…that the MEDIA Doesn’t Want You to Know
Into the History Books — How We Should Really Remember Johnny Depp v Amber Heard
Updated:
Read
. . .
FACT-CHECK GUARANTEE (References): [Official court documents: 3 sources] [Academic journal/website: 1 source] [Government website: 1 source] [Straight from the source: 12 sources] [High authority and trusted website: 1 source]
The media has robbed YOU of the TRUTH, and MALE VICTIMS have LOST the opportunity to be heard.
| By Richard Ahern — I cannot sit back any longer and watch the mainstream media demonize this story and feed vomit-inducing garbage to the public. It’s time to set the record straight!
I hear you saying…
Not another article about that stupid celebrity trial! Aren’t there more important things going on in the world?
You’re wrong.
Anyone who dismisses the Depp v Heard trial as trivial celebrity gossip doesn’t get the point. The social implications of the entire story go far beyond Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
Here’s the problem:
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the mainstream media have hijacked the narrative to portray the verdict as something negative for victims of domestic abuse. “Chilling” was a popular word thrown around on mainstream news sites, with an NBC writer saying the jury told survivors they “should never speak up against an abuser” — this was a common interpretation by the media.
“Whatever you think about the merits of the case,” an op-ed in The Sun wrote, “it does not matter.” The merits of a court case should matter, but many journalists conveniently whitewashed the facts and evidence.
Amber Heard was the “imperfect victim” was another common trope from the mainstream. A baffling concept used to excuse her abusive behavior towards Johnny Depp. Martha Gill for The Guardian said we must support imperfect victims and described them as “Those who were wearing the wrong thing, or were drunk, or were promiscuous, or loved their perpetrator, or had previously broken the law, or had lied before, or had a bad character…” — well, that went downhill fast.
The media has robbed you of an important lesson.
It’s not about who was involved in the trial — it’s the story and message behind it. The social, political, and legal repercussions of Depp v Heard will ripple through the decades — but only if we understand the true moral of the Johnny Depp Amber Heard story.
It was a turning point.
Depp v Heard was arguably the most-watched trial since the O.J. Simpson case in 1995. It’s a rare moment when the general public takes an interest in the legal system; giving this case the power to change society.
If Amber Heard won, this would be about women and celebrating the courage of female survivors. But she lost — the jury ruled she was the evil-doer and punished her with punitive damages. Johnny Depp won — so this is about acknowledging men like him who are often forgotten — male domestic abuse survivors and the wrongly accused.
Depp vs Heard was a godsend, and it would be tragic if we turn a blind eye to the positive precedent it sets.
Let’s fix the record, clean up the media’s mess, and send this case into the history books the right way.
The #MeToo movement was good — But it got Hijacked
Here’s a thought experiment:
Think of a social movement as a pendulum initially set up with a good intention to fix an inequality or injustice. The aim is to move that pendulum to the center — a place of balance and fairness for all.
However, as that pendulum gains momentum, does it stop in the center?
No. It swings the other way.
Power corrupts. As a social movement grows, it starts to attract people who hop onboard for political and financial gain only. They see an opportunity for power and they want more. What was once a movement of good intention is now corrupted by the quest for power.
How do we know #MeToo went too far?
When the phrase “believe all women” became a soundbite — that was when the pendulum of social change had swung too far the other way. The suggestion that women are incapable of lying is insane to any reasonable person.
Johnny Depp is the perfect example of where the movement went too far. When Amber Heard accused him of abuse, despite no criminal charges against him — most people believed her, and Depp was well and truly canceled.
This is what people don’t understand:
Any woman or man who comes forward and says they are a victim of abuse must be listened to, supported, and shown compassion. When it comes to helping the alleged victim, in the form of a sympathetic ear and mental health support — they must be presumed as truthful.
When you go to the doctor and say you are depressed, the doctor doesn’t question your truthfulness — the doctor takes you at your word and treats you. The MeToo movement origin was about helping survivors of abuse heal and providing professionals with the right tools and training to facilitate that.
Don’t take my word for it — this is what the MeToo movement founder wanted …
Tarana Burke, who founded MeToo in 2006, said in an interview that the movement is “focused on what survivors need to start a healing process.” She also said, “it’s not a woman’s movement … it’s a movement for survivors.” Hence the whole “believe all women” sentiment is from radical leftists and feminists who hijacked the movement for their political agenda.
In fact, Tarana Burke acknowledged during an address at the Oxford Union how in the past the notion of believing all women has resulted in the mass lynching of innocent black men.
“We are told that more often than not being have found to be having an affair with a black man, a white woman could say she was raped — this would ensure that the man in question would face a lynching.”
In essence…
We have tried believing all women — it’s a dangerous, backward notion rooted in racism.
That pendulum reaches the center when all survivors are supported with compassion. The pendulum goes too far the other way when we forget the bedrock of a civilized society: innocent until proven guilty.
When a survivor asks for help, we must provide support. But once that alleged survivor accuses someone of a criminal act or broadcasts accusations to the public — another variable has been added to the equation.
Now, we must balance the alleged victim’s rights with the rights of the accused.
Radical feminists are often dismissive of the wrongly accused and say supporting the victim is the only thing that matters. Extreme feminists use the highly gendered argument that men are physically dominant monsters, testosterone flowing through their veins, making them uncontrollable sexual deviants. They argue that women have been the victims of the misogynistic patriarchy for thousands of years.
Like this grating critique of the verdict:
“The institutional forces of patriarchy that favor men — money, lawyers, connections, fame — will crush you,” wrote Cheryl Thomas in the Star Tribune.
Driven by this stereotype comes the assumption that women are always victims and defending any accused man is misogynistic. Depp vs Heard should teach us that the model of women being victims and men being perpetrators is wrong.
Women can be victims, abusers, or liars. Men can be victims, abusers, or liars. That’s what this trial has taught us.
Secondly, this trial has illustrated the great harm false accusations can cause. It’s easy for extremists to argue that being a victim of abuse is far worse than simply suffering a bit of reputation damage. But that man has a family and possibly children who must live with those accusations daily. Johnny Depp testified that his main reason for bringing the lawsuit was for his children, so they don’t have to go through their lives with people calling their father a monster.
It’s not about man vs woman — we are all in this together …
The “believe all women” crowd should stop for a moment and think about their father, their husband, their son, or their male friend. Have they thought about how they would feel when their loved one is branded as an abuser?
Every woman has men in their life that they love. Likewise, every man has a woman in their life that they love.
“...being have found to be having an affair with a black man, a white woman could say she was raped — this would ensure that the man in question would face a lynching.”
— Tarana Burke, founder of MeToo.
Johnny Depp lost millions because of reputation damage. Granted, for him, it’s not about money; he’s a multi-millionaire, but extrapolate that down to the everyday man who has a family to support. If accused of abuse, that man could lose his job, and consequently, his entire family could suffer.
This trial should teach us about the true damage of false accusations.
Reality check:
The justice system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got. Unfortunately, until we have lie-detecting technology that can unequivocally prove who is telling the truth, we must balance the rights of the accuser with the rights of the accused. It’s a harsh reality for real victims that once you publicly accuse someone, they have the right to defend themselves, so you better be able to back up your claims with evidence.
In a case like Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard, like many domestic abuse allegations, it’s he-said-she-said, and unfortunately, the police, the judge, and the jury don’t know the truth — they must find it. In a court of law, your word is not solid evidence when someone else’s life is on the line.
The Amber Heard supporters who claim the Depp-Heard case has set back women are living in an idealistic delusion. They are trying to see the world through a black and white lens where all women are victims.
Life is far more complicated — it’s a million shades of gray.
The justice system works on evidence, and the judge and jury must parse through that evidence and come to the most likely conclusion based on the correct burden of proof. Ultimately, they can never be 100% certain and occasionally get it wrong.
But it’s the best we’ve got.
Does Our Society Hate Women?
The whole world sat with the jury — every moment was captured.
The primary camera that gave the world its eyes to watch the courtroom battle was positioned above the jury — we literally watched the trial from the jury’s perspective.
In many ways, the world was the second jury, and we gave our verdict.
Don’t get me wrong — I acknowledge Johnny Depp has his die-hard fans, who, in their eyes, the man can do no wrong. But for me, and arguably a vast majority of those who took an interest in the trial; we are not fans of Johnny Depp or Amber Heard. I haven’t seen Pirates of the Caribbean — I have only watched one or two of Depp’s movies over a decade ago during the pinnacle of his career.
Depp isn’t a headliner in today’s Hollywood. The younger generation is more familiar with the celebrities of Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok. I’m confident that Depp would acknowledge he was a household name in the 2000s, but before his battle with Amber Heard and the subsequent trial, he was not a trending celebrity in recent times. Like myself, most people took an interest in the trial because it was in the headlines, and we tuned in with open minds.
Why did no one believe Amber Heard?
As the trial progressed, we listened to the evidence and the moment Amber Heard took the stand and was caught in lie after lie during cross-examination was when it became clear she wasn’t credible.
“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a Latin phrase and a common legal principle, but also a general psychological notion of how humans assess the truthfulness of a person — it means, “false in one thing, false in everything.”
But that’s not all:
This principle is taught to us as children in stories like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” The idiom “to cry wolf” is derived from this story and defined in dictionaries as making false claims, resulting in subsequent true claims being disbelieved.
Needless to say, Amber Heard was caught in multiple lies that were proved, such as her charity “pledges,” leaking information to TMZ, and Depp pushing Kate Moss down the stairs — all provable lies that were exposed.
The world and the jury logically concluded that if Heard is capable of lying numerous times, seemingly without moral conscience, why would she stop there? A pattern of behavior has been established, and even if she was telling the truth on one occasion — it’s her fault for drowning that truth in a sea of lies.
Certain journalists have claimed that this trial demonstrated the “misogyny” in society because so many people supported Johnny Depp. One article from Mashable took aim at all of us, with the headline, “Don’t trust a society that celebrates the humiliation of Amber Heard.”
No! No! No!
The world didn’t turn on Amber Heard because she was a woman. The world turned on her because she was a liar. This trial showed that our collective conscience is mainly intact; we don’t like liars who cause harm to others — that gives me hope for humanity.
Case in point:
When Amber Heard first came out with the accusations of abuse, most believed her, and Johnny Depp was canceled. Depp lost movie rolls like Pirates of the Caribbean and Fantastic Beasts, but Heard went on to star in the massive Aquaman franchise. Sentiment only started to turn once people began researching the case and audio recordings emerged depicting Heard as the abuser.
The world watched the trial from the same perspective as the jury, and in the end, we all came to the same verdict.
Every public figure has experienced abuse on the internet. Unfortunately, there will always be cowardly keyboard warriors that fire abuse from behind a computer screen, and anyone who sent threats to Amber Heard online is no better than her. It’s inexcusable. Period.
On the whole though:
The Johnny Depp v Amber Heard saga should be a shining example of a society and justice system that works. This trial shows us that as a collective, we don’t care about gender — we care about evidence — the media made it about gender. We don’t condone people who lie and slander someone for personal gain by riding on the wings of real victims.
Equally and contrary to the disgraceful headlines from the mainstream media, this case shows that most of us care deeply about domestic violence victims and find any type of abuse repulsive — because the evidence showed that Johnny Depp was the victim.
fact-check
What about the UK verdict?
The mainstream media tries to discredit the verdict by pointing to the UK trial in 2020, where Depp lost, and the judge ruled he was likely a “wife-beater.”
The media quickly fell back on the UK verdict, saying Depp is a proven abuser in the UK. A BBC article claimed the UK verdict was more reliable because the “judge recognised” Depp’s “Darvo” (deny, attack, and reverse victim, and offender) tactic — saying “judges tend not to fall for it, but it’s very, very effective against juries.”
Let’s dismantle this:
First, the UK trial was not Depp vs Heard — it was Depp vs The Sun Newspaper. Johnny Depp sued the paper for calling him a “wife-beater.”
Depp lost, but what matters is that the case wasn’t against Amber Heard — she was simply a witness. Defendants and witnesses have entirely different disclosure obligations, and Heard being just a witness drastically limited the amount of evidence Depp could bring in to attack her credibility.
Judge Penney Azcarate ruled in her opinion letter that because Amber Heard “was not a named defendant, she was not subject to the same discovery rules applicable to named parties.”
Far more evidence was shown in the US trial.
The UK judge was considering whether it was reasonable for the newspaper to call Depp a “wife-beater.” Amber Heard was called to testify, claimed he beat her, and that was enough for the judge to rule on the balance of probabilities it was ok for a newspaper to call him that.
There’s more:
Since then, new evidence has come out, such as the finding that Heard never donated the divorce settlement to the charities — destroying her credibility and showing a financial motive for her allegations.
Finally, seven heads are better than one! A single judge ruled on the UK trial.
Jury trials are far more credible — not only are the jurors picked and screened by both legal teams, but having a group of people eliminates any biases one person may have. Everyone has biases, which are formed from their worldview and life experiences — a jury trial diminishes those significantly.
Judge Azcarate and the Constitution of Virginia agree:
Heard tried to get the US case dismissed because of the UK verdict — Judge Azcarate denied that, quoting the Constitution of Virginia (article 1, section 11) that states “trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.”
Why do you think the most significant criminal cases, like murder, are usually decided by a jury and not a single judge?
The UK trial is meaningless now that Depp vs Heard has been fully litigated — the comparison is “misguided and only thinly supported by preexisting law” — as Judge Azcarate said in response to Heard’s motion to dismiss.
There has only been one Depp v Heard trial, and Depp won on all counts by unanimous jury verdict.
Shining the Spotlight on Male Victims
“Tell the world, Johnny! Tell them Johnny Depp, ‘I Johnny Depp… a man… I’m a victim too of domestic violence!’”
He did, and we listened.
Johnny Depp vs Heard could be the landmark case of the century that finally shifts society’s mindset toward male victims of domestic abuse.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media doesn’t care about male victims.
The “tell the world Johnny” audio recording of Amber Heard saying that no one would believe him because he is a man is precisely the mentality most people had before this trial. The go-to argument is to dismiss male abuse victims because men are often bigger and stronger.
Johnny Depp asked, “Do you believe you abused me physically?”
“I was 115 pounds,” Amber Heard responded after a long pause.
Yet, this 115-pound woman managed to sever a man’s finger. Hopefully, this story has demonstrated that just because a woman is smaller doesn’t make her harmless.
Put a weapon in a woman’s hand, and the tables turn quick. In Australia, Amber Heard hurled a large vodka bottle at Depp, shattering on his hand, and severing the tip of his finger. The court also heard how Depp was hit in the face by a can of mineral spirits!
Women abusers level the playing field by using weapons and the element of surprise.
An interesting example is a criminal case that shook the United Kingdom in 2018. A female abuser pled guilty and was sentenced to seven years and six months for coercive control and two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
It was a shocking case because the abuse was unimaginably vicious.
Jordan Worth, 22, psychologically abused her boyfriend, Alex Skeel, by isolating him from his family, starving him, and taking over his social media accounts.
The physical abuse was far more harrowing:
She physically tortured Skeel for nine months until the police got involved. At this point, doctors said Skeel was ten days from death due to severe injuries and starvation.
The abuse started with Worth smashing her boyfriend over the head with glass bottles (sounds familiar) while he was sleeping. After that, she started using a hammer to inflict injury.
She eventually moved on to knives, where she would stab and slash him, almost hitting a major artery in his wrist on one occasion. Finally, she began to pour boiling water on him, causing third-degree burns.
For all this, Jordan Worth got a mere seven years and six months in prison. There was an appeal for a longer sentence, which was denied with the judge ruling the sentence was very lenient but not unduly so.
Do you think if a man had tortured a woman to near death, he would only get seven and a half years?
This evil abuser will be free to find her next victim in just three years.
This sickening case demonstrates the size advantage of men is easily overcome with weapons and the element of surprise. It also shows the UK legal system’s inability to take male abuse survivors seriously.
Perhaps the glare of publicity on Johnny Depp v Heard will change society’s view of male victims, so men like Alex Skeel get the justice they deserve.
fact-check
Will Amber Heard win her appeal?
Devoted Amber Heard supporters cling to the hope of her appeal. Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, has said in numerous TV interviews that she has grounds for a successful appeal.
However, the appeal court doesn’t examine the verdict itself. Instead, it looks at whether the judge applied the law correctly during the trial. The appeal court will consider whether Judge Penney Azcarate handled evidence correctly — in deciding what the jury was allowed to see.
Heard’s team claims damning evidence of abuse was suppressed by the court, but under the rules of evidence, the judge has to prevent unreliable evidence like “hearsay” from being admitted.
Despite what Elaine Bredehoft claims, text messages from Depp’s assistant and notes from Heard’s therapist are hearsay and unreliable forms of evidence.
The judge must ensure the jury decides its verdict based on evidence that is relevant and admissible — not misleading and unreliable — defined by the rules of evidence for that jurisdiction. Most legal experts believe Judge Azcarate, the chief judge at Fairfax County, made the right calls.
Appeals are rarely successful:
In Virginia, under the abuse of discretion standard of review, “the appellate court often upholds and gives great deference to the decisions of the trial judge concerning trial-related matters.”
The appeal court respects that the trial judge has the unique advantage of sitting on the bench. Thus, according to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the rulings of a trial judge “will not be interfered with upon review of an [appellate] Court, unless some injustice has been done.”
The chances of a successful appeal for Amber Heard are dismal. Not only because appellate courts give great weight to a trial judge’s rulings — but also because Judge Azcarate’s decisions were subject to intense scrutiny from the media and the public — making mistakes even less likely.
Setting the Record Straight
The Depp-Heard trial was massive — and the story continues. Every day broadcasted across the world for the entire six weeks. We all saw each side’s evidence, testimony, and arguments.
Yet despite all that, the mainstream media thinks you’re too stupid to understand the evidence and proceeds to tell you what this trial means.
Journalists who haven’t watched a single day of the trial decide to jump on the “woke” bandwagon describing how this case was driven by “misogyny.”
They say Amber Heard didn’t lose because of the evidence or her credibility. Instead, she lost because of society’s ingrained hatred towards women, particularly women who speak badly about powerful men.
“An orgy of misogyny,” said a columnist for The Guardian.
Yes, it was all misogyny. The female judge was misogynistic. Depp’s female lawyer, Camille Vasquez, was misogynistic. The legions of female Johnny Depp supporters were misogynistic. All misogyny.
What a joke!
In reality, this trial was a victory for women too. We saw Judge Penney Azcarate, a strong, impartial, and intelligent female judge who rose to the top of her profession as chief judge in Fairfax County.
We saw Camille Vasquez, a razor-sharp female lawyer, working for a top law firm, and passionately fighting for her celebrity client.
This trial showed us how far society has come with equality for women.
Contrary to headlines, the Depp-Heard saga has not shown misogyny; if anything, it has demonstrated misandry: contempt for men.
The verdict has shown there is a small sub-group of radical feminists that support Amber Heard — despite the evidence — because they have a bias against men. They have no argument against Heard’s provable lies and admitted physical abuse of Depp — they defend her because she is a woman.
Feminist barrister Charlotte Proudman who wrote a Washington Post opinion piece calling the verdict a “gag order for women,” said in an interview that “the evidence has got absolutely nothing to do with this case” — which explains why she vehemently supports Amber Heard.
When the interviewer mentioned that he’s spoken to men who have suffered from false accusations, Proudman callously dismissed them all as “nonsense,” and said she’s never seen a woman who has lied about domestic abuse.
In sharp contrast to the mainstream media’s political narrative, Depp v Heard didn’t demonstrate a hatred of women. It revealed a hatred of liars and abusers — it also exposed a small group of radical feminists who have no shame in expressing their hatred of men.
It’s heartbreaking that the mainstream media have demonized this story when, in fact, the Depp-Heard saga is a great victory for the wrongly accused, male victims, and ultimately justice.
I hope this article has set the record straight.
I can’t say it better than what Johnny Depp said in his post-verdict statement …
“I also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media.”
Amen to that. Into the history books!
We need YOUR help! We bring you the uncensored news for FREE, but we can only do this thanks to the support of loyal readers just like YOU! If you believe in free speech and enjoy real news, please consider supporting our mission by becoming a patron or by making a one-off donation here. 20% of ALL funds are donated to veterans!
This article is only possible thanks to our sponsors and patrons!
AUTHOR BIO
By Richard Ahern – LifeLine Media
Contact: [email protected]
Published:
Last Updated:
References (fact-check guarantee):
- Johnny Depp’s Amber Heard trial verdict will have a devastating chilling effect: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/johnny-depps-amber-heard-trial-verdict-will-devastating-chilling-effec-rcna31681/ [Straight from the source]
- Amber Heard verdict sends chilling message to victims of abuse – we should be terrified by attempts to silence them: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18766251/johnny-depp-amber-heard-verdict-chilling-mesage-victims/# [Straight from the source]
- #MeToo is over if we don’t listen to ‘imperfect victims’ like Amber Heard: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/22/metoo-is-over-if-we-dont-listen-to-imperfect-victims-like-amber-heard/ [Straight from the source]
- Tarana Burke on What Me Too Is Really About – Extended Interview | The Daily Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJ3bIAQOKg/ [Straight from the source]
- Founder of #MeToo Movement, Tarana Burke | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50wz6Xm9VYs/ [Straight from the source]
- Depp-Heard verdict is a blow to all women: https://www.startribune.com/depp-heard-verdict-is-a-blow-to-all-women/600179795/ [Straight from the source]
- Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus definition: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/falsus-in-uno-falsus-in-omnibus/ [High authority and trusted website] {Further reading}
- Don’t trust a society that celebrates the humiliation of Amber Heard: https://mashable.com/article/depp-heard-verdict/ [Straight from the source]
- Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676/ [Straight from the source]
- Opinion letter from Judge Penney S. Azcarate: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/deppheardopinion.pdf [Official court document]
- Constitution of Virginia — Article I. Bill of Rights, Section 11: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section11/ [Government website]
- Amber Heard & Johnny Depp: The Phone Call / FULL AUDIO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DRr6FMZ9Ws/ [Straight from the source]
- Jordan Worth sentence Warwick Crown Court: https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Jordan-Michelle-Worth-22697-1.law [Official court document]
- Overview of Standards of Appellate Review in Virginia: https://www.sandsanderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/31-3-Delano-Standards_of_Appellate_Review.pdf [Academic journal]
- Temple v. Moses (1940) — Supreme Court of Virginia: https://casetext.com/case/temple-v-moses [Official court document]
- The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/01/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-metoo-backlash/ [Straight from the source]
- Depp v Heard: Bonus ep 3 – Dr Charlotte Proudman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_wbzgAUe4/ [Straight from the source]
- The Depp-Heard verdict is a gag order for women: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/02/depp-heard-verdict-is-gag-order-women/ [Straight from the source]
Join the discussion!
I am making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by
just using this article.. http://Www.Works75.Com
I am making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by
just using this article.. http://Www.HomeCash1.Com
My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours.
open this link………. Www.Workonline1.com
My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless. This is what I do >> http://www.workonline1.com
[ JOIN US ]
Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
For more detail visit OPEN THIS SITE__________ http://Www.OnlineCash1.com
I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything…….
GOOD LUCK..____ http://Www.HomeCash1.Com
I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss.
cool
I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss. That is what I do.. http://www.youwork9.com
I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss. That is what I do.. http://www.youwork9.com
I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss.
That is what I do.. http://www.youwork9.com