Janet/Lauren The Mortician Update: Joint Statement and Warning From The Court

[@Adiscretefirm]

Don't lose sight of the fact that this whole sorry story started because a mortician that has a child thinks that makes her more of an expert on child car seats than an actual car seat expert, because she's a mother and she cannot stand criticism.

[@wmdkitty]

@@acmhfmggru Janet, is that you?

[@Adiscretefirm]

@@acmhfmggru you think the problem was in the operation of the seat? Do you think a non engineer is qualified to pick up a phone, look at it and predict where and how it will break and have suggestions on how the phone could be made safe? Or is this Lauren still thinking having ovaries makes you expert on anything pertaining to children?

[@lisabeloved]

​@@wmdkitty 😂😂😂👏

[@Phantomphan613]

​@@acmhfmggrunot janet, so you must be lauren

[@Jellybellyirish]

​@@acmhfmggru What are you doing? that is quite literally what happened. this isn't hate train jumping this is just factually accurate

[@larrywest42]

Another false statement that is not defamatory: "Janet Braun is a competent lawyer".

[@Lucina..]

That one may be defamatory against the law profession 😂

[@TheRaspyAspie]

This ☝️

[@annme_87]

Allegedly

[@DaraJill]

I'm going to go out on a limb that Janet's behavior and lack of prowess in legal writing are far stronger implications that she lacks ethics and competence.

[@Teenywing]

Implications? What word did you mean to use there? Indication? I just want to understand your comment.

[@geegeegeeohbaby123]

@@Teenywingimply is used appropriately here. they’re using “implications” in the sense that her lack of knowledge suggests she is incompetent in her career. indication would also be appropriate, given the context, but it isn’t the only word that would suit their sentence.

[@michaelblacktree]

The truth isn't defamation. 😛

[@ChrisS-oo6fl]

@@Teenywing The comment was clear with Al appropriate use of vocabulary.

[@333Hitgirl]

Cash grab from emotionally agitated

[@lyndellrobinson3611]

"If you see something that is a dumpster full of flaming diapers, you should not reach your hands in because that does not end well. You just get flaming poop on your hands, and that's not cool." -Ian Runkle 2024

[@valoriel4464]

Words of wisdom.✌🏻

[@TheRaspyAspie]

Not the flaming diaper dumpster! 😭 💀🤘

[@phaedrapage4217]

That'd be one helluva needlepoint throw pillow!

[@GiraffeGal1]

Today I learned to not email the court and to not put my hands into a dumpster full of flaming diapers…thx Ian😂 Janet updates always make my day better.

[@samiraperi467]

F*cking right it's not cool, it's burning poop!

[@LadyEmilyNyx]

I can't believe "Don't email the court" needs to be said...

[@castrinecubique983]

that's a new level of main character syndrome... emailing the court for a case completely unrelated to themselves just wow

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

I fully agree... But amicus curiae briefs are also a thing. Clearly there is a line between the two, but exactly where and why at that point is an interesting question in its own right.

[@JordanHaisley]

Even the founding fathers wrote letters to the courts, it’s just become so much easier to do with email.

[@l.baughman1445]

LOL! True! It's along the lines of "Hey! Don't be stupid!" Sadly, that has to be said too.

[@megorex630]

Right?? Like I would never even think of that… it’s like asking to see the manager of the airport (anyone remember that Karen?).. Janet would be a good name for Karen like lawyers, bc man she’s nuts.

[@sarahanan7015]

Me to my child: "We need to leave in 15 minutes, so finish that KZbin video you're watching" *checks own KZbin feed* "We need to leave in 25 minutes and 59 seconds"

[@valoriel4464]

Thx for the laugh 😅✌🏻

[@daCubanaqt]

😂😂

[@_justsuzi]

Runkle posted! It's about The girlies vs janet!!! Plans on hold!!

[@JayeEllis]

That's what 2x speed is for.

[@rebelks88]

@@JayeEllisbut we allow for ad time

[@Julia-543]

Spoiler: Don’t email the court

[@jeffprice6421]

When a judge reads a lawsuit that basically says "Mom, their being mean to me" do they sigh? and question the series of life choices that have led them to this point??? 😂😂

[@scottbattaglia8595]

​@@acmhfmggruseriously? You obviously have no life if you have time to sit around and correct grammar in an online comment section.....🤦🏻

[@Longshot441]

@@scottbattaglia8595 They don't. That person is going around screeching about hate trains against the poor poor mortician.

[@littleshopofeldritchhorror6224]

No, they keep it going just to see how it get funnier

[@sionnach3104]

@@acmhfmggru Pedant. 🔔🔚

[@genericname8727]

​@@Longshot441 they’re saying other troll comments in other threads. Idk if they have any beliefs of their own. I think they just want to provoke people into replying with mean things like a form of digital self-harm (which typically involves people creating fake accounts to post hateful things towards themselves, but some people seem to try and provoke others to leave the comments too). They’re best ignored I think.

[@sapphail2410]

Imagine having such severe main character syndrome that you think emailing the court is a good idea. Some people urgently need to touch grass.

[@rhondasisco-cleveland2665]

They can’t, the grass offends them.

[@justkiddin84]

@@rhondasisco-cleveland2665it tries to pull its leave underground when they pass, lol😂

[@billyshearer117]

Today I learnt the expression “main character syndrome” and I love it

[@SadPuppySoup]

The internet hurt my feelings NOW GIVE ME ALL THEIR MONEY

[@kassiopiajudkins2722]

19:02 Didn't the Plaintiff claim at some point in their previous filings that they had been in settlement discussions with K.C. while K.C. was still making statements online? Yet in this outline they claim that "The Parties have not engaged in any settlement discussions to date." So, the Plaintiff just lied in prior filings? I don't think I'm misremembering the bit that Braun claims she was in settlement discussions with K.C's counsel while K.C. was still posting things that Braun found objectionable. If I'm not wrong and Braun did make that claim how does that jive with the claim in the recent filing?

[@PC1989]

You're not misremembering. Plaintiffs said they were in settlement discussions with KC. Now it seems they're backtracking that statement because, as far as I'm aware, that was false. They were never in settlement discussions and this filing now proves that.

[@maka5065]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who went "wait didn't they say they were doing a settlement discussion earlier??" These people man!

[@vickinator]

I’ve been waiting for an update! My DWKT girlies need this to end! How is Janet still a lawyer? It’s absurd! Thanks for the info!

[@Lazrael32]

it tends to take a very long time, sometimes years, for someone to get disbarred.

[@MashaRistova]

Have you ever heard of the “parasocial relationship” phenomenon? Because…. They’re not your “girlies.” They don’t know who you are. They don’t even know you exist.

[@lisainthestudio]

Yay for the Girlies, I love DWKT! I hope the judge sees the amount of money they had to raise to fight this ridiculous lawsuit and makes Janet pay it back with interest

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

@@lisainthestudio I'd want adjusted for inflation.

[@rsh793]

I so hope that Janet and Lauren lose and have to pay costs because I heard the podcast girlies say they had gone through all the money raised by the GoFundMe due to all this mucking around by Janet and her silly Ben!

[@genericname8727]

But they then raised a whole bunch more, though who knows if they’ll have enough if this keeps going. They may wind up needing to ask for more money again eventually. Janet and Lauren are really wasting everyone’s time and money with their nonsense lawsuit

[@rsh793]

@@genericname8727 I'm glad they did but the utter waste of money deliberately because they have the money power is horrendous and they deserve to get into trouble for that - guess it's different in America but if that happens in some other countries they are hauled over coals with their bare ass so to speak!

[@genericname8727]

@@rsh793 If The Girlies win then Lauren and Janet will likely have to pay lawyer fees for The Girlies. In addition to all of their own time and money that they've wasted. So their can be some consequences, beyond the reputational damage that comes with filing ridiculous lawsuits like this.

[@orchdork775]

Wonder if the people who donated will get their money back if Janet and Lauren have to pay all the court fees for the other side. If they get all that money, they theoretically could pay everyone back. If not, they'd end up making a profit off the people who donated. Wonder if they have said anything about that on the donation page.

[@genericname8727]

@@orchdork775 idk. I would expect they’d maybe reserve it for a while in case Janet and Lauren try refiling somewhere else if that’s an option? As someone who donated twice, I wouldn’t mind them keeping anything the court awards as compensation for the stress and wasted time. Idk if paying people back would even be a realistic option since the money is going straight to their lawyers’ bank accounts. They stressed not to donate unless you had the money to and I donated expecting not to see the money again, so I’m not expecting to be paid back. My money went to paying for their legal fees, and if they win then I got what I hoped to out of donating tbh. I certainly wouldn’t complain if I’m paid back though lol. It’s possible they’ll be awarded partial lawyer fees so they can’t guarantee they’ll get back the same amount they received either. I guess they can cross that bridge when they come to it.

[@LokiCDK]

I'm still of the mind that unless they prove collusion or conspiracy that this should be six different trials in six different states.

[@melimsah]

*trips over furniture to go make popcorn*

[@ladywytch129]

Should have done like I did and cleared the path first 😂

[@TaroTempura]

Lining up the side of the document up with the door in the background of your cam confused the hell out of me for a minute until I realized that the court filing didn't have a random door image off to the side of it 😅

[@airypersiflage]

It's so PERFECT 😂

[@TheSkinnyZ]

Omg, people have been messaging the court?! What the actual fuk?!

[@Akatsuki69387]

@@ForakusI have. Inappropriately messaging authority in ways that interfere with their jobs is not covered by the first amendment.

[@ruralmetalhead]

@@Forakus The first amendment protects you from government retaliation. Not general consequences of your actions.

[@ShaggyRogers1]

@@ruralmetalhead People have been writing to the courts concerning ongoing issues since the founding fathers. Free speech and peaceful redress of governance. The courts aren't immune from public messaging, same as the other branches.

[@ruralmetalhead]

@@ShaggyRogers1 That's not what people are talking about here, and you know it.

[@rhondasisco-cleveland2665]

😂 right?

[@FerociousPancake888]

COMES NOW, an excited viewer to this video!

[@brendaleelydon-carpenter1554]

Exactly how excited are you? Victorian corn novel excited, or...😂😂😂

[@FerociousPancake888]

@@brendaleelydon-carpenter1554Idk I mean this story in particular is pretty darn juicy so I’m probably a 7/10 excited when an update comes out though I do want the case to get tossed sooner than later because I feel really bad for the defendants.

[@novalinnhe]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@bf41989]

I think if it went to trial, the wellness checks would sink their case. It would most likely cost them more in damages to the defendants than if they would have just accepted people not liking them and walked away.

[@mhfuzzball]

I believe NBC Universal would agree that Janet lacks ethics and competence in her profession.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

If this makes it to discovery, watch Janet and Lauren try to claim that everything the defendants ask for is covered under attorney-client. I think that's the reason they went this route.

[@DaraJill]

It will be an interesting argument that Janet put in jeopardy by being a co-plaintiff instead of filing separately. Also admitting to the wellness check creates a quagmire as lawyers who participate in crimes, can obliterate privilege. Swatting was a misdemeanor in Georgia when they did it, though it recently was upgraded to a felony.

[@Akatsuki69387]

@@DaraJillbruh. Creating a situation where someone is likely to be shot at was a misdemeanor???? At least they updated it...

[@DaraJill]

@@Akatsuki69387 if done to an individual and not like a government building, yup misdemeanor. The new law is being reconciled by the Georgia House and Senate and is expected to fully pass. It has increased punishment for someone who does it repeatedly.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

@@DaraJill We're talking a lawyer that thought putting a "you can't say bad things about this product" in a pre-purchase popup was legally binding. Somehow, I don't think she's considered that her actions almost certainly voided confidentiality.

[@PC1989]

@@tzvikrasner6073 💯💯

[@amyjohnson8954]

This entire thing is positively ridiculous and childish but it doesn't stop me clicking so fast to hear your take because you make it hilarious. Thanks for your hard work, Ian. Love from Chicagoland.

[@roberthines2741]

Thanks Ian for being awesome.

[@winniethepoohandeeyore2]

Janet lacks ethics and competence. Proven.

[@daCubanaqt]

Runkle is putting out videos left and these days! I’m loving it. Thanks Runkle!!

[@Shadele1969]

Couldn’t get here fast enough ! Thanks Ian ❤

[@wrenmassey6876]

What did they think they would accomplish by emailing the court??

[@davidponseigo8811]

My biggest takeaway from your video is the Victorian Porno joke. That actually got me cracking up and rolling. Thanks for the laugh !

[@r3adrpro811]

Ian, Federal Magistrate Judges can actually conduct civil jury trials, not just bench trials; I speak from experience. They just cannot conduct criminal trials.

[@GarGhuul]

Can the Court actually award a Pony to a defendant?

[@arthurmoore9488]

Funnily enough, yes. Remember how Musk was forced to buy Twitter. In theory that same sort of thing could force someone to sell a pony. Actually, Ponys probably come up in divorces procedings. Which means the court really does award someone a pony.

[@jennstewart3003]

The original creation of the job Enrolled Agents, which predate the IRS but were essentially early IRS agents, was actually because people were filing false claims that Union had taken their ponies. So the EAs were created as independent way of verifying claims of ponies/horses to the government. I'm almost certain there were court cases involved somewhere. I just don't know how there could not be. In those cases, the court could make the government buy ponies for people/give them the money to go get their replacement ponies for the ones the government took during the Civil War.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

@@arthurmoore9488 I honestly continue to enjoy the fact that Musk was forced to follow through with the purchase. His offer was never anything but an attempt to bolster right-wing conspiracist claims that the platform was rife with bots supporting Dem politicians, which was why he continued to insist they were hiding the "real" bot counts. It's the same with Trump's initial 2016 run. He never expected to win, and was planning on spending the next several years getting money off conspiracy theorists without the scrutiny that came with being President. You could see that from his face when the race was called. The fact that both of them wound up getting destroyed by their attention-seeking gambits is just hilarious.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

Yes, if it's actually the (personal) property in question. In my country, Cattle and horses are explicitly mentioned in law as the sort of movable property that needs to be adjudicated in court in cases of ownership dispute...

[@Trek001]

If they award ponies, please can they send me Twilight Sparkle?

[@MerryKishline]

Diaper dumpster fire 🔥. Runkle we love your brain.

[@TinkerLou]

Love your videos Ian!!!

[@gkd1982]

Ian's TL;DR warning paraphrased: We watch FAFO and laugh, we don't FAFO.

[@margueritemitchell1829]

Hello from Beautiful British Columbia Canada 🇨🇦

[@LibraInSeattle]

I love BC. I don't get up there often enough anymore. I miss snowshoeing at Whistler - Blackcomb. It's beautiful. Cheers from your neighbor south of the border.

[@montyg6002]

Ian, you reviewed a case with Janet as a witness for one of her clients a while back. Did you ever find out what the result was?

[@N3rdDak]

WHY is the judge allowing this all?!?! This is so confusing. Every time we cover this, its all the same shit over and over and over again. How is this just not thrown out by now?!

[@ninesdb99]

I'm pretty sure he said in a prev video that they keep this going to prevent them for going to higher court (or what you call that in the usa) because this court "dismissed the case without giving proper time and chance to give information" or something. And going to higher up would cost a lot more and last a lot longer. So its better for everyone if this court just listens to all this bs.

[@grayaj23]

Asking tik-tokers NOT to make themselves part of the story seems a bit of a tall request.

[@anngenaske4648]

Thanks for this, Runkle

[@firworks]

"Now comes the parties" has to be read to the tune of Here Comes the Bride.

[@Paige0230]

I have been weirdly obsessed with this case. Janet is crazy it’s so fun but also sad.

[@phaedrapage4217]

Ian, I really appreciate how you break down the legal terminology in these documents without sounding like you're talking to a child.

[@RareRootsOfJoyMelbourne]

“Don’t do that crap, it’s incredibly stoopid” Ahhh gotta love ya Ian. Saying it clear and straight.

[@Ciborium]

I think Jeanette "Janet" Braun has done more to demonstrate that she lacks competence than anyone's individual opinion. I mean, anyone who has followed the case would think that "Janet" Braun is most likely a "rogue attorney" and "lacks competence" based on her many bad and irrational behavior.

[@justinebidulopoutchini9774]

I love listening to legal jargon while knitting!

[@SecretAgentNein]

I wish you would cover the Illuminaughtii lawsuit. Nobody else covers these kinds of cases like you.

[@ThatAdamIsMild]

Purely on the name alone, I now want Ian to cover it, too! 😅

[@Darkfyyre]

@@ThatAdamIsMild check out MadCatster, he's also a lawyer and has been closely following all of iilluminaughti's legal shenanigans. since it sounds like you're unfamiliar with this case, i do hate to tell you but it's not anything about the fun wackjob conspiracy stuff like you might be thinking, and it's actually a much, much heavier situation. however, if you enjoy watching a tyranical chronic narcissist get their ass repeatedly handed to them in spite of their escalating attempts to become a comic book super villain, then this is indeed the case for you! highlights include the time she (plaintiff) tried to have a man's (defendent) house foreclosed on him days before christmas in an act so cartoonishly evil, it's hard to believe she's real. janet makes me laugh, but iilluminaughtii and i live in the same state, potentially in the same or a nearby zip code, so i live in fear knowing there's a non-zero chance of me bumping into her, and i can't promise myself or anyone else that i'd be chill about it...

[@Athairne]

If you haven't seen his videos already, you might enjoy the MadCatster. Like Ian, he's a lawyer and he's been covering the Illuminaughtii lawsuit for a while. I think him and Ian are acquainted with each other.

[@brendaleelydon-carpenter1554]

I second the recommendation of Madcatster! As stated, he is a lawyer that also breaks down cases & has been following the iilluminatii nonsense since the beginning. Plus, rescue cats! You can't lose! 😺

[@selinesbeau]

@@ThatAdamIsMild oh she is a special kind of psycho

[@ademoss80]

Boundaries people, boundaries.

[@AdeebaZamaan]

And shouldn't it be "come" to agree with "parties," anyway?

[@justkiddin84]

In modern usage, the ‘comes now’ is old usage. I bet that was a typo.

[@alderoth01]

I dont know why i have to keep subscribing to everybodies channels on mobile!! KZbin needs to fix their mobile app!!

[@helenjones4550]

I have no idea what this is all about but… it seems to be a cautionary tale of life on social media

[@PC1989]

Don't touch the poo. Never touch the poo.

[@FuriouslyDistracted]

Lmao I love Runkle making his motivation clear and direct for the record 😂

[@pebblesdropz1650]

Thanks for the information on the case. And for general information on how not to get notifications frm the courts.

[@lexybaginsky]

The absolutely glee I feel whenever I see a Runkle video with "Janet" in the title...😂

[@colonelstunts4885]

Absolutely will be Integrating “comes now” into my everyday vocabulary now 😭

[@TheGoodKimmy]

Thx Ian!! 🧝🏻‍♂️

[@fbt328]

Janet is the diaper dumpster fire gift that keeps on giving

[@KelseyDrummer]

The title of a victorian porno?! Ian has such a way with words.😂

[@indie1179]

I am not listening to Runkle’s coverage of this legal case with the mentality of participating ‘in an internet mob’ (should one exist beyond the theoretical assertion made in the court document discussed), but rather and purely for educational purposes.

[@selinesbeau]

and giggles

[@SpicyGoldenRetriever]

My bestie and i are hooked on this case and absolutely love hour runkle-isms throughout this one 😂♥️

[@Criminal-Med-Connections]

Thanks Ian ❤

[@allwaizeright9705]

I think after awhile courts and judges are just going to start dismissing stupid lawsuits with prejudice...

[@juliankohler5086]

We certainly aren't the ones emailing the court. That's a TikTok crazy person for sure. Often I'm too lazy to write a ticket about an issue I encounter with some service. Can't fathom the mind of someone who emails a court.

[@allieniner675]

Subject matter jurisdiction! Elle Woods from Legally Blonde taught me about that! 😂

[@novalinnhe]

Lmaooooo 😂😂

[@ElleAlexandria]

Here for the Janet updates 😂

[@martinaasandersen3775]

I dont understand why the judge doesn't rule on the slapp/dismiss stuff. Forcing people to go trough discovery (it says at 1:38 she's not inclined to stay discovery until she rules) on a frivolous lawsuit seems like a overreach, so why wouldn't you decide that first.

[@martinaasandersen3775]

Also seems like a huge waste of resources to go through discovery and depositions if they aren't needed (if the case get dismissed)

[@martinaasandersen3775]

15:44 Sounds like that is exactly what the judge is going to do though....

[@andywander]

Just wondering-why does KC get to maintain her anonymity, while all others involved are named?

[@andywander]

@@novalinnhe I think I've watched them all, but I missed that part. Care to let me in on it?

[@Bliberal]

YAY!! Looking forward to more Janet shenanigans lol

[@DaraJill]

perhaps... Jananigans 😆

[@Bliberal]

​@@DaraJill oh, that is the term of choice now! 😆

[@2Truth4Liberty]

An ATTORNEY being a PARTY AND that same attorney representing a separate PARTY(CLIENT) in the same case is a NO GO -- because of the risk of conflict of interests concerning of multiple parties are not always the same and could place the Attorney in the position of having to choose between the CLIENT's interest and the Attorney's own interest.

[@ShagShaggio]

Cheers

[@kita476]

I can't believe this has gotten so far that we are mentioning the words Jury trial. This is outrageous. I wish she has to pay the girlies back their legal fees plus compensation for time wasting.

[@ARIZONA1512]

I love how Janet looks different in each episode. I am SOOO surprised she has not gone after you yet. Love following this with your content.

[@basicallyno1722]

Janet doesn’t want any of that Runkle smoke!

[@novalinnhe]

​@@basicallyno1722Thinking it might also be because Runkle is Canadian... I'm not seeing too many US-based outlets covering it at all tbh.

[@ARIZONA1512]

@@basicallyno1722 For real! haha

[@ARIZONA1512]

@@novalinnhe And that is just what I was thinking.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

What are the technical differences between "internet rando emailing the court" and an amicus curiae brief?

[@DaraJill]

You have to ask the court's permission to file an amicus brief.

[@arlettehassing2147]

Grammar police here…Now come the Parties…he comes,we come,they come😂😂😂😂

[@anniealexander9911]

I thought it was Jessie Smiles who referred to perjury in a tweet, not Lily Marsden?

[@leeannepilkington9356]

I'm only interested in this because of the lawsuit. I have never seen any of their videos.

[@annabasnatural]

The fact that they haven’t taken Runkle, Markie or anyone else to court because of their content is interesting to me

[@DaraJill]

Markie and Runkle are in the UK and Canada, respectively. Suing them is prohibitively expensive. I also assume she is not targeting Madcatster because, being a lawyer as well, he can more effectively fight her on the cheap.

[@MasterWayfinder]

I get Elf prince vibes off this video. Thanks for the update.

[@CSTeears-68]

The like button isn't working & it's not even showing me as a member or subscribed - Apparently KZbin is having issues today 😼

[@CSTeears-68]

I was able to hit the like button with a different phone - maybe the other phone was too Hot 🔥 I live in Phoenix - phones tend to be allergic to heat lol

[@ajejebrazorf1888]

Another update from my favorite witcher!

[@Nicgross]

I’m honestly surprised that Kitti’s attorney didn’t counter sue for IIED based on the false wellness checks.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

Assuming this goes to trial, would anyone have any realistic grounds to call Ian as a witness, expert or otherwise?

[@ArthurRichardSole]

Very doubtful. What would he be witness too or provide evidence for? He's just commentating on stuff the court already know and are doing.

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

@@ArthurRichardSole "it's not just you American lawyers, Canadian lawyers also think she's being stupid." "They're kinda asking the court to order the Internet to stop being the Internet."

[@skachor]

​@@benjaminshropshire2900I really hope the court doesn't need an expert on the court...

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

@@skachor I was more thinking an expert on *other* courts and the internet.

[@foxinasweater2300]

pretty sure he would attempt to get dismissed as biased or whatever. I seriously doubt Ian wants to be involved other than as a spectator and he would know what tools to use to get out of it.

[@DarwinAwardJudge]

If Janet and Lauren with it'll set a scary precedent for other people-- being able to sue just because someone makes statement you don't like

[@user-mv5zt8qd9l]

I think these claims are so phony the only question is if it'll end up in trial, dismissed or fully anti-SLAPPed. There is literally so much case law showing that what the "girlies" have been stating is plain opinion, and for the couple of things that are partly fact-based, there's an explanation to how a reasonable person would deem the beliefs as true.

[@charmcat123]

I have a question...alot of ppl on Tiktok, KZbin etc...say "In my opinion" or "This is my opinion" wouldn't that just make it more an opinion and not a fact that the Lawyer and the mortician person could use against the others? I think all of this is ridiculous and a waste of court time and money

[@elaexplorer]

Saw this on my feed and had to stop what I was doing and watch

[@lauuu__ri431]

.....but she is a lawyer without ethics, maybe if she acted ethically people wouldn't say that about her. What a concept.

[@smokejaguarsix7757]

Why was there co-operation between the lawyers in the production of this document? Because Janet isnt one of the lawyers who made the document?

[@Brandon-a-writer]

Is it not so that, if they are telling the truth, it is an absolute defense against libel/defamation?

[@bob_mosavo]

Can't wait for more

[@StevenLockey]

@Runkle Of The Bailey We bow to your superior expertise around Victorian pornos ;)

[@HolldollMcG]

Yet more evidence that "professional" does not necessarily mean "expert"

[@user-eh5cr4or6k]

I always believed and have been taught, that being professional, is not something you are, it's what you do and how you do it.

[@PineBaskets]

My opinion of myself is more important than anyone elses. At times, I have been quite critical of myself, so i fix my issues, sometimes with input from people i respect, sometimes by self correcting. NEVER based on opinions of strangers on social media.

[@Ciborium]

The judge in this case has such a smooth brain, there is no doubt that he will give "Janet" Braun a third and fourth attempt to fix her initial complaint, despite defendants doing an excellent job of demolishing Lauren and "Janet's" arguments. This case is definitely going to go to trial, so the judge can eat another box of crayons.

[@robwoodring9437]

I can't even grasp what is happening here. It seems like a catty meltdown argument on The View, but all the vapid clucking and barking has been translated into Lawyer-Language. Is that an improper assessment?

[@TheSightOfTheStars]

Not entirely. Lauren previously had her followers harass and mass report another TikTok creator, a certified child car seat expert, because he criticized her for improperly calling a car seat unsafe. Said safety expert was a gay man, and she implied it was "weird" that he had so many child products, without having children, and that he claimed to know more than her, a mother. This is what begot the accusations of homophobia and transphobia she's now suing over. Which, Lauren and Janet, both plaintiffs, called in a wellness check to one of the defendants after she (Kitty), posted a tik tok about the situation. The whole thing is a mess, top to bottom, but crazier that the View. 😂

[@bradenculver7457]

Has runkle seen the video of the Arizona judge limiting defenses cross examination to four minutes and then walking out while they are offering a proffer to the court? It’s utter insanity, along with the reporting going on about it pretending the judge is upset with both the pros and def when he only ever limited defense.

[@ryanscranton8368]

Mechanics fix cars and lawyers sue.

[@edithhuelskamp1649]

Runkle outs himself as a Browncoat by wishing for a 🐎 and a 🚀

[@williamromine5715]

I am an old guy in the States, and the only tging I know about this case😢 is thru your channel. My question is: are the Defendants rich? I can't see a lawyer getting involved in representing the Plaintifs unless it is on time and expense basis, or contingent fee basis if the defendants have money. On the face of it, this looks like a case where lawyer fees could pile up pretty fast, but even if sucessful, damages would be quite small.

[@smilanek]

❤

[@JohnDoe-jj4qd]

Is that a mashup of Janet and Laurence? Lolol

[@rossini138]

I somehow always missed the start of the video where you say your name and thought Runkle was a title like guncle or funcle. You’re the rizz uncle