It wasn’t her asking for money within itself that was of concern. The list of demands in exchange for her own silence 3 days prior to filing for TRO is one thing. It’s her insistence on living off of Johnny’s dime when she’s arguably in a much better position to escape her abuser than most other people. Before the…

A bit hyperbolic but I stand by the sentiment along with many others who’ve been abused and/or worked with abuse survivors. Staying in a home your unstable and perpetually intoxicated abuser has access to after he just had the biggest emotional upheaval of his life (death of his mother) while having the means to go…

Personal experience, friends, and counselors. Many of which have expressed their own outrage about Heard’s behavior. Keep pretending that you’re “calling me out” on something all you want. Heard’s behavior, inconsistent evidence, and stories are strange. She’d be dead if she was truly abused. She’s an anomaly.

The topic of this article is a settlement agreement that contains an NDA. So I shockingly talk about that topic. I said,”In the context of an NDA, Amber talking about DV first person POV then, yes, it’s a “bad thing”. How on Earth you take that as me saying “violence = good. breaking contract = bad” is ridiculous.

Your assumption I think a potential contract breach outweighs violence is troubling as well.

No, her personality or likability doesn’t mean she can’t be abused nor does her own past DV arrest and charge mean that. Whether she was abused or not her behavior has caused many to question her sincerity. It’s not just me thinking I “know” how survivors should or should not act. Behavioral patterns for survivors and…

I don’t know what that “something” I said may or may not be. It could be just to deny or cut the settlement down. As far as what’s publicly known, they’ve let her alleged breaches of the NDA go unchecked until now. So who knows. There’s a hearing next month. Maybe we’ll find out then.

Fair point. I just wouldn’t be surprised if she had. But we’ll see when the hearing happens next month.

Then again, by your logic, I’ll be skeptical she’s violated the NDA until a court says she has. Except extra skeptical, because we have no details of the terms of the NDA, and she’s had witnesses, bruises and pictures.

A PSA talking about DV isn’t bad. I didn’t mean to imply that if I did. I wouldn’t be surprised if doing one in the way she did had violated their NDA though. She’s obviously speaking from a first person POV and Depp is the only person she has ever (publicly) accused of abuse.

I’m skeptical of her claims, yes. Precisely because she played it out in court of public opinion instead of a real court. Why a person who claimed to fear for their life would run to tabloids instead of police is beyond me. IMO her own behavior has damaged her credibility regardless of what Depp does or says…

Okay, I get what you mean. I wouldn’t imagine talking about DV in general could or would be banned but she was obviously speaking in the first person. She referred going through it in the public eye so it could only be about Depp. The only other publicly known DV issue with her is her own arrest back in 2009. That…

She decided to stick with the court of public opinion. I infer you don’t believe her. Many don’t. I do. Many do. She doesn’t seem to be backing down, and she’s keeping the settlement in the spotlight for as long as Depp doesn’t pay it, though she won’t see anything from it but the tax write-off. It’s a win…

Curious, why do you think the PSA and letter didn’t violate the agreement? I’ve seen some people say that because she didn’t mention him specifically by name. I have a hard time buying that Laura Wasser would allow such a flimsy loophole in the NDA agreement though. She comes from a family of lawyers (specifically…

She would have actually had to have taken her evidence to court instead of People magazine in order to do that.

No “self regulating mechanism?” Well, Jennifer Aniston said Brad was missing an “sensitivity chip.”

She made him out to be an alcoholic druggie, so I assume he is hinting at any chemical delicacies she might partake in. 

Does anyone have insight into Brad’s comment that Angie “has no self-regulating mechanism?” Sounds like Brad is coming up in Round Two a little more aggressively, but that comment is soooo layered. A veiled threat?