Blac Chyna’s $100 million defamation suit against the Kardashians was dismissed. That doesn’t mean she’s forgotten her rage at the court that announced the judgment against her.
Blac Chyna has stated that she is taking her fight with the Kardashian/Jenner family to a higher court and has begun to unleash bombshells regarding what transpired behind closed doors during her trial. According to court documents obtained by Radar Online, Chyna revealed an alleged secret meeting with the Kardashians and a court employee.
The 34-year-old reality star and her lawyer listed various reasons why she thought the judge was biased against her throughout the trial in the application to disqualify, which was refused. Chyna sued Rob Kardashian’s family members Kris, Kim, Khloé, and Kylie all at once, but they didn’t play nice. She accused them of circulating false rumors about her assaulting Rob while they were together.
Lynne Ciani, Chyna’s attorney, stated in the newly filed documents that she has been practicing law for over 32 years. “I have never moved to disqualify a judge for cause … in my entire 32-year career as a litigator,” she said. She said that the judge was ‘hostile’ during the trial, which she feels contributed to him deciding in favor of the reality star family. Ciani claims it all started when Kardashian family lawyer Michael Rhodes accused Chyna’s mother on social media of ‘threatening the lives of his clients.'”
Ciani stated that she was unaware of the incident but decided to ban Tokyo Toni from the courtroom. Later, she said that during a private discussion in chambers, Rhodes interjected the completely irrelevant fact that he recently represented Mark Zuckerberg in a legal case. “I believed defense counsel’s name dropping of his client, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, was a highly unethical and completely improper attempt to influence” the judge allegedly said.
Her attorney went on to say after the meeting in chambers the judge started making “highly questionable and uneven” rulings. In another incident, Rhodes accused Tokyo of threatening the judge. Ciani stated to the judge that Chyna’s mother has a history of ranting on social media, especially against her own daughter. She feels that this incident caused the judge to make more biased decisions.
“His tone and demeanor towards me became markedly disrespectful and dismissive. In stark contrast, Judge Alarcon’s tone and demeanor towards Mr. Rhodes became increasingly respectful and even deferential.”
Ciani’s main complaint was with the judge’s court clerk. According to Chyna‘s lawyer, the clerk worked for the judge for almost 14 years. Ciani stated that the clerk was more interested in the cases than the majority of the clerks. She spotted the clerk talking to Rhodes at one point, and the conversation appeared “chummy” and too cordial. She stated that the conversation lasted too long for her to ignore. Ciani then allegedly approached them to find out what they were talking about.
The clerk “unabashedly and even giddy informed me that she was asking [Rhodes] if her adult daughter could meet the defendants in a private meeting,” because her daughter was a “huge fan of the Kardashians.” Ciani stated that she was “stunned at the audacity of [the clerk] to act so openly biased in favor of the Kardashian and Jenner defendants in front of me.”
She accused Rhodes of smiling and being extremely accommodating in response to [the clerk’s] highly unethical and improper request. Ciani claimed she observed the clerk was no longer in the court and had been replaced by another employee a day later. According to Ciani, eyewitnesses observed the old clerk and her adult daughter enter the secret and protected area (guarded by L.A. County Sheriff Deputies) where the defendants – Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian, Khloe, and Kylie Jenner, and “presumably, their counsel – were located.”
Ciani stated, “Upon information and belief, it was rumored that [the clerk] and her adult daughter secured autographs and/or photos with the defendants.” Despite the charges, the judge denied the motion to disqualify. Chyna believes the odds were stacked against her and will now appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal.
“Angela White deserved a fair trial in a court of law and she did not receive a fair trial. She remains hopeful that the Second District Court of Appeal will review the evidence and determine that Judge Alarcon must be removed from the Revenge Porn trial and also removed from ruling on any post-judgment motions in the Defamation/Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations case.”
If Chyna’s claims are true, she should be given another opportunity. The case is becoming increasingly complicated, and it will be interesting to see how it concludes. To get the latest updates, keep an eye on Thirsty.
What’s your opinion on this one? Let us know in the comments!