John Jackson

[Shamanz MHDHH @shamanjz]

Love this part. Gut punch up through the spine.

"The current mgt of Ador has zero producing capability..."

[🦋⁵ 누렁이갸앙 @mixdognurung]

방 의장 경영 철학은 없는 거였네
1. 뉴진스를 괴롭히며 (전세계 뉴진스+케이팝 팬들의 행복과 살아갈 이유를 앗아가며)
2. 빌리프랩의 뉴진스 제작 표뮬라 카피를 묵인하며(기획안을 보라고 지시하며)
3. 전략적 봉쇄 소송으로 민희진 대표와 뉴진스 다니엘에게 보복을 하며(사회의 불편을 야기하며)

[luna ୨ৎ @luenacore]

Exhibit 2 [June 11, 2026, ADOR v. Danielle Court Hearing]: The Contradictory Notice Period.

• The Vague Projection: ADOR issued a 14-day notice to "correct the past," citing a highly subjective "loss of trust" instead of a concrete contract breach.

• Unprofessional Stonewalling: When Danielle asked how to comply, ADOR deflected all corporate accountability with a vague response of, "Only you know what you did. Fix it yourself."

• The Double-Bind Trap: By hiding the goalposts, ADOR set up a toxic psychological trap. They intentionally induced a state of learned helplessness so they could use the inevitable "failure to correct" as an excuse to terminate her contract and sue.

Takeaway: This is textbook corporate gaslighting. Demanding someone fix a problem while refusing to tell them what the problem actually is is incredibly unprofessional and done in complete bad faith to guarantee she would fail. ADOR never wanted her to "fix" anything.

[. @Dc9sfhkcccs4af]

What HYBE has done to them: stolen three years of their career, sued them, leaked their personal information, bought off TAG PR and published thousands of articles to smear them, dismantled their entire team, insulted and harassed them...

[p. Lapse 🐇 @howsweettttt]

FRAUDOR is going to lose due to judicial estoppel. How can you sue someone for 30M over something that directly contradicts what you just won in court for two months before?

[포슈 @newjeanspoche]

??? : 250억 포기 할테니까 멤버 및 팬들한테 건 모든 소송 취하하고 뉴진스 전원 팬들 품으로 돌려주라는 말을 무시하고 21살 짜리한테 건 300억대 소송 및 기타 팬들상대 소송을 계속 강행하며

[Christina Dirkes 💎 @christinadirkes]

3) (Seems most important) Ador terminating Danielle based on breach of trust due to things that happened before the ruling goes against Ador's own testimony in court last year (since Ador argued that trust was not breached and they wanted the members back).

[Christina Dirkes 💎 @christinadirkes]

Danielle's lawyers are arguing that they are contradicting their previous testimony at the October 2025 ruling in which they said that trust was not broken, which is "Judicial Estoppel."

[eda @pomusana]

the audacity of ador claiming they’re being harassed when they support inhumane slave contracts that leave idols facing lawsuits worth millions for trying to leave with valid reasons, even after they’ve repaid their trainee debt and earned the company massive profits. all because they signed a piece of paper as teenagers. these idols aren’t even protected by basic workers’ rights. the fact that this system is even considered legal is insane to me

[えっこ🌿✨ @w_in_w_in_1118]

記者会見ではなくてその前のyoutube生配信のことね。🧢が裁判に勝って、少し本人たちの声に耳を傾ける人も増えてきたけれど、あの時に大半が裏で🧢にやらされてる、言わされていると言っていた。本人がどれだけ真剣に自分の人生を考えて戦っていたかを軽んじてみていた。
若い女性が声を上げざるを得ない状況に追い込まれた時にいかに人はそれを真剣に受け止めないかをまざまざとみせられた(K-POPの練習生になることすら夢のために早くから人生を選択して全てをその為に費やす強い意志と主体性がないとできない、さらにそこから数パーセントのデビューを勝ち抜き成功している人達のことを考える力がないとみなす矛盾)

２年経ってまた同じ繰り返しをダニエル、ダニエルのお母さん、ヒジンさんで物語を膨らませてしないで欲しい。また証拠がそれしかない断片的なカカオトークの切り取り物語とその時はしらなかったという後出しじゃんけんの物語で

この問題の本質は2月のハイブと🧢の判決文でも書かれていた、ハイブから始まった事でハイブが解決すべき問題だったということ。ヒジンさんが追い出されていなければNewJeansはその後に契約解除を起こすことはなかったし、それは元のAdorに戻して、ミンヒジンさんをAdorに戻してという是正だった。あの子たちは一度もAdorを出ていきたいと言ったことはない、名前も楽曲も失う悲しみを抱えながら前に進むしかなかったことを見てきた。何度も5人を傷つけて苦しむ道を選ぶハイブに、私は5人がもう声を上げることすらできない場所にいても見てるし、見守る人、NewJeansを愛している人達がいるよといいたい

[📀📚🎥 @Rho_do_den_dron]

“‘하이브,언플로 먼저 민희진 배신’ 재판부 작심 비판”
하이브가 민희진과의 주주간계약 소송에서 '완패'했다. 업계에서 꾸준한 비판이있었던 하이브의 무리한 언론플레이를 재판부가 지적.
판결문에 따르면,재판부는 먼저 하이브가 갈등을 표면화했다고 지적.하이브가 먼저 언론플레이를 실행했다는것

[. @Dc9sfhkcccs4af]

It seems Bang Piggy bought off the necessary authorities to avoid being arrested. This is a massive corruption scandal.

[영재 @ughent2005]

6
At 41:00, the creator directs severe cyberbullying at a non-public figure (the artist's mother), threatening that unreleased materials could socially "cancel" her. This malicious intimidation and defamation of a family member severely violates YouTube's harassment policies.

[영재 @ughent2005]

5
At 38:19, the uploader maliciously sows discord among group members, calling some "stupid" and falsely speculating the target's actions are driven by "money." This baseless slander is designed to incite fan wars and targeted harassment against the young artist.

[영재 @ughent2005]

4
At 18:11, the creator spreads baseless rumors about a former CEO seeking a "100 billion KRW investment" without factual sources. Broadcasting unverified, speculative gossip to damage personal and professional reputations violates policies against harassment and defamation.

[영재 @ughent2005]

3
At 03:38, the creator ignores official articles to spread unverified gossip from other cyber-wreckers about a third party's gender. This shows clear malicious intent to create sensationalized fake news and incite public mockery, violating anti-harassment guidelines.

[영재 @ughent2005]

2
At 16:00, the video maliciously frames contract "backdating" as fraudulent and illegal. By directly connecting this to the artist's team without evidence, the creator defames them as potential criminals to incite mass hatred and cyberbullying.

[영재 @ughent2005]

[🚨긴급 신고]
이 친하이브 유튜버는 다니엘 어머니를 향해 협박성 발언을 했음
"ADOR가 증명할 자료를 다 가지고 있다.그 자료들을 언론에 공개했다면, 그녀를 매장시키기에 충분했을 것이다" 라는 발언을 이 유튜버가 했음
친하이브세력이 불법 여론전을 시도하는 것 같음
https://t.co/fYWUyFTmuZ

[. @Dc9sfhkcccs4af]

This screenshot has a bunch of things wrong with it, starting with Reddit. NewJeans and their parents’ complaint was internal, HYBE made everything public. NewJeans has the right to defend their brand and file complaints to HYBE through the company’s private channels.

[haerin🏎️ 🏁 @haerins_nyang]

29. Defendant: The fact that Adore claimed the relationship of trust remained intact until the final judgment, yet terminated the contract after winning the case on the grounds that the trust had been broken, constitutes a violation of the doctrine of estoppel.