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?

Will keep on topic then and ignore anything else. It’s the facts that reveal who is in the wrong here and if there’s a selection of comments which end up deleted, it doesn’t matter as it still won’t change all the bad Alice has done or the mess her life is now in (and all self inflicted)

It's almost like they are trying to shut the thread down, ignore ignore ignore.

Bet the mail don't report that Alice bounced cheques to the water company to ruin Ioan's credit score.

Or that Alice told one of her online cabal that she was looking to secure Ioan’s phone records and text messages so he would always be apprehensive she’d release some of them. Jesus. That is long-term maliciousness.

They are reporting still, with skewed headlines and what looks like severely moderated comments. Well that, or their readership changed entirely from last week to yesterday…

The DM is supporting an abuser. Shame on them

Oh wow this video is from before the split? Says it all really

Andrea Burkhart is reporting in the case and has confirmed that the Judge won’t sanction her or even change the terms of the DVRO to stop her using the loopholes she has been to harass him because they haven’t asked him to 🤦‍♀️

What kind of legal advice has he been getting if they’re not seeking to punish her previous breaches or stop her commuting more. There is no point in wasting all this money in trying to renew it because as it stands, it’s not protecting him.

I feel enraged for him, he’s been let down by everyone one including his own lawyers.

Yep. The video is from early 2020 and IIRC Ioan left around a year later.

Jesus. That is long-term maliciousness.

The Tattle lot don't call her Malice for nothing!

It may be a civil case, but her behaviour is criminal.

Ioan hasnt asked to stop paying child support, in fact he’s put forward an increased amount and continues to cover their health insurance, a portion of their excess and mobile phone contracts.

He didn’t want to go to court. He tried to settle years ago, however Alice did want to go to court, refused settlements, delayed hearings and stated her intention numerous times in e-mails that are now in evidence. Her (documented) intention was to drag out the divorce to financially ruin him.

He is now asking to terminate spousal support because he doesn’t feel he should have to pay his abuser. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable request. What do you think?

Are they? I couldn't see it when I checked - it used to be top headlines for them!

Even though she’s using it to abuse him by proxy?

Because she uses the loophole of her constitutional rights (freedom of speech).

So it’s ok for her to post lies on the internet such as:

”please donate to my GoFundMe, we have nothing and I need to pay for a lawyer, he’s abusing me through court and I can’t afford a defence”

”he pays nothing to help look after our baybeeez, but bought his girlfriend a Rolex”

“we’re being evicted because we have no money and he won’t help”

The Daily Mail parroted these claims (and paid her for them) whilst she had over $80,000 in her account, he was paying her $10,000 a month, he was paying all her legal fees and he didn’t buy his girlfriend a Rolex. Also, she CHOSE not to pay her rent so made herself homeless.

He would have to sue her for defamation, but he can’t, because:

He has no money left to fund it after she wasted nearly half a million forcing him to pay both of their lawyers fees for the last five/six years and she has no money to pay him any of the compensation that he would be awarded.

I think it will get worse after this.

The judge can’t punish her financially because she has spunked all the money anyway and the kids will suffer if he takes away anything that she’s does earn from her few conventions.

He can’t punish her for her breaches because Ioans lawyer hasnt asked him to.

The DVRO will be extended, but won’t stop her doing exactly what she has been doing because again Ioans lawyer hasnt asked to change the terms of the DVRO.

She has nothing to lose, yet she’ll be more furious if her spousal is reduced or stopped.

The only thing that might control her is the custody agreement. Whilst Ioan isnt disputing it, the judge can’t legally sign it off because she’s a proven abuser so I think he’ll have her monitored through an abusers programme, alcohol/drugs programme and order that the kids have to attend therapy. She not fighting Ioan on this, it’ll be the judge so I think it may be the only thing that makes her toe the line for now.

Ioans side really messed up not addressing the breaches and ongoing risks.

Ioan doesnt play ball and give them comments, so they lean into the person who does.

Also, their showbiz editor (Alison Boshoff) is Alice’s BFF

I am less familiar with DVRO law than other California statutes, but it is the case that Judges can order sanctions "sua sponte" (that is to say on the Judge's own motion) in civil cases in California. A quick review of the California rules suggests that Judges can order sanctions "sua sponte" in Family law cases too where rules of Court have been broken (see eg https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/five/rule5_14 )

I have seen Judges ordering sanctions on their own motion if the abuse is so blatant, or involves situations where there may be abuse concerns (abuse victims may be too scared to "kick the hornets nest" so to speak) or where the bad actor has intentionally violated rules of court or sought to mislead the court. I defer to anyone who has practiced before this particular Judge in Family court cases involving Domestic Violence Restraining Orders to see whether he has made sua sponte sanctions orders in the past. The action that, it seems to me, would be most likely to cause the Judge to issue sanctions in this case is AE taking a photo of IG in the court room in blatant violation of not only the DVRO but also the Court's own rules.

If, as you say, his lawyers never actually formally asked for sanctions (which seems an oversight given the abuses alleged) then the question becomes whether that was an oversight, or whether the lawyers were waiting for the Judge's orders on the DVRO and other matters before then asking for sanctions. It may be that in this case the lawyers were waiting to see what parade of horribles may have come to light during the trial before then filing a comprehensive motion for sanctions. That said, it does not explain why motions for sanctions weren't filed each time the DVRO was allegedly breached in the past...I imagine it is because his lawyers felt that it would cost more to litigate the motion for sanctions than IG could hope to win in sanctions order amounts - the court can order expenses to be paid by the losing side, but if the losing side has no money (or claims it has no money) then the court is unlikely to award any such expenses, or much in the way of sanctions. Meaning you could win the motion but lose a load of money in making your point...(bear in mind that in the USA there generally aren't the same fee shifting rules we have in the UK).

I am not familiar with all the motions made in this case (no doubt there have been many!) If the point the woman you mention in your note is making is that there hasn't been a formal separate motion for sanctions made it does not necessarily mean that no sanctions will be awarded in future. There hasn't been a finding, yet, that any rules - or the DVRO - has been broken. So the lawyers may be waiting to see IF a breach of the DVRO is found before they ask for sanctions. And, as noted, the Court can issue a sanctions ruling on its own motion regardless of what IG's attorneys move for. Let's see what happens when the court rules on the DVRO situation. If the Court rules in favor of IG and finds that there have been breaches of the DVRO then lets see if IG's attorneys then immediately file for sanctions.

The Judge can issue sanctions regardless of whether IG's attorneys ask him to. Judges in California family law cases can issue sanctions "sua sponte" - which means on their own motion. They don't necessarily need a litigant to ask for sanctions to be able to award them if rules of court have been breached. Obviously it's not something that Judges like to do (they loathe being overruled on appeal and will try to avoid such things generally!) but they can and will issue sanctions where the rule breaking is bad enough. Judges understand that sometimes there can be reasons why litigants refrain from asking for sanctions (particularly when dealing with a very bellicose opposing party, or a lack of funds for motion practice). I've seen it happen more often when attorneys have breached rules of court (discovery practice and withholding of documents can cause judicial wrath especially where it involves wasting money/time). It will be interesting to see what happens when/if the Judge extends the DVRO: if the Judge finds that there have, in fact, been breaches of the DVRO then let's see if IG's attorneys move for sanctions at that point. I am interested to see if the Judge orders sanctions for the "photograph in court" incident...

So Andrea burkharts round up of yesterdays day in court was interesting. The detective who was speaking as a witness confirmed that vile Twitter accounts used to abuse and hound Bianca and ioan were traced to Alice’s phone number and the home address via IP identification.

The second witness who used to be the lady who ran Ioans fan club who Alice managed to convince that ioan was an awful abuser talked about how Alice admitted she was going to drag this out for as long as possible, lie about ioan using sex workers, drugs and was bouncing his cheques for the bills to ruin his credit score, Alice also gave out his address and told people to send bags of dog shit to his house.

All of this in email proof verified by professionals.

Well, in as much as a narcissist actually has friends. Alice uses Boshoff for what she can get (and vice versa), it’s not a real friendship.

It wasn’t what the legal blogger who is following the trial said, however she does often state that she’s unsure of laws and will check them for other states (she’s from Washington).

i really hope you’re right and that the judge comes down on her like a ton of bricks. 🤞

At the very least, I hope that the children are ordered into therapy that Alice can't ignore. Those poor girls must be so damaged by living with her.

The problem is, so far Alice has proven that she can ignore anything if it doesn’t directly benefit her. Mainly the truth.

I don't know who she is in terms of where she has practiced - it looks like she mostly practiced in Washington State which has it's own separate rules of court - but if she hasn't practiced in California she may not be as aware of California rules (heck, even California lawyers struggle given that California pretty much has a rule about everything!). A tricky issue here is that the normal way to deal with a violation of a DVRO is for the resulting contempt of court to be dealt with via the criminal justice system, rather than the Family Law courts. It sounds like the criminal justice system declined to prosecute when AE was previously arrested for alleged breach of the DVRO. What is different with this situation is that AE is now alleged to have broken a separate rule of court - the no photography rule - while also allegedly violating the DVRO.

The fact that it is possible for the Judge to issue sanctions on their own motion does not for one moment mean that it happens often. It doesn't. It also is never a good idea to rely on this rule when you (as in you the party or you the lawyer) can file a motion for sanctions yourself. But it is a something that is available to judges. Let's see what the Judge says when he rules on the DVRO issue.

I searched Lexis and West and couldn’t find any cases where this judge had made any such orders. That’s not to say he hasn’t of course, depending on the crapness of my research 😄