@katyinkc: She said I’ll take your denied slapp and slapp you back 😭🤡🍿 #thetell #amygriffin #fyp #legaldrama

Kay Lynn :

I want to jump up and down and say “YES” for her attorneys. Love it

outofideas :

To me what they are saying is Amy now remembers what she thought about under mdma not now remembers something from back then and admits that. She doesn’t remember the past before that and has no evidence that it happened to her and she said so herself. That’s her own words. She isn’t sure it actually happened or if she just imagined the whole thing in the mdma session. The difference between doing mdma already having memories of a situation and first hand knowledge of something that happened in the past that exists at that time ( which Amy downst have ) and has no evidence before she opted to do that therapy for those expeiences. Amy has a catch 22 in her own statements and potential evidence. “A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.” Amy is a bit screwed. All she has evidence of and first hand knowledge and memory of is the mdma session. Not the events she put in the tell she says happened to her back then. And for what she says she thought of during her mdma back then the only other party that could corroborate her mdma memories would be the r’ist she says did that to her. To prove the tell experiences did happen to her she would need to have her thought to be r’ist testify for her.

Chris :

This is brilliant legal work.

Chris 🏳️‍🌈🐕 :

I think LGA mentioned in one of her posts that, if she were AG’s lawyer, she would have advised her that she doesn’t want to (or shouldn’t want to) litigate this matter. I saw her video this morning about it and honestly I agree. I think it was more about the separate filed case in Nevada and the thoughts behind why she did that. But overall I do agree I feel like AG should have just settled it in the first place. The more she fights it the more attention is drawn to it (Streisand effect)

VICTORIA 🩷🦩 :

We are so backkkkkk

artracket :

Doukesa Georgas 🇦🇺 :

Love love love this!!!❤️

HeatherHampshire :

Color me intrigued 😏

outofideas :

602 is the persoanl knowledge rule. She has statements in which she says she doesn’t know if it happened or not and her wavering between it did but it may not have definitely is an issue anf will be interesting. She would have to under oath swear I assume it did. And she has avoided making the stand that what she says she remembered 100% happened to her. She has used words like idea and other words that don’t necessarily say it did happen and I’m sure it did. She looked for other people to verify it could have happened to her. But Amy now says wether it did or not doesn’t matter. This will be interesting. 602 “A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.”

riskybiznuss :

Because I got high, because I got high, because I got hiiiiigh…

melsnare :

🚨🚨 maybe this was AG’s master plan the whole time: get a court judgment in re: MDMA- to get research in via legal filings in support of getting FDA approval for medical or therapeutic use?? 🫪😵‍💫🤡☠️