Alice Evans-Ioan Gruffudd

[Notatallanamechange]

In court this week, think this is the last part of their legal stuff? Anyway, what has really struck me with this is how the Daily Mail have been complicit in her narrative and the abuse he gets. It’s came out in the court she has made 30k from them, selling her stories. I’m aware it’s an absolute rag, but paying someone with an DVRO and running their stories, in an attempt to paint their victim in a negative light is surely low, even by their standards?

Well isn’t the point of Mumsnet to promote healthy discussion about different subjects?

I don’t think I’ve admitted to being any of those things but thanks for your input

She could have bought a flat with all that excess money.

Instead, she’s spent the time poisoning her children’s childhood, and made herself virtually unemployable. And even if she gets monthly child support (rather than a one off amount) then it’ll presumably be less in three years when the oldest one is 18.

I wonder if she regrets wasting all of that money, or if regret is an emotion she’s unable to feel?

I doubt it. I know that everyone and their dog gets accused of being a narcissist on MN, but I do think that Alice fits the bill.

I think that she will always feel her actions were justified and she's been hard done by. Hopefully the girls will one day see the truth.

I don’t think her mind will allow her to think anything else. She will never be able to fully face, even to herself, what she has done to her kids & the lies she has told. She is irredeemable IMO. It’s sad the girls are highly likely to be damaged & dysfunctional as a result.

It will be interesting to see what (if any) sanctions payments this court orders against AE for her breaches of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order. Brazenly taking photos in a courtroom (!!) of a former-spouse who is protected by a DVRO would typically receive a hell of a sanctions consequence. In my experience the courtrooms in California state courthouses have big signs telling people to NEVER take photos or record anything. I can't recall a time a litigant was brazenly outrageous and irresponsible enough to take a photo of the victim in a DVRO matter such that the bailiff had to intervene! To give you an idea of how upset this crap makes judges: I've seen judges in California sanction litigants for repeatedly using "theatrical" behaviour in court. Taking a photo of the abuse victim you aren't permitted to harass while also in a courtroom that specifically prohibits the taking of ANY photos by anyone is another level of abject stupidity and disrespect. Any judge presented with a litigant who was willing to do that would be quite right to have serious concerns about whather that person actually respects the Court itself, let alone the DVRO.

California courts also take a very dim view of family law litigants who knowingly and intentionally fail to include all financial information in their various declarations. It can cause the party who failed to do so - particularly litigants who are found to have tried to hide assets - to have to pay a significant amount of money to the other party (with interest and attorney fees thrown in for good measure), and there can be pretty hard core sanctions consequences. And these matters can be litigated pretty much at any time: if it's found out in a decade's time that there was money hidden then the Courts typically retain jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The whole point of these declarations is to ensure that everyone's financial cards are on the table - and judges take a very dim view of people who intentionally hide any cards from view, or claim they don't exist. Judges don't like to be pushed into the arena of issuing sanctions orders - especially against individual litigants - and they give a heck of a lot of warnings - so anyone who does actually end up on the receiving end of a sanctions order really only has themself to blame.

It will be interesting to see if the DVRO is extended for a limited period or for a good deal longer. As a general matter the DVRO judges are looking for evidence that they can trust that the party who caused the DVRO to be issued in the first place will not pose any threat to the abuse victim in future. Being disrespectful and unhinged enough to take a photo of a protected abuse victim while sat in the courtroom of the court that issued the DVRO in the first place (!!!) strongly conveys the likelihood that the abuser is not someone who can be trusted to act appropriately or respectfully in future.

Unclear what you mean by "healthy discussion" - hopefully you mean "respectfully conducted" and "informed"? It was not terribly "healthy" of you to neg people for reading court documents. After all, this is a discussion about a court case. To be able to have an informed discussion about a court case it is rather helpful to read the actual underlying court filings. Otherwise the discussion is based solely on what people imagine the documents and evidence might be (or what journalists have selectively reported the documents and evidence might be). Unclear why you would want to have a discussion about a court case without having the first clue what the case is actually about, and to find out what the case is about you have to read the case documents.

This is going to make a brilliant NF docuseries - so much content already exists. I wonder who will get out ahead to secure the rights.

I actually hope it doesn't get turned into a series - I don't think it would be in the best interests of the children at all. If a documentary team does get their hands on it then they'd have to make do with having neither of the parties appear: the DVRO would prohibit AE from talking, and I doubt that IG & his wife will want to waste another second on this drama if they can avoid it. Plus I would imagine their lawyers would advise against giving a public comment - there would be very little benefit to doing so.

The problem with this case from a docuseries perspective is that unlike the Heard/Depp case this court case has not been filmed. And there also aren't really any of the "body cam" police POV or interview room POV tapes that people understandably find very interesting. So the filmmakers would have to try to make the social media and texts and other ridiculous behaviours (and a few clips here and there that actually do exist) compelling viewing. They could probably find some journalists and some family law commentators to narrate the issues, but it would be quite dry in terms of not having the police cams/court video and police interview video that people like.

Interesting you say healthy discussion when some posters have broken Mumsnet rules and had their comments toward me deleted.

That’s not interesting, it’s just how internet forums work. Mods remove posts. Ta da. Also it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and is a weird attempt to… not even work the refs, it’s just nitpicking?

Anyhow. Sure sounds like in court today, there was a heck of a lot of testimony that Alice had loads of money the entire time she was setting up GFMs and claiming the family would have to go on food stamps. Lots of different ways to slice the various financial claims, but as far as I can tell, NONE of the choose-your-own-adventure financials show that Ioan underpaid, and all of them show he overpaid (though that number varies, depending on accounting). Which just makes it so much crappier that the two girls thought their dad was paying nothing and letting them lose their housing.

Mods remove posts because they break the rules of THIS platform. There’re not removed for no reason. This isn’t Tattle darling.

It was you that brought up "healthy discussion"

Nothing regarding Alice Evans is healthy.

Apologies you are correct there, but they did say “respectfully conducted conversations” which certainly hasn’t been the case in some of the replies to me hence they were deleted by Mumsnet.

The evidence given appears to be potentially very concerning, doesn't it? The UK folks in the audience may not be aware, but there are federal "wire fraud" statutes in the US that could come into play (the statute is 18 U.S. 1343) They prohibit people using "wires" (which these days includes the internet of course) to try to defraud others out of money or anything of value. Federal prosecutors love the wire fraud statutes because they are relatively simple to prove: all the government has to prove is that there was a "scheme or artifice to defraud" (i.e. there was a plan to cheat someone out of something of value); that the scheme involved false representations that were material (i.e. they had to be capable if influencing someone); that the false representations were made with the intent to deceive; and that the scheme involved an "interstate wire" - which of course includes the internet. This last element is incredibly easy to prove in a case that involves the internet.

In this case the allegation by some appears to be that AE allegedly set up a "Go Fund Me" in which she represented that she was lacking in funds even to be able to, for example, pay for a moving van, and that she needed immediate funds for herself and her children. If that turns out to be untrue and that she did actually have significant amounts of money that she failed to disclose, or she in any way misrepresented her financial position with the intent of getting others to hand over donations, then it does raise the question of whether the wire fraud statutes may be triggered.

Numerous people have been investigated and charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and also related crimes of money laundering relating to Go Fund Me campaigns that turned out to be based on false representations/pretenses. These are very serious crimes - and they involve the federal authorities. Federal prosecutors do not mess around. And judges in Federal court tend to be even less enamoured of people who lie than those in State Court.

Some of the more highly publicised "Go Fund Me" wire fraud cases involve so called "good samaritan" scams - where people claim to be raising money for homeless people. If a person is successfully prosecuted for federal wire fraud they can face very nasty consequences: felony crimes typically carry with them hefty fines, together with potential prison time. Federal crimes are punished according to the federal "sentencing guidelines" which focus not only on the amount lost (or that the defendant intended to cause to be lost), but also on various other factors like, for example, if there were multiple victims of the alleged fraud, or if "sophisticated means" were used to carry out the fraud. In the case of Go Fund Me and other "crowdfunding" scams there are typically many potential victims given the nature of the sophisticated system used. Using Go Fund Me can arguably constitute the use of "sophisticated means" needed to increase the sentencing recommendation, especially given it's not just a "one on one" scam. The Judge can also take into account other bad acts of the defendant in question - especially if there are examples of them making misrepresentations or failing to adhere to court orders etc in other circumstances.

The forensic accountant has exposed much of Alice's underhand behaviour with the joint family money.

Ioan's agent has exposed the fact that Alice effectively gave up on her career years before she claimed to.

This trial has turned out to be incredibly damaging for her and it seems Ioan's legal team, even now, have been treating her lightly.

Actually, it was you who used the term "healthy discussion".

I have just acknowledged that error above and clarified what that poster said

It’s difficult to have ‘healthy discussion’ with someone who isn’t posting in good faith.

The forensic accountant does seem to be well regarded by the Court. It is generally a good sign when an expert witness acknowledges and addresses the opposing views put forward by a competing expert, and does so to the extent that the Court finds it unnecessary to call the other forensic accountant to merely restate what the other accountant has already found and reported. This expert has appeared to "stick to the facts", provided his reasons, and left any legal conclusions up to the court. Which may seem like an obvious thing for an expert witness to do, but a lot of them do get into the arena of making legal conclusions - which is not their role.

So, for example, this expert appears to have stated (per various news reports) that he was not given any data (bank account statements or tracing data for example) that allowed him to determine from what source AE's UK bank account was financed. As such, he stated he was unable to determine whether the contents of that account are separate or community property, and as such he followed the jurisdictional rules and allocated it as community property. In jurisdictions that have community property laws the onus is usually on the person who is claiming that something is, in fact, separate property to provide detailed evidence demonstrating that fact. If they cannot do so then the presumption may properly be that the monies involved are "community property".

So, for example, if a person's bank account has $50k in it that is from inheritance monies (which are typically separate property); and $50k in it that is money received from a job/work done during the marriage (typically community property unless a prenup states otherwise), then the person claiming separate property can only get separate property recognition of the $50k inheritance amount IF they provide detailed evidence tracing that money back to the source of the funds. So, for example, if the person received a check from the executor of the estate and deposited it in the account, and no money had ever been withdrawn from that account after the date the inheritance check was deposited, the separate nature of that property may have been maintained. The problem comes when people "commingle" (mix together) separate and community property monies in the SAME bank account. So, let that be a lesson to anyone who receives an inheritance check - keep your separate property separate!

Not true. It’s not difficult to be respectful to other posters and this is the benchmark of the rules of Mumsnet and if you don’t follow those rules then posts get deleted. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean they aren’t posting in good faith.

But you haven't given a differing opinion on the case under discussion in this thread. You have just made some tedious jibes at other posters.

What is your opinion on the court case and Alice's relationship with the Daily Mail?

Forgive me if I’ve missed it, but you haven’t actually offered up an opinion on the case, have you? Thats what I meant by not posting in good faith. Surely you have an opinion, as otherwise you wouldn’t have been drawn to the thread. But so far all you’ve done in criticise others for reading the court documents, question peoples ’qualifications’ for the opinions they hold and report posts. I don’t actually know if we have differing opinions on the case itself, because you haven’t given your opinion. I would be really interested to hear it though?