Connect with us

U.S.

Trump Curse Comes Back For Depp: Ex-Lawyers Sue Him Back

Published

on

(Via Deadline)

Still wrestling in the courts with his former business managers over millions, home foreclosures and claims of excess, Johnny Depp now finds himself at the legal receiving end of one of Hollywood’s biggest lawyers in a $30 million sword fight that is sure to take some of the cheer out of his Christmas.

Less than two months after the thrashing Pirates of the Caribbean star dragged his old attorney Jacob Bloom and his Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette Feldman Schenkman & Goodman LLP firm into the battle with The Management Group with a malpractice suit, the lawyers have sued back.

“Bloom Hergott has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, to the extent the parties’ fee agreement is not enforced and Cross-Defendants have not paid the reasonable value of the legal services that Bloom Hergott provided to Cross-Defendants, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest,” said a cross-complaint from Bloom and the firm filed last week in LA Superior Court against Depp and his corporate entities. The firm provided Depp with legal representation for decades and up to July of this year, according to the cross-complaint.

Claiming that there never was a “statutorily prescribed written contract” with his long time lawyer, Depp’s October 18 suit declared that “instead of protecting Mr. Depp’s interests, Defendants engaged in misconduct for their own financial benefit and violated some of the most basic tenets of the attorney-client relationship, all to Mr. Depp’s serious financial detriment, causing Mr. Depp substantial economic harm.”

At the same time as launching their cross-complaint, Bloom and his firm have also answered that scathing accusation by basically pronouncing the actor his own worst enemy. “The events and happenings alleged in the complaint, as well as ensuing injuries and losses, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence, fault, and misconduct of Plaintiffs and/or their agents and representatives (whose acts, conduct, and/or omissions are chargeable to Plaintiffs),” said the now canned Depp attorneys to the seemingly financially tight Murder On The Orient Express cast member.

Johnny Depp’s DC-based lawyer Adam Waldman did not respond to request from Deadline for comment on the latest sets of filings.

While a further dunking for Depp, the cross-complaint and response shouldn’t be that big a surprise, as back in late October reps for Bloom and the firm said that they saw things differently than “Mr. Depp and his counsel on the law and the facts, and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.”

It also follows the pattern of the TMG dust-up after the actor first sued his old long time biz mangagers in a $25 million lawsuit back in January.

Soon afterwards, TMG filed a cross-complaint of their own against Depp in response to his suit that proclaimed that the actor’s spending habits were the real cause of his apparently shrinking bank accounts and he owed them over $500,000 in unpaid commissions. As the second of many shots the two sides have taken against each other since, that cross-complaint damningly detailed an opulent lifestyle of homes all over the world, lavish art collections, cars, boats, plus the $3 million Depp spent to launch the ashes of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson out of a cannon in 2005 and the $2 million he pays out every month on day-to-day expenses.

As the bile blew in both directions, TMG brought out a big cannon on November 8 and filed an action for judicial foreclosure against Depp. The dramatic move was to force the sale of five City of Angels properties owned by Depp run trusts to help repay a $5 million loan that TMG claim they made to the strapped actor in December 2012.

Right now, the next benchmark in this matter with Bloom and his firm is a case management conference pencilled in for March 16, 2018. However, if the love of litigation that this case and the TMG case has shown, is any roadmap, expect more paperwork salvos to be shot across the respective bows before then.

Jacob Bloom and his firm are being represented in this dust-up with their ex-client by Kurt Peterson, Peter Kennedy and Matthew Wrensahll of LA’s Reed Smith LLP.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Iowa

“Despite What You All Think”: Nearly $150 Million in New Water Commitments Follow Reynolds’ Defense of Iowa’s Record

Published

on

Gov. Kim Reynolds defended Iowa’s water-quality efforts and the stewardship of farmers during a May 1 press conference. In the weeks that followed, the state and federal governments committed approximately $148.3 million in clearly identifiable new water funding and financing.

During a May 1, 2026, press conference announcing Iowa’s “Farm to Faucet” proposal, Gov. Kim Reynolds pushed back when reporters questioned the condition of Iowa’s water.

“Despite what you all think,” Reynolds told the group of reporters before defending Iowa’s investments and arguing that farmers care about protecting their land because they intend to pass it down to their children.

The governor’s defense came as Iowa continued confronting concerns involving nitrates, lead pipes, PFAS contamination, aging treatment facilities and rural water infrastructure. Reynolds announced what her administration promoted as a nearly $320 million water-quality package spanning 12 years. The proposal was signed into law on June 1 and took effect July 1.

How Much of the $320 Million Is Actually New?

The nearly $320 million headline does not represent $320 million in entirely new state spending.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s own announcement states that the legislation works partly by “re-directing existing dollars.” Approximately $76 million can be clearly identified as new or additional state funding:

  • $52 million over 12 years for conservation practices in the Greater Des Moines watershed.
  • $6 million over 12 years for additional water-quality monitoring, based on an additional $500,000 annually.
  • $8 million as a one-time investment in drinking-water and wastewater treatment grants.
  • $10 million to establish the Rural Iowa Infrastructure Bank, which will provide low-interest loans for smaller communities.

That equals approximately $76 million in clearly new state commitments—about 24% of the administration’s advertised $320 million package.

Another $25 million is designated for Central Iowa Water Works to expand nitrate-removal capacity. However, the state says that money will come from the existing balance of an underused program, meaning it is redirected funding rather than an entirely new appropriation. Other portions of the $320 million package similarly involve restructuring existing water-excise-tax revenue and moving money between programs.

More Than $72 Million in Federal Support Followed

Separate from Reynolds’ state package, federal agencies announced approximately $72.3 million in water-related funding and financing for Iowa after her May 1 comments.

The documented federal commitments include:

  • $46.116 million announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 20 for identifying and replacing lead service lines.
  • $9.457 million announced by the EPA on May 19 for PFAS testing, planning and treatment projects in small or disadvantaged Iowa communities.
  • $344,000 announced on June 26 for small and rural drinking-water systems.
  • $16.373 million announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for rural Iowa water infrastructure, including new wells, a treatment plant, a water tower and pipelines. Of that amount, approximately $15.5 million consists of loans and $874,000 consists of grants.

The federal money addresses several different problems, including lead exposure, PFAS, insufficient rural water supplies and aging infrastructure. It should not be presented as though every dollar directly addresses agricultural nitrate runoff.

The Combined Total

Since Reynolds’ May 1 remarks, the clearly identifiable commitments are:

  • New state funding: approximately $76 million
  • Federal funding and financing: approximately $72.3 million
  • Combined total: approximately $148.3 million

These numbers represent appropriations, allotments, grants, loan funds and financing commitments. They do not mean that all $148.3 million has already been spent or that the projects have been completed.

The state portion is also spread across as many as 12 years, while several federal awards will flow through state or local programs before construction begins.

Still, the scale and timing of the investments matter. Reynolds told reporters, “Despite what you all think,” while defending Iowa’s water record. Yet within weeks, her administration signed a major water package and federal agencies committed tens of millions more to Iowa’s lead pipes, PFAS contamination, nitrate-treatment capacity and struggling rural water systems.

Investment is welcome, but the funding itself demonstrates that Iowa faces real and costly water challenges. The final measure of success will not be the size of a press-release headline. It will be whether nitrate levels decline, unsafe pipes are removed, rural systems become reliable and Iowa residents can trust the water flowing from their faucets.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Safe Elections By Any Means Necessary

Published

on

Continue Reading

U.S.

Populist Wire is Back

Published

on

Populist Wire Website is Back!

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.