Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google told me social media monitoring shouldn’t be costing anyone besides an international company more than $10K per month, and that even that would include services like SEO and “deindexing:”

https://cleartailmarketing.com/average-cost-reputation-management/#:~:text=Typical%20Price%20Ranges,level%20strategies%20and%20detailed%20reporting.

I think deindexing is sort of like downvoting on Reddit, so that it pushes certain posts or comments to the back of the queue or google index so that posts you don’t like won’t be viewed by many people and won’t come up in search results. I actually saw someone talking about Jed Wallace performing this kind of work, though obvs I don’t know if that’s true. But that sort of thing (and I guess it’s opposite, of up-indexing) could explain why some bad posts about Lively caught fire while some about Baldoni never took off.

Google told you? Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Poster that knows her and adding that I am finding this quite hilarious. We might as well start referring to the person in line next to me at the coffee shop as some kind of expert.
Lively bots are really scrapping the bottom for material.

Sometimes it’s ok not to post for a few hours,really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Since you are so insistent, I looked up Torres as well. He works out of a single attorney office in a run down building in Towson, looks like any kind of case he can get hired for. These two people are so far from being legal experts. God, you really are desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Also, the TikTok lawyers (besides NAG) that Baldoni supporters have posted here are routinely awful — remember the two posted about 50 pages ago who both said (incorrectly, with no legal support besides hopes and dreams) that Freedman had four remaining claims? This is at least much better than that (or lol bunny ears lady!), but you guys have different standards for what’s acceptable from us vs. you I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Since you are so insistent, I looked up Torres as well. He works out of a single attorney office in a run down building in Towson, looks like any kind of case he can get hired for. These two people are so far from being legal experts. God, you really are desperate.

And he was only a junior associate at Covington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Also, the TikTok lawyers (besides NAG) that Baldoni supporters have posted here are routinely awful — remember the two posted about 50 pages ago who both said (incorrectly, with no legal support besides hopes and dreams) that Freedman had four remaining claims? This is at least much better than that (or lol bunny ears lady!), but you guys have different standards for what’s acceptable from us vs. you I guess.

Actually working out of a one story office building in that part of Towson is really bad, it’s the low rent district, but he can walk to Cain’s for lunch, so that’s a plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Also, the TikTok lawyers (besides NAG) that Baldoni supporters have posted here are routinely awful — remember the two posted about 50 pages ago who both said (incorrectly, with no legal support besides hopes and dreams) that Freedman had four remaining claims? This is at least much better than that (or lol bunny ears lady!), but you guys have different standards for what’s acceptable from us vs. you I guess.

Actually working out of a one story office building in that part of Towson is really bad, it’s the low rent district, but he can walk to Cain’s for lunch, so that’s a plus.

Having to restrain myself from posting a picture, because it’s just god awful depressing, but that’s going to far. Still, thanks for making my night with this unintentional humor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Since you are so insistent, I looked up Torres as well. He works out of a single attorney office in a run down building in Towson, looks like any kind of case he can get hired for. These two people are so far from being legal experts. God, you really are desperate.

And he was only a junior associate at Covington.

A position that I and most other law grads never even qualified for during on campus interview because despite great grades and law review etc, our stats and other qualifications weren’t good enough, so 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Funny how you guys are suddenly in favor of investigating attorneys and mocking their office setups but really how hypocritical and low you will go never surprises me anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

So the doc I linked above was a Torrez/ Dye write up of the sanctions issue. They also discuss the Baldoni case at times on their podcast, Law and Chaos. I’ve linked one episode below — they definitely think Baldoni’s legal claims are iffy and that Freedman and co. seem to be acting in court in a way to perpetuate the smear (e.g., as discussed in the link below, by sending their court filings to friendly pubs in advance so Lively’s dropping of the ED claims was reported within minutes of its filing on the docket).

Minutes 22-36 discuss the drama around Lively dropping her emotional distress claims and the judge’s decision not to compel her medical records: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-139-you-get-a-civ-pro-and-you-f5f?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As I already noted, Dye is not an attorney. Not sure why you keep trying to make her some type of authority.

Torrez is a Harvard law grad who worked at Covington for years and it’s pretty normal for a legal podcast to have one lawyer and a non lawyer (that’s how Torres’s prior podcast worked) but go off. If you listen to the podcast, Dye seems to know her way well enough around legal commentary. Nowhere above do I say she’s a lawyer.

Since you are so insistent, I looked up Torres as well. He works out of a single attorney office in a run down building in Towson, looks like any kind of case he can get hired for. These two people are so far from being legal experts. God, you really are desperate.

And he was only a junior associate at Covington.

A position that I and most other law grads never even qualified for during on campus interview because despite great grades and law review etc, our stats and other qualifications weren’t good enough, so 🤷‍♀️

Sorry to hear that, I made partner at a peer firm. Hope you wound up better in the end, not as a solo practitioner sandwiched between low rent businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how you guys are suddenly in favor of investigating attorneys and mocking their office setups but really how hypocritical and low you will go never surprises me anymore.

If you only hadn’t spent pages on the Geragos/Freedman alleged relationship without the last 24 hours, that might have some weight to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how you guys are suddenly in favor of investigating attorneys and mocking their office setups but really how hypocritical and low you will go never surprises me anymore.

If you only hadn’t spent pages on the Geragos/Freedman alleged relationship without the last 24 hours, that might have some weight to it.

Show me where I mocked their office setup. I’ll wait lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how you guys are suddenly in favor of investigating attorneys and mocking their office setups but really how hypocritical and low you will go never surprises me anymore.

If you only hadn’t spent pages on the Geragos/Freedman alleged relationship without the last 24 hours, that might have some weight to it.

Show me where I mocked their office setup. I’ll wait lol.

If I didn’t know Liz Dye, I would never have gone down this rabbit hole, but man, it has amused me.