Judge Brands Christina Taft ‘Vexatious’ as Federal Case Targeting Depp Lawyer and Hollywood PI Collapses

By Stacy M. Brown

Senior Global Correspondent

Christina Taft didn’t just lose a lawsuit. She lost credibility in open court.

And now, the woman who accused a Hollywood investigator of running a “criminal cabal” tied to the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp defamation trial has been formally declared a vexatious litigant—just days before her federal racketeering case vanished.

Taft inserted herself into the 2022 Depp-Heard defamation war, later filing a sweeping federal lawsuit in California accusing Depp’s former attorney Adam Waldman and Los Angeles private investigator Paul Barresi of civil conspiracy, witness intimidation, and violations of federal RICO statutes.

Her allegations were explosive. Legal observers say the evidence was not.

Despite the eye-popping claims, the case lingered in federal court for nearly two years before U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. Seasoned attorneys and courtroom watchers privately questioned why a lawsuit many viewed as legally thin had not been swiftly dismissed.

Barresi, a longtime Hollywood investigator who had previously worked on matters related to the Depp litigation, retained Martin Singer, co-founder of powerhouse firm Lavely & Singer. Singer is one of the most formidable reputation lawyers in the entertainment industry, representing A-list actors, studios, and major corporations in high-profile defamation battles.

In a July 2025 motion to dismiss, Singer’s firm described Taft’s complaint as “a rambling document comprised of unintelligible and absurd allegations.” The motion went further, stating the lawsuit was “based on the delusions of a woman who is undoubtedly obsessed with Defendant and who has weaponized this Court to serve her agenda.”

At the center of Taft’s theory was Angela Gayle.

Gayle signed a sworn declaration in the federal case supporting Barresi and describing what she said were aggressive tactics directed at her after she agreed to testify. In her declaration, Gayle stated she signed testimony “despite my fear about how Ms. Taft might react.”

She described two separate private investigators appearing at her Tennessee home after her declaration was filed. One investigator, she stated, knocked on her door and refused to identify who sent her. Another investigator later pointed to the name “Taft” on documents when Gayle asked who hired her. “I was visibly shaking from fear and anxiety,” Gayle declared under penalty of perjury. Gayle further stated she believed Taft was attempting to intimidate her because she was a witness. Several court observers said that context matters.

Because while the federal case was still pending, Taft filed a separate $1,200 breach-of-contract lawsuit in Hawaii against her former business manager, Javanti Thomas.

And in that unrelated case, Taft issued a subpoena demanding twelve months of Angela Gayle’s private phone records. Gayle was not a party to the Hawaii lawsuit.

“So, upon reviewing of the subpoena duces tecum, the court did not understand why you were requesting phone documents from a person by the name of Angela Gail Meader,” Judge Annalisa M. Bernard Lee said from the bench.

Judge Bernard Lee pressed further. “I don’t understand how an alleged harassment case against Mr. Barresi has anything to do with Ms. Meader’s phone records and how that has anything to do with the fact that you’re allegedly suing Mr. Thomas for breach of contract.”

Taft defended the subpoena. “Because his contract was to reach out about my U.S. district case in Central California, which is still ongoing,” Taft told Judge Bernard Lee. “We were reaching out to reporters regarding ARDA safety and Barresi’s documented harms to witnesses.” However, the judge was unmoved.

“It appears to the court that what you’re doing is you’re using the legal system in an unrelated case to get another person’s confidential personal information through their phone records,” Judge Bernard Lee said. “There appears to be a pattern, and the pattern is frivolous discovery tactics,” Judge Bernard Lee added. The court also addressed a 26-page filing Taft had signed under Rule 11. “There is no such thing as HRCP Rule 45C3A. It does not exist, ma’am,” Judge Bernard Lee said.

Then came the penalties.

“You have not shown the court good cause that you should not be deemed a vexatious litigant,” Judge Bernard Lee ruled. “I am finding that you are a vexatious litigant under 634J subsection three, and I’m also going to enter a pre-filing order prohibiting you from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state on your own behalf without first obtaining leave of the presiding court,” Judge Bernard Lee said. The court imposed a $100 sanction for citing law “that does not exist.”

The hearing was recorded, and the video spread online, and shortly after that public rebuke, Taft voluntarily dismissed her federal RICO lawsuit. The case alleging a criminal enterprise collapsed, and Angela Gayle remains a non-party. Meanwhile, Barresi remains in place.

“There appears to be a pattern,” Judge Annalisa M. Bernard Lee said. “And the pattern is frivolous discovery tactics.”