Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Yeah, honestly, me too, your incessant focus on how all lively supporters are paid shills and no rational person would ever truly believe her while all Baldoni support is totally organic is stupefying. You have really drunk the Kool Aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.

There is concrete evidence that Baldoni and Wayfarer paid people (TAG and Wallace) to spread negative content about her online. I'm okay with her exploring whether and where that happened by investigating some of the negative content about her online. If it weren't for these texts and emails showing that Baldoni/Wayfarer sought this service from TAG and Wallace, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. But some of these messages indicate that's what was happening. It's not legal to launch a retaliatory smear campaign against an employee who raised claims of harassment. So I'm okay with it in this case, especially since this info is all going to be AEO. It's not like they are going to publish these posters' identity for all to see.

Yes, I agree with this, also. How is she supposed to figure out the smear if she can’t seek info on it? Like Pp says above, she’s not giving their identities away to the public, she’s looking for communication etc links to the parties etc.

With Case and Koslow, Lively actually paid the cost for producing the materials. If there’s no communications, these folks might not even have anything to produce.

By serving interrogatories on the parties, obtaining names of content creators they've worked with, issuing subpoenas to CC with KNOWN ties to WP (such as Perez), reviewing discovery materials and emails for the names of any CCs, obtaining Jed Wallace's client list... not by issuing subpoena to unmask users who were simply posting negatively.

[Anonymous]

This thread is 95% people complaining about other posters and other points of view. It’s like middle school age kids bickering in the back seat about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Didn’t they ask you to create an account and start posting through there and you couldn’t even do that?

And plenty of people have refuted your dumb points using cogent arguments.

Lol why would I create an account on here when none of you do? Why should I be held to a standard on here that you don't even hold yourselves to? Also we all know that if I published my identity on here, you would use it to trash me online, dig into my employer, my family, where I went to school, where I live, etc. I've seen how JB supporters go after public supporters of Lively and no one would sign up for that voluntarily -- having your business spammed on Yelp with a bunch of bad reviews from non-customers, having your Instagram comments filled with people calling you names and talking about this case? No thank you. Y'all are a rabid, psychotic fan base out for blood. No way would I submit myself to that.

I'm saying I'd be fine having my info subpoenaed in this case because I know I'm posting about this case totally voluntarily and sharing my personal opinion, and they wouldn't find any evidence I am being paid to post or am being influenced to post because no such evidence exists. These content creators and X users whose info is being subpoenaed will be able to stay anonymous publicly, their info will only be disclosed under seal with the court. What do they have to hide?

Yup, I am with you on this one, too. (Wait seven minutes for the accusation that we are the same poster just different “personas” zzzzzzz)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.

There is concrete evidence that Baldoni and Wayfarer paid people (TAG and Wallace) to spread negative content about her online. I'm okay with her exploring whether and where that happened by investigating some of the negative content about her online. If it weren't for these texts and emails showing that Baldoni/Wayfarer sought this service from TAG and Wallace, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. But some of these messages indicate that's what was happening. It's not legal to launch a retaliatory smear campaign against an employee who raised claims of harassment. So I'm okay with it in this case, especially since this info is all going to be AEO. It's not like they are going to publish these posters' identity for all to see.

Yes, I agree with this, also. How is she supposed to figure out the smear if she can’t seek info on it? Like Pp says above, she’s not giving their identities away to the public, she’s looking for communication etc links to the parties etc.

With Case and Koslow, Lively actually paid the cost for producing the materials. If there’s no communications, these folks might not even have anything to produce.

By serving interrogatories on the parties, obtaining names of content creators they've worked with, issuing subpoenas to CC with KNOWN ties to WP (such as Perez), reviewing discovery materials and emails for the names of any CCs, obtaining Jed Wallace's client list... not by issuing subpoena to unmask users who were simply posting negatively.

It's not like they are subpoenaing hundreds of X users here. She's asking for info on 20 users. Those users were obviously selected based on the volume of posts regarding Lively or the case, the timing of those posts, and the tenor of the posts. They are likely thousands of accounts that have posted negative things about Blake in the last year. They are asking for info on 20. So no, they are not looking to unmask users who "were simply posting negatively." They are targeting specific accounts based on other evidence they have. Do we have the full list of users they are targeting? The ones I've seen posting about their info being subpoenaed are all content creators who likely profit of their discussion of Blake or this case in some way. To me, that's fair game for this level of subpoena. These are not just regular people out there weighing in that they don't like Lively or criticizing her and Ryan randomly. For the record, I've done that many times and I don't worry about being subpoenaed over it.

[Anonymous]

OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Yeah, honestly, me too, your incessant focus on how all lively supporters are paid shills and no rational person would ever truly believe her while all Baldoni support is totally organic is stupefying. You have really drunk the Kool Aid.

I've been called a paid shill on this thread many times for posting things that I don't even consider pro-Lively. Like posting a criticism of Baldoni's lawyers or their legal strategy, or even just a neutral post explaining a legal concept or one of Liman's decisions in a way that doesn't support either side. If you don't attack Lively directly or interpret every bit of info in this case in the best possible light for Baldoni, you're a "paid shill" for Lively.

It's fascinating because then I see people posting in this thread stuff that is clearly not a pure personal attack on Lively -- criticizing her appearance, her marriage, making fun of how she talks or something. And no one ever says "you must be a paid shill for Baldoni." That's how crazy this thread is. An informative post explaining how motions to dismiss are decided for non-lawyers who might not know, that doesn't even pass judgment on the validity of any of the MTDs in this actual case? Paid shill. A post calling Lively ugly, speculating she's on the verge of divorce, or diagnosing her with a psychological disorder? Totally fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Are you married? Do you have any shared bank accounts with your DH or maybe your kids or an elderly parent? Are you sure they would all be OK with a subpoena for those records?!

Who is subpoenaing bank records? Lively has subpoenaed identifying info only. No one is getting bank info here and they won't unless there is evidence to show payments from one of the parties.

I think some of you don't understand how subpoenas work. These subpoenas aren't even served on the content creators or X users at this point. They are being served on Google and X to provide user info so Lively can see if there is anything there that would justify seeking additional info. Most of these subpoenas will come to nothing because Google or X will provide this info and it will become immediately obvious these are not paid employees of Wallace or TAG, and there will be nothing further. The users will only be directly subpoenaed if unmasking them reveals anything suspicious.

And again, if Freedman or whoever wanted to subpoena Jeff for my IP address and posting history, I would have no problem with that because all it would turn up is that I'm a regular person with no relationship to any of the parties in this case who has posted periodically about my actual views. No one is getting my bank statements off that, lol.

Trying to respond point by point because there's a lot of misinformation here:

Lively's subpoenas are asking google for bank account information of users. The only reason to do that is because the next step is to subpoena the bank for the records.

It's difficult to find copies of the subpoenas because I think there's only screenshots of livestreams floating around, but other than identifying information, they were also seeking things like every IP session and location information over a long period of time, in addition to any connected bank accounts or credit cards.

I find it obnoxious when people here post things like "you don't understand X..." it is usually JB supporters I think, but it's annoying when either side does that.

Yes, Lively is identifying user information. That's not going to show whether these CC colluded with WP. Getting a random YouTube's name, phone number, and address doesn't show substantively whether they received payments or communicated with WP. It's merely an opening for Lively to then issue substantive subpoenas to the CC seeking all communications with WP, subpoena their bank records, possibly subpoena their email providers, phone records, etc, etc. Think about why Lively is requesting an extension on discovery.

Your IP address and history would not show whether you were paid or a regular person. How could it? Freedman would then have to subpoena your IP and get your name and address, and then subpoena you personally, possibly try to get your phone records to see if your number links up to any of the Lively parties, etc. Luckily there's no bank information on this site, but if there were and he had your account number, he could then subpoena your bank as well to see what payments you received. And there would be a very reasonable chance that this all shows up somewhere in an attachment on the docket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.

There is concrete evidence that Baldoni and Wayfarer paid people (TAG and Wallace) to spread negative content about her online. I'm okay with her exploring whether and where that happened by investigating some of the negative content about her online. If it weren't for these texts and emails showing that Baldoni/Wayfarer sought this service from TAG and Wallace, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. But some of these messages indicate that's what was happening. It's not legal to launch a retaliatory smear campaign against an employee who raised claims of harassment. So I'm okay with it in this case, especially since this info is all going to be AEO. It's not like they are going to publish these posters' identity for all to see.

Yes, I agree with this, also. How is she supposed to figure out the smear if she can’t seek info on it? Like Pp says above, she’s not giving their identities away to the public, she’s looking for communication etc links to the parties etc.

With Case and Koslow, Lively actually paid the cost for producing the materials. If there’s no communications, these folks might not even have anything to produce.

By serving interrogatories on the parties, obtaining names of content creators they've worked with, issuing subpoenas to CC with KNOWN ties to WP (such as Perez), reviewing discovery materials and emails for the names of any CCs, obtaining Jed Wallace's client list... not by issuing subpoena to unmask users who were simply posting negatively.

It's not like they are subpoenaing hundreds of X users here. She's asking for info on 20 users. Those users were obviously selected based on the volume of posts regarding Lively or the case, the timing of those posts, and the tenor of the posts. They are likely thousands of accounts that have posted negative things about Blake in the last year. They are asking for info on 20. So no, they are not looking to unmask users who "were simply posting negatively." They are targeting specific accounts based on other evidence they have. Do we have the full list of users they are targeting? The ones I've seen posting about their info being subpoenaed are all content creators who likely profit of their discussion of Blake or this case in some way. To me, that's fair game for this level of subpoena. These are not just regular people out there weighing in that they don't like Lively or criticizing her and Ryan randomly. For the record, I've done that many times and I don't worry about being subpoenaed over it.

I disagree but appreciate you having a respectful tone. Volume and timing of post will reasonably be linked to events such as when a hearing occurs or when something is posted on the docket The tenor of the posts is part of free speech. This thread also spikes during certain events. But I will reserve judgment to see what reasonable basis Lively has to seek this information, if there are MTQs and I'm sure there will be.

They are allowed to profit off their opinion. While it's kind of gross, YouTube allows them to do that. NY Times and other media outlets also make money. That doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. It could very well be that they bash Blake Lively because that gets clicks and money and it not at Wayfarer's direction at all. That's probably the case for most of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

It was unsealed yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1m2xgdz/the_list_of_creators_tag_contacted_and_what_they/#lightbox

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Are you married? Do you have any shared bank accounts with your DH or maybe your kids or an elderly parent? Are you sure they would all be OK with a subpoena for those records?!

Who is subpoenaing bank records? Lively has subpoenaed identifying info only. No one is getting bank info here and they won't unless there is evidence to show payments from one of the parties.

I think some of you don't understand how subpoenas work. These subpoenas aren't even served on the content creators or X users at this point. They are being served on Google and X to provide user info so Lively can see if there is anything there that would justify seeking additional info. Most of these subpoenas will come to nothing because Google or X will provide this info and it will become immediately obvious these are not paid employees of Wallace or TAG, and there will be nothing further. The users will only be directly subpoenaed if unmasking them reveals anything suspicious.

And again, if Freedman or whoever wanted to subpoena Jeff for my IP address and posting history, I would have no problem with that because all it would turn up is that I'm a regular person with no relationship to any of the parties in this case who has posted periodically about my actual views. No one is getting my bank statements off that, lol.

Trying to respond point by point because there's a lot of misinformation here:

Lively's subpoenas are asking google for bank account information of users. The only reason to do that is because the next step is to subpoena the bank for the records.

It's difficult to find copies of the subpoenas because I think there's only screenshots of livestreams floating around, but other than identifying information, they were also seeking things like every IP session and location information over a long period of time, in addition to any connected bank accounts or credit cards.

I find it obnoxious when people here post things like "you don't understand X..." it is usually JB supporters I think, but it's annoying when either side does that.

Yes, Lively is identifying user information. That's not going to show whether these CC colluded with WP. Getting a random YouTube's name, phone number, and address doesn't show substantively whether they received payments or communicated with WP. It's merely an opening for Lively to then issue substantive subpoenas to the CC seeking all communications with WP, subpoena their bank records, possibly subpoena their email providers, phone records, etc, etc. Think about why Lively is requesting an extension on discovery.

Your IP address and history would not show whether you were paid or a regular person. How could it? Freedman would then have to subpoena your IP and get your name and address, and then subpoena you personally, possibly try to get your phone records to see if your number links up to any of the Lively parties, etc. Luckily there's no bank information on this site, but if there were and he had your account number, he could then subpoena your bank as well to see what payments you received. And there would be a very reasonable chance that this all shows up somewhere in an attachment on the docket.

The bank info subpoenaed is for identification only. It is a way to identify the person behind an account since a bank requires an actual legal name and address, whereas email addresses, websites, user names, etc., do not. There is no indication that Lively has subpoenaed actual banking records, only account info that would help identify the people who own these accounts.

That's miles away from requesting actual bank records. I get why these users are concerned and certainly I would be looking for very strong protections to ensure my bank info was not disclosed in any public venue. But it is false to claim that Lively has requested bank records from any of these users. She hasn't, and if she ever does want that info, she'll need to prove that it would be relevant. That would require pretty concrete evidence of some kind of agreement between Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace/a subcontractor thereof and the user to post in a certain way. So unless any of these users communicated with Baldoni's team about posting certain content for them, there's no way their bank info will ever get disclosed in this case. You can't just go subpoenaing a third party's bank records because you feel like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

It was unsealed yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1m2xgdz/the_list_of_creators_tag_contacted_and_what_they/#lightbox

Nevermind - This is "media" which I guess is different than "content creators." I got confused because it had Deux Moi, Candace, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

It was unsealed yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1m2xgdz/the_list_of_creators_tag_contacted_and_what_they/#lightbox

Nevermind - This is "media" which I guess is different than "content creators." I got confused because it had Deux Moi, Candace, etc.

Right, the CC list is still under seal. I think the distinction here might be that everyone on the media list presents as a "reporter" and in particular, cites sources. This kind of makes me laugh regarding Candace Owens, who regular says she's getting tips from sources but then will just report things that are floating around Reddit. Her source is Reddit.

But the CCs list would be composed of people who present as commentators, not reporters. So more clearly just sharing their opinions and not trying to frame it as "news."

I am curious about a few creators who definitely straddle this line though. Like Popcorn Planet and Dana. They are definitely providing opinions but sometimes do frame it as news and will say they've received info from a source. Curious if they are on the CC list or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.

Yeah, honestly, me too, your incessant focus on how all lively supporters are paid shills and no rational person would ever truly believe her while all Baldoni support is totally organic is stupefying. You have really drunk the Kool Aid.

I've been called a paid shill on this thread many times for posting things that I don't even consider pro-Lively. Like posting a criticism of Baldoni's lawyers or their legal strategy, or even just a neutral post explaining a legal concept or one of Liman's decisions in a way that doesn't support either side. If you don't attack Lively directly or interpret every bit of info in this case in the best possible light for Baldoni, you're a "paid shill" for Lively.

It's fascinating because then I see people posting in this thread stuff that is clearly not a pure personal attack on Lively -- criticizing her appearance, her marriage, making fun of how she talks or something. And no one ever says "you must be a paid shill for Baldoni." That's how crazy this thread is. An informative post explaining how motions to dismiss are decided for non-lawyers who might not know, that doesn't even pass judgment on the validity of any of the MTDs in this actual case? Paid shill. A post calling Lively ugly, speculating she's on the verge of divorce, or diagnosing her with a psychological disorder? Totally fine.

Yes, this +one zillion! The irony of this to me is just crazy, especially since Baldoni is supposedly held up as a feminist hero, but this garbage is being done in his name.

Excellent comment. But again, any agreement between two lively supporters almost always summons the “personas” poster.