Everyone here knows loopy is reading because trial cases & women being abused are his jam.
Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #196 Sure, Jan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Alice Evans Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I wonder if she will be held in contempt of court in part 3, for bleeping interrupting all the time.
She didn't like it when Anne mentioned the reasons why they think Ella went for an RO...the judge basically told Alice to shut the duck up!
Also didn't all the FMs say Ella was alone in the room - lie, mAlice was there too!
I suggested that Bernal could have represented Ella, after all he covers just about everything according to his website. Why not?
Isn't this the same judge hearing the divorce case? No self-awareness, just keeps pissing into the wind
Alice thought she could do the talking. And Ella would get a lawyer appointed for free by the court...she has no clue
-PART 3-
Ella then stated that she was okay with not showing the video.
The Judge asked if there was anything else Ella wanted to present. Ella said no. Bianca’s lawyer asked the Judge to make sure Ella was agreeing to have the evidence that was filed in the matter be the only evidence that the Judge would consider. The Judge asked Ella if she had read Bianca’s declaration. Ella said she had not. The Judge asked Ella to read Bianca’s declaration and let him know if she objected to it being used as evidence. He explained that an objection was not whether she agreed with what the declaration said, but whether she objected to whether it could be used as evidence. Ella said “Okay” and read the declaration.
The Judge then asked for Ella to be shown Ioan’s declaration. Bianca’s attorney Gregory Jessner stated that they were only wanting to use the part of the declaration that addressed the events of May 26, since the rest of Ioan’s declaration contained other items that pertained to the DVRO request against him. The Judge agreed and asked that Ella be shown the entirety of Ioan’s declaration, but that the only part of the declaration he would consider that day was the part about May 26. Bianca’s attorney showed Ella the declaration and Ella read it. The Judge then asked for Bianca’s attorney to show Ella the doctor’s declaration. Ella read it. Ella was then shown Ms. Braydon’s declaration. Ella read it. The Judge asked Ella whether it was okay if he treated the declarations as those individuals’ testimony. Ella said “yes.”
The Judge asked Bianca’s attorney and Ella whether there was anything else they wanted him to know about or think about. Both said no.
The Judge told Ella that what he decided that day was not a reflection on her character, or who she was, or what he thinks about her—it was whether or not what is alleged qualifies as civil harassment. So the results today, he said, aren’t reflective of what he thinks of Ella as a person. Ella said she understood.
The Judge told Ella that May 26 was a really unfortunate day. He said that when parents are getting a divorce, that is really hard on kids, and “it’s really hard when you have two people that you love so much and they’re not getting along well, and for you to have to figure out how to navigate that is not easy.” The Judge said that the impression he got was that Ella and her sister were not really on board with meeting Bianca and they “had some big feelings about that.” He said he was trying to acknowledge Ella and Elsie’s feelings, and the question for him was, “did Dad and Ms. Wallace’s reactions to that, did it cross the line?”
The Judge said that it sounded to him like Ella and Elsie were not at all thrilled to go to their Dad’s house, and that they probably felt like the visit was being imposed on them. He said to Ella, “And then, I don’t think you even dispute that your reaction to that was maybe less than productive; right? Talking to your friend on the phone, and maybe saying things that weren’t so nice and getting the milk and pouring it on the bed, and the mustard around the kitchen, and things like that.”
The Judge said, “But you tell me. For instance, in your declaration…you tell me in your declaration that…’the respondent and my dad were calling me manipulative, abusive and narcissistic.’ I think they dispute that.
Ella: “What does that mean?”
Judge: “So remember what I said kind of that 50/50 deal, right?...And so, what I also am thinking to myself what if that were true? What if someone had come into their house and was pouring milk around and spraying mustard around and talking on the phone and being disrespectful? Would a reaction to that, in saying, ‘You’re being abusive, you’re being narcissistic, you’re being manipulative,’ would that be abuse or would that be a reasonable reaction to somebody spraying mustard around your kitchen and pouring milk on your bed? I think it would be a reasonable reaction.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “I really do.”
Ella: “I agree.”
Judge: “I’m just being really honest with you. So, then, we pivot to the whole door incident.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. And it sounds like Ms. Wallace is at the door and at that point you were, like, I’m done, I’m out of here, this is not good, I’m leaving. And as I understand it, you kind of darted out the door and the door closed on your arm, according to you; correct?”
Ella: “It closed on my arm and hit my head.”
Judge: “Closed on your arm and hit your head. So then—then the question becomes, did—if that is true, did Ms. Wallace do that—was there a legitimate purpose. Let’s take a step back and think about that. She’s an adult. She’s dating dad. You and your sister are at dad’s house. I get it you don’t want to be there. I totally understand that, and we live in a major metropolitan area and you’re upset and you’re dysregulated and you’re about to run out and if she tried to close the door and it caught you. That’s very different than kind of waiting for you to go by and then slamming it to hurt you. And given how I read the papers and how I—using my own common sense and my own reason, it seems to me that if the door hit you—and let’s assume it did, if the door hit you—your arm and your head, did she do it to hurt you or to harm you or to threaten you or did she—was a legitimate reason. Like, I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 13-year-old—and your sister’s, what, 9?”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “—a 9-year-old to run out in a dysregulated state. Like, my job is to make sure she’s safe, right? And I don’t think she did it to hurt you. I mean, this is somebody who wants to cook with me. I’m not saying that you have to cook with her, okay. This is somebody who wants to introduce the dog to you. I’m not saying I didn’t know the dog; right? This is somebody that is with Dad, whether you like it or not, that’s just happening; right? And so, I’m just thinking, would a person want to do that to another person’s child on the first time out of the box meeting you.”
Judge: “I don’t think that was what was happening. I think at best she was just trying to close the door to keep everybody safe, that’s my strong belief, and I believe when I read her testimony there’s no indication that she tried to do it maliciously. I think you’re saying that that was the effect when you were trying to leave, that the door hit you. But I don’t think you accuse her of purposely slamming; is that right? Is that fair?”
Ella: “Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.”
-END OF PART 3-
Ella then stated that she was okay with not showing the video.
The Judge asked if there was anything else Ella wanted to present. Ella said no. Bianca’s lawyer asked the Judge to make sure Ella was agreeing to have the evidence that was filed in the matter be the only evidence that the Judge would consider. The Judge asked Ella if she had read Bianca’s declaration. Ella said she had not. The Judge asked Ella to read Bianca’s declaration and let him know if she objected to it being used as evidence. He explained that an objection was not whether she agreed with what the declaration said, but whether she objected to whether it could be used as evidence. Ella said “Okay” and read the declaration.
The Judge then asked for Ella to be shown Ioan’s declaration. Bianca’s attorney Gregory Jessner stated that they were only wanting to use the part of the declaration that addressed the events of May 26, since the rest of Ioan’s declaration contained other items that pertained to the DVRO request against him. The Judge agreed and asked that Ella be shown the entirety of Ioan’s declaration, but that the only part of the declaration he would consider that day was the part about May 26. Bianca’s attorney showed Ella the declaration and Ella read it. The Judge then asked for Bianca’s attorney to show Ella the doctor’s declaration. Ella read it. Ella was then shown Ms. Braydon’s declaration. Ella read it. The Judge asked Ella whether it was okay if he treated the declarations as those individuals’ testimony. Ella said “yes.”
The Judge asked Bianca’s attorney and Ella whether there was anything else they wanted him to know about or think about. Both said no.
The Judge told Ella that what he decided that day was not a reflection on her character, or who she was, or what he thinks about her—it was whether or not what is alleged qualifies as civil harassment. So the results today, he said, aren’t reflective of what he thinks of Ella as a person. Ella said she understood.
The Judge told Ella that May 26 was a really unfortunate day. He said that when parents are getting a divorce, that is really hard on kids, and “it’s really hard when you have two people that you love so much and they’re not getting along well, and for you to have to figure out how to navigate that is not easy.” The Judge said that the impression he got was that Ella and her sister were not really on board with meeting Bianca and they “had some big feelings about that.” He said he was trying to acknowledge Ella and Elsie’s feelings, and the question for him was, “did Dad and Ms. Wallace’s reactions to that, did it cross the line?”
The Judge said that it sounded to him like Ella and Elsie were not at all thrilled to go to their Dad’s house, and that they probably felt like the visit was being imposed on them. He said to Ella, “And then, I don’t think you even dispute that your reaction to that was maybe less than productive; right? Talking to your friend on the phone, and maybe saying things that weren’t so nice and getting the milk and pouring it on the bed, and the mustard around the kitchen, and things like that.”
The Judge said, “But you tell me. For instance, in your declaration…you tell me in your declaration that…’the respondent and my dad were calling me manipulative, abusive and narcissistic.’ I think they dispute that.
Ella: “What does that mean?”
Judge: “So remember what I said kind of that 50/50 deal, right?...And so, what I also am thinking to myself what if that were true? What if someone had come into their house and was pouring milk around and spraying mustard around and talking on the phone and being disrespectful? Would a reaction to that, in saying, ‘You’re being abusive, you’re being narcissistic, you’re being manipulative,’ would that be abuse or would that be a reasonable reaction to somebody spraying mustard around your kitchen and pouring milk on your bed? I think it would be a reasonable reaction.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “I really do.”
Ella: “I agree.”
Judge: “I’m just being really honest with you. So, then, we pivot to the whole door incident.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. And it sounds like Ms. Wallace is at the door and at that point you were, like, I’m done, I’m out of here, this is not good, I’m leaving. And as I understand it, you kind of darted out the door and the door closed on your arm, according to you; correct?”
Ella: “It closed on my arm and hit my head.”
Judge: “Closed on your arm and hit your head. So then—then the question becomes, did—if that is true, did Ms. Wallace do that—was there a legitimate purpose. Let’s take a step back and think about that. She’s an adult. She’s dating dad. You and your sister are at dad’s house. I get it you don’t want to be there. I totally understand that, and we live in a major metropolitan area and you’re upset and you’re dysregulated and you’re about to run out and if she tried to close the door and it caught you. That’s very different than kind of waiting for you to go by and then slamming it to hurt you. And given how I read the papers and how I—using my own common sense and my own reason, it seems to me that if the door hit you—and let’s assume it did, if the door hit you—your arm and your head, did she do it to hurt you or to harm you or to threaten you or did she—was a legitimate reason. Like, I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 13-year-old—and your sister’s, what, 9?”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “—a 9-year-old to run out in a dysregulated state. Like, my job is to make sure she’s safe, right? And I don’t think she did it to hurt you. I mean, this is somebody who wants to cook with me. I’m not saying that you have to cook with her, okay. This is somebody who wants to introduce the dog to you. I’m not saying I didn’t know the dog; right? This is somebody that is with Dad, whether you like it or not, that’s just happening; right? And so, I’m just thinking, would a person want to do that to another person’s child on the first time out of the box meeting you.”
Judge: “I don’t think that was what was happening. I think at best she was just trying to close the door to keep everybody safe, that’s my strong belief, and I believe when I read her testimony there’s no indication that she tried to do it maliciously. I think you’re saying that that was the effect when you were trying to leave, that the door hit you. But I don’t think you accuse her of purposely slamming; is that right? Is that fair?”
Ella: “Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.”
-END OF PART 3-
I love Alice thinking she could out-argue the judge (especially in a case she’s not a party to)!
That Contenious Cardigan she wore to court really made her believe she was invincible.
Okay, you never get an appointed lawyer when you are the one who is filing the petition. Ever. It doesn't work that way.
This is heart-breaking to read
MyShe’s no idea what it’s like to attend your child’s funeral, there’s no pain like it. She’s lucky her dad and step mum are obviously decent, restrained people because most bereaved parents would have thrown her through the door. Nasty grief thief she is
is with you my darling, so sorry for your loss 
“Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.” - she's so lost and confused. This is cruel. And the judge is being as kind as can be.
Alice is the worst. The end.
Poor Ella, totally stitched up by her bleep of a “mother”
Ella saying what does that mean when the judge says things about being narcissistic.
All the tears here.
Is this testimony admittance that Alice coached Ella to lie & break her DVRO? Like, is this trial evidence?
All the tears here.
Is this testimony admittance that Alice coached Ella to lie & break her DVRO? Like, is this trial evidence?
And if course Alice interrupts the judge. Jesus.
I love that judge and the way he treated this child.
This judge is such a brilliant human being. He speaks to Ella with such compassion.
Oh, I wasn’t nasty. That was positively mild. I responded to you berating and blaming a child. Now that’s nasty.
Alice cannot have any custody after this.
- Status