marriage, he should have asked for a pre-nup; it certainly wasn't his first relationship rodeo. Whether she "earned" it in your estimation is irrelevant because, unless some other specific legal stipulation applies in this case, she earned it according to the law by virtue of being his spouse. So, yeah, it's probably pretty simple.

    As for my questioning the monetary specifics, they largely stemmed from curiosity revolving around something I don't know much about, not to mention plain old run of the mill nosiness, and my specific questions were stimulated by the contents of an article you yourself provided a link to. As I'm sure you can read, I clearly said myself that I'm sure the number is substantial regardless. Er, I mean... I am robot. Numbers... numbers... cannot compute without accurate black and white values... circuit overload... aaahhhhh.

    For the legal crew (if there is one), out of pure curiosity, would the spousal support being sought be based only on the money from the marriage itself, or can it be based on maintenance of standard of living, as well? I don't know how divorce stuff works beyond the limited info reported in some of the articles I looked at in relation to this story, which really only mentioned the 50% of earned income thing.
    I don't frankly don't care what the law says. I'm looking at the person's character here. She will get the money. Little to no doubt there. Just becuase the law exist doesn't mean it's not ridiculous. Laying there spreading your legs for a movie star shouldn't entitle anyone to millions that they didn't work for. That applies to the vice versa of that too, btw. Same thing with these sluts that intentionally go seeking athletes to get pregnant by looking for that huge child support check. There should be caps applied. Getting laid should never be so lucrative. End of story. If you can convince yourself that getting laid and living with a person for a year is worth tens of million to suit your feminazi agenda then have fun. I'm sort of old school where people should earn what they have.

  7. Back To Top    #27
    Status
    Offline
    Governor HateForTheMasses's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16,111
    Threads
    304
    Mentioned
    1016 Post(s)



  8. Back To Top    #28
    Status
    Offline
    Governor HateForTheMasses's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    16,111
    Threads
    304
    Mentioned
    1016 Post(s)

  9. Back To Top    #29
    Status
    Offline
    Governor 1979's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    4,020
    Threads
    11
    Mentioned
    743 Post(s)
    Points
    1,119
    Level
    34
    My feminazi agenda, @HateForTheMasses? How cute. "What's mine is yours" is actually a pretty old (and old-fashioned) concept, too. It happens to apply, often anyway, in marriage. If people don't want it to, there are legal avenues to address that, which were seemingly not pursued in this case. As for laws around spousal support/equitable division of income, they're appropriately protective in ordinary circumstances, including for, for example, stay-at-home parents and other spouses who don't or can't make equal income but nonetheless contribute equally to the marriage/family. When large amounts of money end up at the table and both halves of the married couple are, presumably, independently well-to-do, those laws can appear ridiculous or can be framed as somehow unfair. At the end of the day, though, they exist with good reason (remember... average people), and wealthy celebrities, if they have 2 brain cells to rub together, need, before marrying, to consider whether they want to risk the application of those laws to themselves.

    Also, when did marriage become solely about sex... which is what you've boiled it down to here? It's not, I believe, intended to be, and, if in this case, it was, again, people made choices and there are consequences to those choices... on both sides. Please spare me the 1000 tiny violins regarding the fate of the "poor" rich person.

  10. Back To Top    #30
    Status
    Offline
    Judiths Anger Translator Rolexus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    At Da Gangsta Pet Club
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    2,223
    Threads
    102
    Mentioned
    290 Post(s)
    Points
    8,037
    Level
    30
    I would fight tooth & nail to help any victim of DV--male or female. What I find curious is how the photos of AH's abuse set a world speed record hitting the press. Think about it--if your SO left visible bruises on your face would the worldwide web be the place you'd post them for the planet to gawk at? I'd be mortified. Luckily I live in a state where DV photos are sealed to protect the victim's privacy until they are entered into evidence in court proceedings. Especially if I was an actress who made a living off my looks. Hollywood is a brutal town but the internet is downright barbaric. It seams as if releasing those photos was a cynical attempt to get the focus of her filing for divorce 3 days after Depp's mother passed away. If he smacked her around, that's wrong, period. But there's something something totally "off" about airing marital problems on TMZ in an effort to trick-or-treat for sympathy. Amber Heard the LAST place you'd find sympathy is on the Internet.

    Johnny Depp ever laid a hand on me I promise TMZ & some Shark in a suit who passed the Cali bar exam would be the LAST place I'd go looking for justice. Y'all know the drill: boat, tarp, power tools, bleach, gator hole. I don't give a shit how much I loved him in "Pirates of the Carribean;" asshole lays a hand on my face & he's going to the bottom of the food chain. But then again Amber Heard has 400 million reasons to publicly drag him thru the mud instead.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Related Topics

  1. Article: Daily Mail: Johnny Depp's Head Made a Cameo in Sunday's Ep
    By Rolexus in forum Not Tomorrow Yet
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 8th, 2016, 10:46 AM
  2. Johnny Depp Wannabe
    By IrishSetter in forum Nick Criticism
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 17th, 2015, 01:28 AM
  3. More S 5 Casting Calls: Logan, Vivian, Michael & Amber
    By Alexandria in forum Season Five
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 7th, 2014, 12:34 AM
  4. Article: Johnny Depp closing 'Alice In Wonderland 2' deal - Tim Burton out
    By Sassenach in forum Movie Buff
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 21st, 2013, 02:52 PM
  5. Z Files
    By lonewanderer in forum Alterna-Universe Zombie Fiction
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 08:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Spoil The Dead is the largest & number one fansite for AMC's The Walking Dead & Fear The Walking Dead, Image Comic's The Walking Dead, and the Telltale Games. Offering spoilers, games, and community to fans & zombie enthusiasts.