"Bold statements do not correspond to the materials of the case": Anna Sedokova's lawyer on the court case with Janis Timma's relatives
"Currently, there are a large number of loud statements from the plaintiffs' representatives in the public space. However, when it comes to the court process, it is important to separate what is said in interviews and social media from what is actually happening in the courtroom and what documents the parties have.
I will start with the marriage contract. It was drafted by the parties in writing, signed, and notarized by a notary in the state of Florida, USA. Its proper legalization is confirmed by an apostille, and it is fully equivalent to a notarized marriage contract executed on the territory of the Russian Federation. The court has already familiarized itself with the original marriage contract, as have the plaintiffs' representatives. I want to specifically address the so-called "response from America," which the plaintiffs' side is currently actively referencing in public comments.
The document submitted to the court is a copy of the response to a personal request from Janis Timma's father. This request was made by him personally, not in the context of the current civil case. Moreover, the notary in this response does not deny the notarization of the document. Therefore, it is completely unclear to us why the content of this response is presented in public interviews in such a way, effectively questioning the actions of the notary himself.
In the document, the notary provides clarifications specifically regarding the nature of the notarial action performed in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida. Despite the fact that lawyer Gavrilova has repeatedly spoken publicly about the long-awaited receipt of the "response from America," she was unable to present its original to the court and explained that she does not have the original of this document. The story regarding the so-called "signature of the governor of the state of Florida," which was also presented to the public as some special argument, turned out to be equally telling. This refers to the usual notarization of the apostille through the Secretary of State, State of Florida. By this logic, one could say that the marriage contract of Anna and Janis was also "certified by the governor of Florida." That is why it is especially important not to create a sensation around standard legal procedures where there is none.
The original marriage contract was provided by representatives of Anna Sedokova at the court's request on August 18, 2026. At the same time, the plaintiffs' representatives did not question the authenticity of this document in court. And this is a fundamental point: public statements must be correlated with the procedural actions that the party actually takes in the court session. The content of lawyer Gavrilova's statements made in the public space will be separately assessed by us from a legal standpoint. If necessary, we will use the legal means of protection provided by law. As for the statements about Anna's property, the court twice, at the request of the plaintiffs' lawyers, sent inquiries about the existence of real estate owned by Anna Sedokova. According to the responses received by the court itself, at both the time of the divorce proceedings and at the time of Janis Timma's death, there was no real estate owned by Anna Sedokova. The apartment in "Scarlet Sails" was purchased by Anna with her personal funds obtained from the sale of premarital property, as well as with borrowed funds. In accordance with the terms of the marriage contract, Anna independently made all payments on this loan. Janis Timma did not participate in these payments.
I want to separately comment on the statements about the allegedly prolonged attempts by the plaintiffs' side to resolve the dispute amicably. Even before going to court, the plaintiffs' representatives began publicly disclosing details of the alleged court dispute on social media and in the media and repeatedly spoke about an alleged dialogue with both Anna Sedokova and her representatives. Meanwhile, no inquiries on these matters were received by us. The first document we received from the plaintiffs' representative was the statement of claim. The plaintiffs did not engage in constructive negotiations with us. On August 18, 2026, the plaintiffs submitted clarified claims and requested that the marriage contract be declared invalid. Otherwise, their claims remained unchanged. The court postponed the hearing so that the defendants could familiarize themselves with the new claims and prepare a legal position regarding the lawsuit. Therefore, it is now impossible to discuss how "strong" or "stable" the position of either party is. No one knows in advance what decision the court will make. Any attempts to publicly present the outcome of the case as already predetermined are an attempt to present the desired as the actual. The same applies to statements about the allegedly "lifetime travel ban" for Anna Sedokova and the intention to "prevent her bankruptcy." Russian legislation does not provide for either a "lifetime travel ban" as a measure of enforcement or the possibility for a representative of one party to arbitrarily "prevent the bankruptcy" of another person. Such public statements misinterpret the law, create a distorted perception of the real legal situation among the audience, and, in my opinion, are yet another attempt to present the desired as the actual. And one more point that I consider important to clarify. All lawyers are attorneys, but not all attorneys are lawyers. Margarita Gavrilova is not an attorney. Therefore, it is not possible to appeal to the Bar Association regarding her violation of attorney ethics and dissemination of false information.
But fortunately, the law provides other tools for protection against incorrect and unfounded statements. The law in this sense is wise and quite simple: each party is obliged to prove the circumstances it refers to. And the court will give these proofs the appropriate assessment. That is why I would suggest that everyone wait for the court's position, rather than substituting it with loud statements in the media," said Anna Sedokova's lawyer, Tatyana Stukalova.
Other articles
Apologies, Bandanas—this fashionable accessory is the simplest way to enhance your autumn outfits.
So effortless, so stylish.
Even Minimalists Are Reevaluating Neutral Colors for Accessories in This Unexpected Color Trend.
The simplest method to enhance an outfit at the moment.
Fashion editors consistently return to J.Crew for these 9 basics that exude an expensive look.
Browse through the J.Crew basics that have been endorsed by editors for their luxurious appearance.
It's Still Early, Yet It's Here: The Summer-to-Fall Capsule Wardrobe That 2 Style Experts Recommend
Erin Walsh and Mandy Lee offer their suggestions and techniques.
15 Stylish Yet Minimalist Outfits That The Most Fashionable Women Will Sport This Fall
From refined essentials to sophisticated layering, these minimalist yet stylish fall ensembles demonstrate that straightforward styling is the trendiest look of the season.
This basic fashion piece looks just as stylish now as it will in the fall.
Long-sleeve white t-shirts are currently in vogue. Here are our top picks to wear from summer into fall and beyond.
"Bold statements do not correspond to the materials of the case": Anna Sedokova's lawyer on the court case with Janis Timma's relatives
“Right now, there are a lot of loud statements from the plaintiffs' representatives in the public space. But when it comes to the court process, it is important to separate what is said in interviews and social media from what is actually happening in the courtroom and what documents the parties have. I will start with the marriage contract. It is drawn up by the parties in writing, signed…”