From my armchair, the Defendants did an excellent job of introducing evidence. The judgement in the Farrah Abraham lawsuit and the discovery of two previously unknown restraining orders are extremely helpful. Us humble Orchardists will forever be in Molly's debt.
Furthermore, said evidence does bear upon a claim or defense in this case. Five failed lawsuits against three female celebrities over a 7 year period (2014-2021) with many of said suits being filed in bad faith by Russhole's own admission (with a confession of bad faith over at least one of these suits in this very case!), and many of which using alleged breaches of the ADA as a pretext.
Using Russhole logic, he's likely to argue that this is different because he's suing Fremantle/Marathon and not Heidi Klum directly.
>Russhole can't sue Heidi Klum directly; uses producers of AGT as a proxy
>Defense suggests Russhole is using AGT as a proxy to get to Heidi Klum; presents evidence to back this up
>"NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
I suspect that Russhole was seething with so much narc rage when he wrote that paragraph, he didn't realise he'd made a significant typo. Because I'm
best feeling generous, I've fixed it for him.
The Defendants let off a massive chlorine bomb that makes things crystal clear to a
reasonable person.
Exactly, which is why the Defendants only submitted the Complaint and Dismissal for each lawsuit. The complaint is the filing, the judgement is the... well, judgement.
Two words stick out here: "generally" and "fraudulent". I read generally as meaning "usually but not necessarily always". As for fraudulent... would I be drawing a long bow by suggesting that filing in bad faith could be construed as "fraudulent" for the purposes of Rule 403?
I see what Russ was trying to achieve here. The trouble is that he didn't think his cunning plan through.
Had he written a song called "Walks like Simon Cowell", it'd completely destroy the Defendants' argument that Russhole's AGL lolsuit is a variation on his previous lolsuit motif.
I suspect It'd still make sfa difference to the final judgement, as Russhole signed a binding agreement to waive his right to sue and for any and all disputes between himself and AGT's producers to be resolved via arbitration.
As opposed to submitting a 6 page (heh) stream of consciousness diatribe, which is most certainly
not causing confusion or wasting time.
You have a long way to go to catch up... but I believe in you, little buddy!
Mixed messages here. In the first sentence Russhole confidently proclaims that the judicial notice has failed on relevancy. In the second sentence this shifts to "yes you can accept this notice, but just because I've used litigation as an attention-seeking strategy in the past it doesn't mean you can refer back to those actions when considering this current attempt to seek attention via litigation".
It'd be tiresome if it wasn't sofa king hilarious.
