Maybe trying to placate her.She's not too bad here but tries to hog the limelight as usual. Ioan's body language is weirder. He seems a bit clingy.
True or not, there are always rumours about her awful behaviour following her. On sets, schools, streets, restaurants. And that is not a coincidence. The world is not out to get Malice. Malice is simply a monster.Is that true? Just googled that and couldn't find much apart from it being discussed here a while back.
Agreed he’d be hella interesting if he ever got to the stand. But why don’t you think they support Ioan? Surely the haucks know Alice is unfit? Sorry to keep on, I lost my remote a couple of hours ago so here I amnot sure. ultimately even they will be more exposed to the narrative Alice sold her kids. I doubt they'd support Ioan but I can see them thinking the whole RO business is pretty silly (tbh if you keep claim somebody is a deadbeat its kinda confusing, eh?). But again, the impact they have is almost non-existent.
I actually think that dude would be interesting in the custody trial. Questions would be asked about why Elsie needs a defacto adoptive family if Alice thinks she is fit for sole custody etc.
Absolutely nothing light about her.I'm sorry, what now?
View attachment 2240834
Yeah, I'm sure Ioan was jealous of Alice's seminal role as Ilsa in that one episode of The Mentalist.
She moves around in her chair and adjusts her hair while Piers talks about Ioan's success, it just seemed that she was annoyed and wanted to bring the focus back onto her.She's not too bad here but tries to hog the limelight as usual. Ioan's body language is weirder. He seems a bit clingy.
Psychiatristbrain surgeon
Agree totally. It's just like unlike Alice, I like us to be as factually accurate here as possible as we like to deal with the truth!True or not, there are always rumours about her awful behaviour following her. On sets, schools, streets, restaurants. And that is not a coincidence. The world is not out to get Malice. Malice is simply a monster.
tbh, I was thinking more in terms of 'transplant' as I think mAlice has mentioned previously that she has seen several psychiatrists (and that didn't help her).Psychiatrist
they may know (or maybe not) this but it may not be what Elsie believes, it's tricky in these cases because you dont want to be involved in these kind of cases especially if you contribute to a outcome the person you are supporting may - against her better judgement - not like.Agreed he’d be hella interesting if he ever got to the stand. But why don’t you think they support Ioan? Surely the haucks know Alice is unfit?
The Hollywood Bowl has standing room …I’d like to see all the people she’s pissed off in Hollywood gathered in one place talking about her. Now that I’m thinking about it there’s probably no space big enough for all of them.
This makes so much sense. I suspect they just put down the names because they were present and not because they necessarily consented. That restraining order application is a hot, steaming mess.Not surprisingly, they also handled their witnesses incorrectly. This is being handled in family court so I would assume these rules would apply. From the government site:
2023 California Rules of Court
Rule 5.113. Live testimony
(a) Purpose
Under Family Code section 217, at a hearing on any request for order brought under the Family Code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause under (b), the court must receive any live, competent, and admissible testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing.
(b) Factors
In addition to the rules of evidence, a court must consider the following factors in making a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony under Family Code section 217:
(1) Whether a substantive matter is at issue-such as child custody, visitation (parenting time), parentage, child support, spousal support, requests for restraining orders, or the characterization, division, or temporary use and control of the property or debt of the parties;
(2) Whether material facts are in controversy;
(3) Whether live testimony is necessary for the court to assess the credibility of the parties or other witnesses;
(4) The right of the parties to question anyone submitting reports or other information to the court;
(5) Whether a party offering testimony from a non-party has complied with Family Code section 217(c); and
(6) Any other factor that is just and equitable.
And … more importantly:
e) Witness lists
Witness lists required by Family Code section 217(c) must be served along with the request for order or responsive papers in the manner required for the service of those documents (Witness List (form FL-321) may be used for this purpose). If no witness list has been served, the court may require an offer of proof before allowing any nonparty witness to testify.
They should just forget about Gloria and Dennis - they saw nothing important anyway. Is Alice is probably dumb enough to think she can coach Gloria like she is coaching the kids?Just to add to my previous post, witness statements can be included as a sworn declaration … but these also need to be served on the other party.
They have to arrange for service. They can ask the sheriff to do it free of charge (or pay a private process server) but if they had, I am guessing the proof of service would have been filed with the court.They should just forget about Gloria and Dennis - they saw nothing important anyway. Is Alice is probably dumb enough to think she can coach Gloria like she is coaching the kids?
As for I and B getting served, isn't it in the hands of the police as Ella was granted a waiver on fees? Or do they need to do anything?
She’s desperately looking for a fight, isn’t she?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?