Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

All you need to do to find dozens of cyber warriors totally hyped up on lies and delusions is to head on over to the JB reddit sub and review the delirious fan fiction and artwork posted there. I haven't been there in a long time but something from at least one in every ten posts is significantly more crazy than anything I as a Lively supporter have ever said in this thread. I am not kidding, some of these folks only have one oar in the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

All you need to do to find dozens of cyber warriors totally hyped up on lies and delusions is to head on over to the JB reddit sub and review the delirious fan fiction and artwork posted there. I haven't been there in a long time but something from at least one in every ten posts is significantly more crazy than anything I as a Lively supporter have ever said in this thread. I am not kidding, some of these folks only have one oar in the water.

I’ve checked out the Reddit subs. Nothing worse than I see from you here really.

[Anonymous]

Content creators motions are popping up on the docket. I probably disagree with most of their content but I am cheering and applauding their gutsiness.

[Anonymous]

Letter from Lauren/Court of Random Opinion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.444.0.pdf

Letter from Kassidy O'Connell's manager
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.445.0_1.pdf

They may not be perfect letters but they got the main points across well. Kassidy is much snarkier and plans to file a bar complaint against Hudson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

DP. +1000000

I haven’t posted in awhile and it’s depressing to see she’s still at it.

I used to think there were two nut job BL posters but now I’m convinced it’s mostly this inane lying liar lady. And every single time someone calls her out, she responds something like,

‘Wut? You’re confusing posters again. You know there’s more than one of us who support Blake’

Next post (from her obviously) will be 8 paragraphs of gibberish theory/analysis or some unhinged angry post about Freedman.

8 paragraphs of gibberish. Dying and so true 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Letter from Lauren/Court of Random Opinion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.444.0.pdf

Letter from Kassidy O'Connell's manager
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.445.0_1.pdf

They may not be perfect letters but they got the main points across well. Kassidy is much snarkier and plans to file a bar complaint against Hudson.

These subpoena responses are going to be a nightmare for Liman. I also think it appropriate to file a complaint against Esra for lying about the subpoena, lawyers have an ethical duty to treat unrepresented parties with a higher degree of care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

DP. +1000000

I haven’t posted in awhile and it’s depressing to see she’s still at it.

I used to think there were two nut job BL posters but now I’m convinced it’s mostly this inane lying liar lady. And every single time someone calls her out, she responds something like,

‘Wut? You’re confusing posters again. You know there’s more than one of us who support Blake’

Next post (from her obviously) will be 8 paragraphs of gibberish theory/analysis or some unhinged angry post about Freedman.

8 paragraphs of gibberish. Dying and so true 🤣

Or five sequential posts about how she is always right, because like a stopped clock, she picks Blake to win every motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

You are confusing posters again. But you sound super nice!

She can’t be, there can’t be two of you so disconnected from reality.

DP. +1000000

I haven’t posted in awhile and it’s depressing to see she’s still at it.

I used to think there were two nut job BL posters but now I’m convinced it’s mostly this inane lying liar lady. And every single time someone calls her out, she responds something like,

‘Wut? You’re confusing posters again. You know there’s more than one of us who support Blake’

Next post (from her obviously) will be 8 paragraphs of gibberish theory/analysis or some unhinged angry post about Freedman.

8 paragraphs of gibberish. Dying and so true 🤣

Better that than your stupid hate posts here. Hope you feel better about your life now, after that. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

[Anonymous]

So, plot twist:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.449.0.pdf

Hudson files a letter asking the judge to compel TAG to unmark their Interrogatory Responses as AEO, claiming that TAG marked the response on which content creators they were communicating with as "trade secret" and misusing the AEO designation.

Lively is basically complaining they are using DARVO to make her look bad by obscuring the names of the creators, which makes Lively unable to defend herself and explain why these creators were issued subpoenas.

They are implying that the names of the creators subpoenaed are on that list - and that's really all some of us have been asking for in terms of some kind of reason why these particular creators were subpoenaed besides being anti-Lively. OTOH, part of me thinks this is too convenient, and they just want people to infer the creators are on the list and perhaps that's not really the case. It seems to me they could have made this motion immediately upon receiving the AEO responses instead of waiting until they got bad press about the content creators. So... interesting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letter from Lauren/Court of Random Opinion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.444.0.pdf

Letter from Kassidy O'Connell's manager
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.445.0_1.pdf

They may not be perfect letters but they got the main points across well. Kassidy is much snarkier and plans to file a bar complaint against Hudson.

These subpoena responses are going to be a nightmare for Liman. I also think it appropriate to file a complaint against Esra for lying about the subpoena, lawyers have an ethical duty to treat unrepresented parties with a higher degree of care.

The pro se parties should be given wide latitude, agreed. I feel bad that one wanted their name redacted and literally wrote "please redact here" with an arrow and the court did not redact their name. I wish a clerk would have called them or something. They just didn't know the proper technical procedure for first filing a motion to seal, etc (and I'm not sure you can even do that anonymously so it's a mess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

They did attempt to serve Wayfarer's counsel as well as Barnes Slaters' counsel:

"In addition to the nine attempts to personally serve Ms. Barnes Slater, Ms. Lively contacted counsel for the Wayfarer Parties to determine whether they do or would be representing Ms. Barnes Slater in this matter and would be willing to accept service via email. Counsel for the Wayfarer Parties advised that they do not represent Ms. Barnes Slater, and other counsel did not respond."

I don't know why they didn't attempt to serve her at Wayfarer's offices. Perhaps she works from home? I don't know but this number of alternative service requests is odd to me, especially for employees of the defendant corp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake filed a request to serve Wayfarer's head of HR via alternative means because they've attempted to serve her at her last known address on 9 separate occasions to no avail, neighbors at the address say they've never heard of her, and Wayfarer and their counsel refuse to accept service or acknowledge her whereabouts.

That's.... weird. She's not some very tangentially related third party. She is the current head of HR for the company and was head of HR for the entire period of Lively's employment relationship.

I think this is the third person Lively's requested alternative service for, for similar situations (including Jed Wallace). No one wants to be served with a subpoena or a lawsuit but evading it doesn't work -- it will make its way to you eventually. This one is extra odd to me since she's a current employee and so central to the case.

I don't understand why they didn't attempt to serve her at her office or on Wayfarer's counsel. They posted two requests for alternative service today and they were both over a 9 day or so period in late June/early July. They could have been on vacation.

They did attempt to serve Wayfarer's counsel as well as Barnes Slaters' counsel:

"In addition to the nine attempts to personally serve Ms. Barnes Slater, Ms. Lively contacted counsel for the Wayfarer Parties to determine whether they do or would be representing Ms. Barnes Slater in this matter and would be willing to accept service via email. Counsel for the Wayfarer Parties advised that they do not represent Ms. Barnes Slater, and other counsel did not respond."

I don't know why they didn't attempt to serve her at Wayfarer's offices. Perhaps she works from home? I don't know but this number of alternative service requests is odd to me, especially for employees of the defendant corp.

I saw that but was thinking in terms of Wayfarer's general counsel, not necessarily their attorneys in this litigation which is what I think that paragraph is referring to. But yes, it's all very odd.

[Anonymous]

Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.