Amber Heard under investigation in smuggling case

It looks like Amber Heard may have s**t the bed again as she is under criminal investigation in Australia.

“The 36-year-old actress is the subject of an ‘ongoing’ perjury investigation related to court proceedings stemming from her infamous visit to Queensland with Depp in 2015, when she broke Australia’s strict quarantine and biosecurity laws by failing to declare the former couple’s Yorkshire terriers, Pistol and Boo, when she flew into the country,” the Daily Mail reported. 

“Heard was charged with two counts of illegally importing the animals in July 2015, however the case was closed when she pled guilty to falsifying travel documents in a Gold Coast court in April 2016.”

Australian officials confirmed the investigation of Heard for perjury when she allegedly lied to law enforcement about the circumstances involving the importation of her puppies into the land Down Under.

“The department’s perjury investigation stems from testimony given by a former employee of Depp during his UK libel case against The Sun newspaper in 2020,” the report said. “Depp’s former estate manager Kevin Murphy raised eyebrows when he told the London court that Ms. Heard had ordered him to lie on oath after she flew the pets into Queensland in a private jet without declaring them.” Apparently, lying under oath is something which Heard is familiar.

The critters were supposed to be put in quarantine for ten days. When it was discovered that never happened, the couple was given three days to get the dogs out of Australia or they would be killed.

“Heard eventually pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of falsifying an immigration document and accepted a fine of 10,000 Australian dollars ($7,650) after her lawyer, Jeremy Kirk, insisted that the paperwork for the dogs had ‘slipped through the cracks’ and that there was ‘no attempt to deceive,’” the report continued. “Heard’s version of events went unchallenged until July 2020 when Depp’s former estate manager told London’s High Court in a written statement that he had repeatedly warned the actress about Australia’s strict animal entry rules.”

Wow, payback is a bitch.

Murphy said in the statement to the court that he had repeatedly told Heard “that trying to take the dogs into Australia without completing the mandatory process was illegal and could result in very harsh penalties including euthanizing the dogs.”

Murphy said that the untalented actress demanded that he lie about the incident after it became a problem and she alluded to threatening his job if he refused.

“When I expressed that I was extremely uncomfortable with this, Ms. Heard said to me ‘Well I want your help on this … I wouldn’t want you to have a problem with your job,’” Murphy stated she told him. “It became very apparent that Ms. Heard was threatening my job stability unless I cooperated with providing a declaration that supported her false account for the Australian proceedings. Because of this I felt extreme pressure to cooperate, despite knowing this would involve being untruthful.”

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

Murphy said that he had been contacted by the FBI about the matter and agreed to cooperate with Australia’s criminal investigation.

So Amber initially going after Johnny has apparently had a boomerang effect on her.

Tweet

ACLU wants Johnny Depp to pay Amber Heard's legal expenses:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with the oxymoronic name, demands that Johnny Depp, the winner in the case against his lying ex-wife, Amber Heard, pay the legal expenses  it incurred during the defamation lawsuit. It's like asking a shooting victim to pay the shooter for the bullet.

Radar Online reported that it obtained court documents that show the ACLU filed a motion seeking reimbursement as part of the 2021 lawsuit Depp filed against the ACLU. Depp sued the ACLU for records related to Heard.

The newly filed motion asks for $86,253.26 for production expenses from Depp, but he should sue them for writing the hit piece against him in Heard's name in the amount of $86,254.26 just to make a point.

They argue the star should reimburse them for the “considerable expense spent responding to onerous subpoenas served by Mr. Depp from an underlying action in which neither the ACLU nor any of its employees are parties.”

One might imagine that the ACLU does not ask others who request documents from them and they are only doing so because he kicked Amber Heard's butt in the proceedings and the ACLU got caught over the hit piece.

The organization said they had to review 7,500 documents and eventually turned over 2,000 documents to comply with a subpoena.

Also, “the ACLU produced three witnesses—including its Executive Director—for over sixteen hours of depositions. Along the way, Mr. Depp rejected numerous compromises to minimize the burden and expense on the ACLU and its employees.” 

Had they not gotten involved with Heard's case and her promising to pay them $3.5M but only paying them $1.3M [she even lied to them], they might not have been so upset.

The ACLU said it has given Depp all the documents he sought. Their lawyer argued “while they cannot get back the significant time they spent responding to Mr. Depp’s subpoenas and the disruption to their work,” they are “entitled” to reimbursements.

The former civil liberties organization, now an arm of the progressives, had the berries to blame Depp for dragging their butts into court when they initially refused to turn over relevant documents for the case. Depp asked a judge to compel the ACLU to respond to his request for the documents that related to Heard’s pledge from her divorce settlement from Depp to two charities: the ACLU and a children's hospital.

Heard never paid the pledge, though, and the ALCU officials ended up testifying in the trial. Now they want reimbursement for time taken to prepare and submit the documents in spite of the ordeal being entirely her fault. Had she not lied to the charities, Depp would not have any reason to prove her a liar. if anything, they should be suing her, but they know she's broke and may have lost future work as a terrible actress.

Ironically, Johnny was one who helped Heard out when she decided to not honor her pledges, at least not yet, due to the lawsuit he filed against her.

At the time, Heard said all the money would be donated by 2018. While on the stand in the ongoing trial in Virginia, a representative for the ACLU said that Heard only paid $1.3 million of the promised $3.5 million.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s general counsel, Terence Dougherty, testified that $100,000 of the $1.3 million slice came directly from Depp. The Guardian reports that, based on an email from Elon Musk, the court was told that $500,000 came from a donor-advised fund connected to Musk yet registered as a donation from Heard.

While on the stand, Amber Heard admitted she had yet to fully make the payments but said she had every intention of fulfilling her pledge. She blamed Depp and the current case but the timeline shows that her promise to pay was long before the current case was filed.

It's laughable that the ACLU acted as if they were inconvenienced and surprised that they were called to testify. They were up to their necks in the case ever since their staff help Heard write the op-ed in the Washington Post in 2018. That was the reason Depp opened a case on Heard in the first place.

ACLU refused to voluntarily hand over documents pertaining to the case, so Johnny Depp asked a judge to to legally compel them to respond ~ his motion was granted.

Now the ACLU wants Johnny Depp to reimburse them $86,253.26 for time taken preparing & submitting the docs.

Nuts. pic.twitter.com/GEt0orh3fi

— Greg Ellis 🏴‍☠️ (@ellisgreg) May 31, 2022

The ACLU admitted it helped with the op-ed on its website and that Heard pledged the donation in 2016. In 2018, the ACLU asked the less than mediocre actress to become their ambassador and was asked to work with them on the op-ed to call attention to sexual assault and domestic violence issues, having never verifying that Heard was a victim or a liar about her claim. It turns out the latter was deemed to be true by a jury.

The ACLU denies it offered the ambassadorship to Heard in exchange for her donation, but if you really believe that, I have a genuine Rolex you might want to check out.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

The losers in this case were Amber Heard and the ACLU, an organization that has become a cheap knockoff of what it once was. They used to advocate for free speech and First Amendment rights, but now they want to shut us up for saying such things as 'a man is a man and a woman is a woman.' Now they get involved in political issues and clearly take sides. 

Why did they write the op-ed for Heard in the first place? It was their idea to do that, not Heard's. For the ACLU to try squeezing Johnny Depp for money should tell you who they are and to show Amber Heard as an angry, probably borderline woman with little to no acting ability, try as she did.

Tweet

TN Dem. says "Let's go, Brandon" same as burning the flag

This is truly funny. A Democrat with cognitive dissonance in Tennessee said that the chanting "Let's go Brandon," a code for "F**k Joe Biden," should be equated to setting the American flag on fire. 

So what should be equated with, for example, Robert Di Nero not using code but actually saying, "F**k Trump" and also threaten to "punch him in the mouth?" Burning a federal building? Burning a police station?

And what about Kathy Griffin holding a likeness of Trump's severed head? 

And what Johnny Depp said about blowing up the White House? 

And so on.

Tennessee state Rep. Gloria Johnson tweeted her sentiments on Monday about the anti-Biden chant, that she thought it "should be equal to burning the flag." 

"As a friend said, I think it should be equated with burning the flag, in essence, that’s what they are doing," Johnson hypocritically wrote.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

Johnson added in a follow-up tweet that comparing the anti-Biden chant to burning the American flag was "not a legal take, it's a person’s opinion. And as a few were smart enough to understand-both are protected speech."

Sure we're smart enough to understand the First Amendment, but Johnson apparently isn't smart enough to understand the irony of her words.

Tweet