Without a Crystal Ball, LLC filed a request to dismiss this lawsuit and a motion for sanctions, with the court hearing this matter without a crystal ball. As stated in the motion to dismiss, the case should be dismissed because it lacks personal jurisdiction, diverse jurisdiction, relevant parties have not been joined, and an awardable claim has not been articulated. Michael Saltz, a defense attorney representing plaintiffs, is the subject of a Motion for Sanctions because of his alleged inappropriate conduct in connection with Lori Barnhart’s declaration, following Title 28 of the United States Code. In this article, we will discuss without a crystal ball.
What is without a crystal ball?
On Katie Joy’s channel, also known as without a crystal ball, she talks about anything from personal vlogs to reality television, celebrity rumors, current events, and even murder. Focusing on fundamentalist Christian families like the Bairds, the Schofields, and the Duggars, TLC is perhaps best recognized for its coverage of their lives.
Content of without a crystal ball:
Katie has a YouTube channel where she posts news and commentary about prominent Christians who practice fundamentalism and her thoughts and observations on the subject. Her most popular videos are those about the Duggar family. A fan of television dramas and reality shows, she tends to embellish and exaggerate events to garner a more significant following. As a regular contributor to Patheos, she was fired when she used the publication as a platform to disseminate falsehoods about Tati.
Amber Portwood’s overzealous reporting:
Initially, she focused on the lives of small children, including how they were disabled or tragically died. As a result of Amber Portwood’s overzealous reporting on celebrities, she has vowed to sue her. While discussing notable persons who had children at a young age, she then went on to talk about her own childhood experiences. She has even tried to buy private information from an influencer and interview Myka Stauffer’s neighbor about Myka and Huxley.
Controversy:
She’s even threatened to sue everyone who comments negatively about her, and she’s doxxed another creator in the process. Tati Westbrook has also filed a defamation suit against her, and, most shocking of all, she was recorded calling a child abuse victim a “spoiled brat.” Whenever she’s talking about a renowned person, she’s not shy about digging deep to learn more about them.
Speaking of Shane Dawson’s deception:
Katie said she had evidence to put Shane in jail, but in reality, she never had any evidence. In contrast, this may be true, Sgt. Payne, a police officer, was the only one aware of her allegation that she had proof to put Shane in prison. But an examination revealed that she had never given this information to law enforcement; Sergeant Payne had already resigned at this time.
A face-to-face encounter with Tati Westbrook:
Beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook is well-known for her infamous attempts to destroy James Charles’ career. Because of this, she has received much attention from numerous commentary channels, which have posted videos critical of her. As a result, Without a Crystal Ball disclosed Tati’s court filings from the lawsuit she is suing her ex-business partner at Halo Beauty.
Without a crystal ball allegation:
Tati claims that Without a Crystal Ball’s allegations about James’s career, particularly the accusation that she cost him millions of dollars, are untrue. When it came to her husband’s past, WOACB revealed the scandals surrounding his family. Tati filed a lawsuit against Without a Crystal Ball after the video was posted online, accusing them of disseminating false information and harassing her when she was already suing her business partner.
Dispute about the artwork for Creepshow:
She was the topic of a video by Creepshow Art. As a result, she was included in the following video. Shannon’s second video was an account of the harassment she had experienced due to the first video she had recorded. As a result, Shannon has been bombarded with messages on Twitter, including one from ready to glare in which she refers to Shannon as her “friend.”
Observations on Sophie:
On September 2, a video of a nine-year-old child called Sophie Long was posted online, showing her refusing to return home with her mother and stepfather. On camera, Sophie accuses Jacob Bellington of having sex with her while he was away at college. Bellington’s friends allegedly assaulted her while she was a guest at the home of Bellington’s mother and grandmother, she claims. Sophie’s biological father, Michael Long, recorded when she refused to get out of the car and go home with him. Sophie subsequently won a successful custody battle.
Without a Crystal Ball’s argument stems from a lack of evidence:
After all the uncertainty had been cleared up, Tati’s name was mentioned on a television show Without a Crystal Ball. Since Without a Crystal Ball has repeatedly targeted Tati, the “drama” community does not have a warm feeling toward the actress. Without a Crystal Ball, on the other hand, published court records filed against Tati by her former Halo Beauty business partner, who is suing her for defamation.
Conclusion:
Tati claims that without a crystal ball, allegations about James’s career, particularly the accusation that she cost him millions of dollars, are untrue. Tati filed a lawsuit against Without a Crystal Ball after the video was posted online, accusing them of disseminating false information and harassing her when she was already suing her business partner. The “Without a Crystal Ball Lawsuit” was born due to this.
FAQs:
Where does Katie Joy, the protagonist without a crystal ball, live?
Defendant Born and reared in Minnesota, Katie Joy Paulson is a native of the state. A defendant without a Crystal Ball, her limited liability corporation in Minnesota, is called a defendant without a Crystal Ball.
Who is a former business partner of Tati’s?
Tati, a former business partner of Tati’s, is suing her for unspecified reasons. James Westbrook, her husband, and her former business partner claim that they all held the same number of shares in the company.