Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #173 We stand with Ioan Gruffudd and Bianca Wallace

[lulooo]

The Kiley tweet, I will upload a imgur with the rest when I'm home
View attachment 2216478

Thanks @welp

 

[Old Soak]

If the hearing for the TRO is the 23rd, when does Ioan’s response have to be in by? I assume it won’t be public?

 

[JoJo76]

What are the chances that Bianca could be deported if the RO is granted? I hope they have a registry office booked on 4th July!

 

[Who's Singing Now?]

I think being granted the TRO may well be inevitable. This doesn't mean Yo and B can't then challenge this and have it removed when they show the evidence they have.

 

[Lulugrace]

View attachment 2218285
This pretty much covers it!

Hahaha! Thanks
I'll have a proper catch up later!

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

I don't think Alice loves those girls, or anyone, at all. She proves that time and time again with how she treats them. Imo she is incapable of loving anyone.

Well narcissism is a spectrum. She's bad but not quite Betty B. It's a tainted love imo.

 

[Bettie]

I was just seeing if I could sus out what Angry Alice has deleted from insta and I see this aged well!
That work is just rolling in

Sorry I don't know how to DM but I think we can see your profile photo bottom right? Maybe crop it unless you want her stalking you @Lulugrace

 

[janoycresva]

I will be absolutely shocked if at least one of them wasn’t filming this apparent abuse, surely they’ll be on high guard and knew it was coming so they’d protect themselves? Hopefully they have and they’ll expose the bullshit later this month.

 

[lookatmekimmy]

I don't think she cares if he comes back. She just wants him to suffer. Her goal is to punish him. She doesn't care who she destroys in the process, including those poor girls. It's all worth it to her.
---

Young, naive, and cunt struck. She was very beautiful IMO and probably superficially charming like most narcs. She'd lived this exotic It Girl life in France and he would've been dazzled. By the time he woke up to her they would've had at least one child.

She was so beautiful

 

[Ametrine]

@welp, did you manage to get all the Janelle tweets?

 

[BingoFlamingo]

She’s lost the fucking plot.
So reading between the lines and all the sock accounts, Loopy and SToneD, Ella has kicked off within half an hour of forced visitation on Friday or Saturday? Saturday being the usual day for visitation.
She has tried to leave, there has been an altercation at the front door that has been witnessed by a friend of Ioan’s (& Bianca) we’re assuming Iris(?).
She has gotten home, showed Mommy Dearest a bruise, and then asked for a restraining order from both Bianca and Ioan. A police report was made, no charges as of yet but a couple of hearings later on this month for the RO’s?
Alice has set up at least two sock accounts and given herself away by using the exact same insults she always has against Bianca. They think that this is enough to have Bianca deported and Ioan will come rounding back to Alice just like old times (I may have made that last bit up!)

What a pathetic existence. I hope she eventually sees consequences of this despicable and disgusting behaviour. Fuck you Alice Evans.

Sorry if this was mentioned before but can you go straight to PRO without TRO and would the history of Alice’s DVRO come into play, ie would the judge have the whole history?

 

[M33L4]

I don’t think Fooledagain is big Al. Sounds more like a teenager.

 

[M33L4]

It wasn't so funny when she killed his website. Fans were furious. Alice also seems to have told IG his fans were sending her death threats. I wouldn't be surprised if she even sent herself a death threat and showed it to him as "proof".

In fact that could be her next scam - I and B have organised a hit on her and she has "proof".

Remember the bmw pics she was setting that up then?

 

[marjorytrashheap]

It really does seem odd that there isn't a TRO in place either way.

 

[sweetnessfollows]

The ones referencing this scene. How accurate

I'd rather be carrying a colostomy bag is right - no offense to the hard work and benefit that people actually get out of colostomy bags!

 

[BessieNessie]

You dont get paid for pap shots, unless it's really something mega huge. The paps have just too much risk of not getting their pictures sold to tabloids for this to be standard. Celebs earn over pap shots the publicity they want or actual money by product placement.

And yes, giving scoops to tabloids is earning you cash.

Ohhh disappointing I thought they had a cut on the royalties from the pics with the pap agency. Don’t know where I got that from..

 

[Ally Pally]

@Nixlondon can you bring your last post over please.

 

[Lulugrace]

In her dreams!
I envision a scenario of zookeepers and rescue services being called and she ending up with a stun dart in her face (mistaken for a baboon's derriere). You know, when you live in an area with lots of nonagenarian neighbours who might not have the best eyesight, her disfigured turkey neck and massively bloated lips may be confused with a frisky baboon mooning to the neighbours and reported as such...
Good thing she never ventures outside.


__

As for the RO/TRO hearings, Ioan and Bianca do not have to be physically present for these -- they can attend remotely via Zoom or even telephone and also in California they also have a chance to submit a written statement to the judge beforehand detailing their version of events. (I looked it up).

O M G!
I'm crying with laughter
BIB

 

[lesdeuxyeux]

Walking dog photos are nothing.

I hate paid paparazzi shots but Ioan and Bianca live in an apartment - they must walk that adorable dog multiple times a day.

And yet it only gets captured/published when it suits them. I dunno…IMO these are arranged pap walks, but that doesn’t detract from the fact Alice is a damaging narc POS.

 

[Invictus]

They should ask for full costs in a vexatious lawsuit that they would win. mAlice has been mollycoddled enough. It's not malevolent at all.

Knowing Alice she won't pay anything though. Maybe do another GFM?

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b), a vexatious litigant is a person who does any of the following:

• In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.
• After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.
• In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
• Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.

Legal Requirements
Under section 391.7, in addition to other relief, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order that prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in California in pro per without first obtaining permission from the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the filing is proposed. A vexatious litigant who disobeys such a prefiling order may be punished for contempt of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7(a).)

The presiding justice or presiding judge should permit the filing of such litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and is not being filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. The presiding justice or presiding judge may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 391.3. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7(b).)

The clerk should not file any litigation presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the presiding justice or presiding judge permitting the filing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7(c).)

Under section 391.7(e), the presiding justice or presiding judge of a court may designate a justice or judge of the same court to act on his or her behalf in exercising the authority and responsibilities provided under subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.

Under section 391.7(f), the clerk of the court provides to the Judicial Council a copy of any statewide vexatious litigant prefiling orders.

Under section 391.8(a), a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 391.7 may file an application to vacate the prefiling order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. The application shall be filed in the court that entered the prefiling order, either in the action in which the prefiling order was entered or in conjunction with a request to the presiding justice or presiding judge to file new litigation under Section 391.7. The application shall be made before the justice or judge who entered the order, if that justice or judge is available. If that justice or judge who entered the order is not available, the application shall be made before the presiding justice or presiding judge, or his or her designee.

Under section 391.8(b), a vexatious litigant whose application under subdivision (a)
was denied shall not be permitted to file another application on or before 12 months has elapsed after the date of the denial of the previous application.

Under section 391.8(c), a court may vacate a prefiling order and order removal of a vexatious litigant’s name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.

Other Requirements and Considerations
The Judicial Council’s annual dissemination of the vexatious litigant list to court clerks is required. To remove a name from the vexatious litigant list, the council must receive an order directly from the issuing court vacating the prefiling order.

Please note that if a person has been declared a vexatious litigant, but there is no prefiling order, or if there is an order requiring posting of security but no prefiling order, the name will not appear on the list.

**The legal eagles here can let us know what this really means but this is what I found for CA**