Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
They have only referenced Vanzan in other ways like the crime fraud exception and in the motion to compel Vanzan to turn over the subpoena, their responses, emails, and corporate docs. In theory, once they receive all that they can make a further motion. |
Anonymous
| The glittery spatula lady filed a motion for sanctions against Blake for abusing the discovery process. |
Anonymous
Go spatula lady! |
Anonymous
| There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas. |
Anonymous
Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty? |
Anonymous
Exactly |
Anonymous
|
Anyone find it weird that all of the content creators on Blake's side aren't even in the U.S.? That weird expatriarch guy is apparently from the U.K. and there's this woman named Sarah Siegel who makes TikTok videos about this case and posts on Reddit, and she's from Canada. I've also noticed some of the more ardent Blake supporters on forums tend to be from the U.K. and Australia.
I think there's a vague connection in the sense that a lot of the people who dislike Blake are from the U.S. and have disliked her for years, in part due to her plantation wedding. So people from the U.S. are going to go harder with the criticism against Blake. Whereas people outside of the U.S. are more likely to be dismissive of racism and don't understand our country's history, so they're acting ignorant about why people already organically disliked Blake. This isn't to say that people in the U.S. aren't racist, OBVIOUSLY, but there's more of a pretense of caring about these issues, and there will be more people who care about things like plantation weddings. |
Anonymous
They've gotten so brazen I'm surprised they think these subpoeanas are a step too far. Like why stop now? Maybe because the lawyers were finally getting scrutinized and they didn't like it. |
Anonymous
*I'm surprised they realized the subpoeanas were a step too far, I want to clarify. |
Anonymous
So, I think Lively's attorneys are more traditional and have a sense of decorum before the court. It's a different style than Freedman who posts some wacky public stuff like the Taylor Swift letter. I'm not saying the Lively side is more ethical. They did Vanzan. That was never assigned to a judge, they just slid in there and did what the wanted to get a subpoena with a veneer of legitimacy, even by filing a sham lawsuit because no one was watching. I guess they were hoping the social media sites would cooperate and they could just sneak in there. Once they were actually being questioned in public and actually were going to have to answer to the judge and defend their actions, they couldn't, so they scurried away when a light was shined on them. And even then, they still only want it quashed for those who questioned them, they are still trying to slip in and hope they can get something on the other 38 or so creators who didn't file. That is so distasteful. I feel like at this point, if the judge won't quash the entire subpoena, Google and X should request that, because it makes no sense that the subpoena is identical as to each content creators but only some are being quashed. |
Anonymous
That makes sense |