Tricia Walsh-Smith, the divorcee made famous by a bitter and popular YouTube attack on her husband, has lost her divorce claims — with the Manhattan judge expressly criticizing her YouTube videos. Philip Smith, a theater mogul and President of the Shubert Organization, is the winner Judge Harold Beeler upheld the pre-nup in the case –limiting Walsh-Smith to $750,000 and telling her to get out of the luxury condo that was the scene of her YouTube creation.
What is clear is that Hell hath no fury like a YouTuber scorned.
However, the YouTube approach is not likely to be repeated given the reaction of the Court. Beeler criticized her for the video as a “a calculated and callous campaign to embarrass and humiliate her husband” and to pressure him into settling into a settlement. He stated that “She has attempted to turn the life of her husband into a soap opera by directing, writing, acting in and producing a melodrama.”
Her video has attracted 3 million hits. For the video, click here.
She even has a website proclaiming her as Tricia Walsh Smith: Activist…Artist…Woman…Warrior. Click here. It is not quite clear what she was an activist or warrior for — beyond an attack on her husband and his family.
For the full story, click here.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
A court not persuaded by celebrity status–however small. Say it ain’t so. And she looked so good on camera too! Darn, back to just using evidence now. Thanks to the “dark robes” for again taking the fun out of litigation. Those guys should lighten up. Maybe get their own YouTube gig. Long live the “Dancing Judge Ito’s.”
A serious question mespo,
The court did seem persuaded by the video against Trish.
Is the video really supposed to be taken into account when deciding this case? Does it bear on the law?
Not serious now–perhaps Trish needs to make a new video about the judge!
Jill:
It goes to her credibility before the Court not the issues in the divorce. It is sort of the undergirding of her evidence since so much depends on the Judge’s impression of the litigants veracity. Here, she jeopardized that in a foolish stunt. She reminds me of the witnesses in major criminal cases who sell their story before or during the trial. It never bolsters their credibility–just the opposite. For an example of another foolish stunt impugning a client’s veracity see Clements, Roger-”Press Conference Denouncing Government Witness.”
Thanks mespo!