As others have pointed out, there are so many statements in this legal filing that directly contradict Alice's claims on social media, eg re her finances, work opportunities etc. This one also really caught my eye:
If, as Alice's own lawyer claims, (a) "there is nothing wrong with Alice making comments on the case", and (b) "[t]he Court was careful to fashion the DVRO in a manner that would not unlawfully restrict Alice's right to free speech", then why is Alice forever bleating on about being gagged, forbidden from telling her side, not being allowed to say anything about the case, and so on? (Clearly it's because the only things she wants to say would be lies and disparaging statements in violation of the DVRO, as she full well knows. Not that that completely stops her, as we have seen.)
Smartest person in the room, Al? Not even if you were the only person in it, mate!
[NB: Alice has engaged in communications about the
case, not the
cause. Yet another typo her lawyer failed to correct. It may seem minor and nitpicky, but that kind of professional slapdashery seriously chaps my arse. Although Alice thinks her situation IS a righteous cause to fight, so maybe it isn't so much a typo as a Freudian slip!]