Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

I actually don’t agree, one of Blake’s early losses was fishing expedition subpoenas to mobile providers that Liman quashed. I think Liman will quash or limit if she doesn’t have the threshold evidence.

Plus, Gottlieb appears to be mia on these subpoenas.

I've heard a few people bring up Gottlieb, including NAG, but what do you guys think is the relevance? I would generally assume that both firms are cooperative and aware of the plans and strategies for discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

I'm thinking back to that crazy overbroad subpoena Lively issued early on to the phone companies and how he struck that down quickly. Yet I've become more skeptical of him the last couple of weeks, so I don't know. I guess it also depends on what Lively's justification turns out to be. He has already indicated he agrees that they can ask for smear campaign material after the filing of the CRD and lawsuit (relevant because many of the creators didn't start covering Lively until 2025!). I hope he will do the right thing by these people regardless of how they are dissing him. They're just regular people.

Yeah, Perez Hilton is just like you and me, poor guy!

[Anonymous]

OH THE HUMANITY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liman orders that responses to the first batch of creator MTQs are due August 1 and responses due August 5. That's two business days which is standard in his court but seems short for pro se non-litigants (especially if Lively drops it at 11:59 with a billion attachments...). There seems to be a strong sense of community among the creators so hopefully they'll help each other out, but really, this sucks.

From reddit, Lively's attorneys have a meet and confer scheduled with this mustache-twirling villain who speaks into a spatula. Wild, wild stuff. Great version of the Godfather theme! This is the one who had only one subscriber at the time. She has over 2000 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTlFSLIkOho

I mean, to be clear, it's two business days but four actual days since it occurs over the weekend.

I think you're right to be a little worried for the CCs because I think Lively's opposition(s) will address mostly the relevant legal issues and not all of the effluvium that these folks added to their motions due to lack of legal knowledge or just general desire to stick it to Lively. So their replies might have to do a lot of heavy lifting, when usually replies are targeted to shoot down opponent's best theories or miscited cases. Still, the CCs get the benefit of the weekend.

The facts are going to matter far more than the law for these motions. Either Blake does or does not have specific prooof to indicate these people worked with Wallace or Tag or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she isn’t getting their financial info.

It's Liman. He doesn't care if Blake has proof or not. He will give Gottlieb the legal roadmap on how to ask for what he needs and then give him a back massage.

These CCs are screwed. I feel bad for them.

I'm thinking back to that crazy overbroad subpoena Lively issued early on to the phone companies and how he struck that down quickly. Yet I've become more skeptical of him the last couple of weeks, so I don't know. I guess it also depends on what Lively's justification turns out to be. He has already indicated he agrees that they can ask for smear campaign material after the filing of the CRD and lawsuit (relevant because many of the creators didn't start covering Lively until 2025!). I hope he will do the right thing by these people regardless of how they are dissing him. They're just regular people.

Yeah, Perez Hilton is just like you and me, poor guy!

Perez isn't even on that subpoena (and, IIRC was actually disclosed by TAG as a media contact in the response), but nice straw man.

[Anonymous]

The content creator ROG response was unsealed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.451.1.pdf
INTERROGATORY NO. 5, AS INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT:
Identify all Content Creators with whom You have communicated in any manner,
concerning Ms. Lively, Mr. Reynolds, the CRD Complaint, the Actions, the Lively/Reynolds
Companies, or the Digital Campaign from May 1, 2024 to present.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5, AS INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT:
Responding Party incorporates by reference its general objections as if fully set forth in
response to this Interrogatory. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not
proportional to the needs of the case or relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Responding
Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad. Responding Party
further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to “communicated.”
Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes the existence
of a purported Digital Campaign. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that it exceeds the scope of Local Civil Rule 33.3(a).
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds:

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
BILLY BUSH
ANDY SIGNORE (“Popcorned Planet”)
CANDACE OWENS
PEREZ HILTON

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Agree with this. Yes the video looks a little different from what she described in her complaint. But not dramatically so and she seems to have remembered the incident with quite a bit of accuracy, especially given that she clearly did not have access to the video footage. Nothing in the video makes me look at her complaint and say "she lied!"

The video did change my perception of that incident, which is a good thing. More information is always better. From reading Lively's complaint, I thought the incident sounded weird and uncomfortable but I also couldn't understand Baldoni's motivations. He seemed erratic an off-putting in a way that was hard to imagine. After watching the video, I better understood his behavior. He is irritated with her. I still think his behavior is inappropriate, simply because it is not appropriate to force a costar into being more physically intimate in a scene than they want to be, without further discussion beforehand. But he's not doing it because he's coming onto her. I think he is trying to exert control over the shoot and over her, and he's using the physicality to exercise his directorial control. He's annoyed with her for arguing with him and the pulling her in and nuzzling her face and neck is an expression of his annoyance.

Which is likely why it felt so hostile to Blake. And he's a director who is annoyed with his actress, with the added complication that he's IN the scene with that actress, has his arms around her, and can act out that frustration via physical "affection." That's a very uncomfortable and weird dynamic.

The rest of the world feels differently. She lied and she changed her complaint. You Blake fans truly are delusional.

Nope, I agree with PP on this. "The rest of the world" you are citing are a bunch of Reddit weirdos who are consumed with this case 24/7 as well as content creators who want clicks. I'll be interested to see how it all plays with a jury who don't necessarily read gossip rags or watch 200 TikToks every day.

DP. No, the rest of the world is the millions of followers who dropped Blake on insta, all of Hollywood (minus randos like Selma Hayek) who have been radio silent and who have not cast Blake in anything despite the fact IEWU was by far the biggest (and, well, one of the only) box office success of her career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

I think this is what happened as well. Also haven't we heard rumors that Ryan was on set for much of the second half of filming? Prior to that he was not there because he was filming his own movie, but post-strike he was in NY and could have been more present. That would change power dynamics a lot, I imagine. You do wonder if some of the stuff that she alleges happened early in shooting (especially the apparent conflict over touching in the dancing scene, and the debate over the birth scene) would have unfolded the same way if Ryan had been around. I'm betting not.

Pp. I don't think Ryan would have changed anything in the dance scene because IMO, in the video, Justin is literally doing nothing wrong. I think he would act the same in front of her husband because in the video he acts like a man who knows he is being filmed. Which he is. You are probably one of the people who thinks Blake was uncomfortable and pulling away, and I won't presume to read her mind, but objectively that doesn't meet a reasonable person standard. Birth scene, I don't know because their accounts differ and the only other person who spoke out is his actor friend. Would need to see video or hear from someone on the crew who is neutral or works with Blake like her assistant.

“Objectively that doesn’t meet a reasonable person standard” lol 👌

Yes? That's literally what the reasonable person standard is. And you know my post was much more sympathetic to Lively than most posters here would be.

Reasonable person is the standard, but to insist that YOU are the reasonable person here is what I find funny.

But if you were the person saying that someone could think his behavior in the video wasn’t bad but that his behavior AFTER the video when she talked to him about it was bad, I do agree with that also.

Why would one believe her account of what happened after the video when her recounting of what was said during the scene was proven inaccurate by the video footage?

Right: "you smell good" vs. "you smell SO good" is clearly a hanging offense!!!

Agree with this. Yes the video looks a little different from what she described in her complaint. But not dramatically so and she seems to have remembered the incident with quite a bit of accuracy, especially given that she clearly did not have access to the video footage. Nothing in the video makes me look at her complaint and say "she lied!"

The video did change my perception of that incident, which is a good thing. More information is always better. From reading Lively's complaint, I thought the incident sounded weird and uncomfortable but I also couldn't understand Baldoni's motivations. He seemed erratic an off-putting in a way that was hard to imagine. After watching the video, I better understood his behavior. He is irritated with her. I still think his behavior is inappropriate, simply because it is not appropriate to force a costar into being more physically intimate in a scene than they want to be, without further discussion beforehand. But he's not doing it because he's coming onto her. I think he is trying to exert control over the shoot and over her, and he's using the physicality to exercise his directorial control. He's annoyed with her for arguing with him and the pulling her in and nuzzling her face and neck is an expression of his annoyance.

Which is likely why it felt so hostile to Blake. And he's a director who is annoyed with his actress, with the added complication that he's IN the scene with that actress, has his arms around her, and can act out that frustration via physical "affection." That's a very uncomfortable and weird dynamic.

The rest of the world feels differently. She lied and she changed her complaint. You Blake fans truly are delusional.

Nope, I agree with PP on this. "The rest of the world" you are citing are a bunch of Reddit weirdos who are consumed with this case 24/7 as well as content creators who want clicks. I'll be interested to see how it all plays with a jury who don't necessarily read gossip rags or watch 200 TikToks every day.

DP. No, the rest of the world is the millions of followers who dropped Blake on insta, all of Hollywood (minus randos like Selma Hayek) who have been radio silent and who have not cast Blake in anything despite the fact IEWU was by far the biggest (and, well, one of the only) box office success of her career.

+1000 everyone I ask IRL hates her. The only ones who believe are actually Reddit weirdos -- the ones who post on fauxmoi and popculturechat.

[Anonymous]

Reminder, Hudson's letter requesting de-designation of AEO:
Content creators who have been the subject of discovery have already painted Ms. Lively as the the aggressor in this lawsuit and have drawn a false equivalency between her discovery efforts and
the Wayfarer Parties’ alleged smear campaign. One subpoenaed content creator even went so far
as to record a call with a receptionist from Ms. Lively’s attorney’s office without express consent
and then posted the recording on YouTube.4 See Popcorned Planet, ITS REAL!? We Called Blake
Lively’s Lawyers - THEY LIED TO US!?, YouTube (July 11, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Rzen-Sa8e40&feature=youtu.be. This content
creator further used the recording to make false, inflammatory remarks about Ms. Lively and her
counsel, and is seeking to fundraise based on the recording and his remarks.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.449.0.pdf

That "one such creator" is the only one on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reminder, Hudson's letter requesting de-designation of AEO:
Content creators who have been the subject of discovery have already painted Ms. Lively as the the aggressor in this lawsuit and have drawn a false equivalency between her discovery efforts and
the Wayfarer Parties’ alleged smear campaign. One subpoenaed content creator even went so far
as to record a call with a receptionist from Ms. Lively’s attorney’s office without express consent
and then posted the recording on YouTube.4 See Popcorned Planet, ITS REAL!? We Called Blake
Lively’s Lawyers - THEY LIED TO US!?, YouTube (July 11, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Rzen-Sa8e40&feature=youtu.be. This content
creator further used the recording to make false, inflammatory remarks about Ms. Lively and her
counsel, and is seeking to fundraise based on the recording and his remarks.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.449.0.pdf

That "one such creator" is the only one on the list.

What a bad look for Esra Hudson. It’s clear now that this was all just PR. And for what? The backlash is even worse now for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reminder, Hudson's letter requesting de-designation of AEO:
Content creators who have been the subject of discovery have already painted Ms. Lively as the the aggressor in this lawsuit and have drawn a false equivalency between her discovery efforts and
the Wayfarer Parties’ alleged smear campaign. One subpoenaed content creator even went so far
as to record a call with a receptionist from Ms. Lively’s attorney’s office without express consent
and then posted the recording on YouTube.4 See Popcorned Planet, ITS REAL!? We Called Blake
Lively’s Lawyers - THEY LIED TO US!?, YouTube (July 11, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Rzen-Sa8e40&feature=youtu.be. This content
creator further used the recording to make false, inflammatory remarks about Ms. Lively and her
counsel, and is seeking to fundraise based on the recording and his remarks.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.449.0.pdf

That "one such creator" is the only one on the list.

What a bad look for Esra Hudson. It’s clear now that this was all just PR. And for what? The backlash is even worse now for Blake.

I've said it before, whenever they try to do something for PR it backfires on them badly.

[Anonymous]

That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.

I feel bad for her too, for having a terrible boss who didn't prepare her staff for inevitable and reasonable questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.

I feel bad for her too, for having a terrible boss who didn't prepare her staff for inevitable and reasonable questions.

Nope. I've worked in a law firm as staff. He was demanding answers to questions that she legally cannot answer. And recording it and spreading it on YouTube. That has nothing to do with he firm failing to "prepare" her for some celeb gossip YouTube personality to use her as a punching bag and then share it all over the internet. He was being an a$$hole.

The whole thing was a stunt and he used someone who makes an hourly wage doing an honest days work to get views online. That's gross. It's like a morning drive talk show calling a school teacher to humiliate her on the radio for kicks. It's punching down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.

I feel bad for her too, for having a terrible boss who didn't prepare her staff for inevitable and reasonable questions.

Nope. I've worked in a law firm as staff. He was demanding answers to questions that she legally cannot answer. And recording it and spreading it on YouTube. That has nothing to do with he firm failing to "prepare" her for some celeb gossip YouTube personality to use her as a punching bag and then share it all over the internet. He was being an a$$hole.

The whole thing was a stunt and he used someone who makes an hourly wage doing an honest days work to get views online. That's gross. It's like a morning drive talk show calling a school teacher to humiliate her on the radio for kicks. It's punching down.

lol, the Lively bot has lost the plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.

I feel bad for her too, for having a terrible boss who didn't prepare her staff for inevitable and reasonable questions.

Nope. I've worked in a law firm as staff. He was demanding answers to questions that she legally cannot answer. And recording it and spreading it on YouTube. That has nothing to do with he firm failing to "prepare" her for some celeb gossip YouTube personality to use her as a punching bag and then share it all over the internet. He was being an a$$hole.

The whole thing was a stunt and he used someone who makes an hourly wage doing an honest days work to get views online. That's gross. It's like a morning drive talk show calling a school teacher to humiliate her on the radio for kicks. It's punching down.

lol, the Lively bot has lost the plot.

And demoted herself from attorney to staff. Whatever today’s post requires.