Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple Baldoni defendants have committed perjury, and the Baldoni ass kissers keep coming back with stuff like “oh yeah? But Lively is bossy about selling alcohol!” as if these things are even in the same universe.

Get in, losers, you’re going to … be sorry lol.

Lady, you can keep saying this over and over, as you are, but I’m not going to engage with someone who wants to gloss over everything Blake has done. Not to be mention you sound insane.

It Emds with Courts is the echo chamber you seek. Have fun

You don’t have any real response about the clear perjury from your actual defendants, though. And so you keep ignoring the issue. But it’s a hugely glaring issue signifying that your team is willing to lie under oath. Whereas Lively hasn’t done that at all.

You don’t have any real response so you just keep bringing up the same old BS. People can see through you. Just fyi.

Lively has done that. That’s the point. She’s also lied to The NY Times and the Court, through fraudulent filings.

[Anonymous]

What I don’t understand is, Lively team seems to be saying that they don’t have evidence of retaliation because Justin and team destroyed it all. So what was the thousands of text and emails that Megan Twoey claims that she based the New York Times article on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple Baldoni defendants have committed perjury, and the Baldoni ass kissers keep coming back with stuff like “oh yeah? But Lively is bossy about selling alcohol!” as if these things are even in the same universe.

Get in, losers, you’re going to … be sorry lol.

Lady, you can keep saying this over and over, as you are, but I’m not going to engage with someone who wants to gloss over everything Blake has done. Not to be mention you sound insane.

It Emds with Courts is the echo chamber you seek. Have fun

You don’t have any real response about the clear perjury from your actual defendants, though. And so you keep ignoring the issue. But it’s a hugely glaring issue signifying that your team is willing to lie under oath. Whereas Lively hasn’t done that at all.

You don’t have any real response so you just keep bringing up the same old BS. People can see through you. Just fyi.

Lively has done that. That’s the point. She’s also lied to The NY Times and the Court, through fraudulent filings.

You don’t have Lively committing perjury anywhere, and you don’t have sworn testimony from someone saying Lively ordered them to perform an illegal act. Which Lively has. I can do this all day with you. You can keep kissing Baldoni’s ass all night long but your boy is getting caught out and it’s not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple Baldoni defendants have committed perjury, and the Baldoni ass kissers keep coming back with stuff like “oh yeah? But Lively is bossy about selling alcohol!” as if these things are even in the same universe.

Get in, losers, you’re going to … be sorry lol.

Lady, you can keep saying this over and over, as you are, but I’m not going to engage with someone who wants to gloss over everything Blake has done. Not to be mention you sound insane.

It Emds with Courts is the echo chamber you seek. Have fun

You don’t have any real response about the clear perjury from your actual defendants, though. And so you keep ignoring the issue. But it’s a hugely glaring issue signifying that your team is willing to lie under oath. Whereas Lively hasn’t done that at all.

You don’t have any real response so you just keep bringing up the same old BS. People can see through you. Just fyi.

Lively has done that. That’s the point. She’s also lied to The NY Times and the Court, through fraudulent filings.

And to finally put this miserable exchange to death, let me say, I know you don’t believe she has done these things. But you need to acknowledge others do, just as I can acknowledge that you think Nathan, and for some reason, Wallace, committed perjury, even though I don’t agree with that conclusion.

Further, if you haven’t learned your lesson at this point in the case about forming opinions based on edited texts taken out of context, there is no point in having a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is, Lively team seems to be saying that they don’t have evidence of retaliation because Justin and team destroyed it all. So what was the thousands of text and emails that Megan Twoey claims that she based the New York Times article on?

Seems like you haven’t read the docs. I recommend it. They are instructive.

Saying that defendants destroyed some evidence of their wrongdoing is not the same as saying that you do not have evidence of their wrongdoing.

Lively still has sufficient evidence, just not as much as there would be if Wallace and the rest hadn’t made a point of destroying all their Signal communications (except the ones Case saved that no one knew about haha).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple Baldoni defendants have committed perjury, and the Baldoni ass kissers keep coming back with stuff like “oh yeah? But Lively is bossy about selling alcohol!” as if these things are even in the same universe.

Get in, losers, you’re going to … be sorry lol.

Lady, you can keep saying this over and over, as you are, but I’m not going to engage with someone who wants to gloss over everything Blake has done. Not to be mention you sound insane.

It Emds with Courts is the echo chamber you seek. Have fun

You don’t have any real response about the clear perjury from your actual defendants, though. And so you keep ignoring the issue. But it’s a hugely glaring issue signifying that your team is willing to lie under oath. Whereas Lively hasn’t done that at all.

You don’t have any real response so you just keep bringing up the same old BS. People can see through you. Just fyi.

Lively has done that. That’s the point. She’s also lied to The NY Times and the Court, through fraudulent filings.

And to finally put this miserable exchange to death, let me say, I know you don’t believe she has done these things. But you need to acknowledge others do, just as I can acknowledge that you think Nathan, and for some reason, Wallace, committed perjury, even though I don’t agree with that conclusion.

Further, if you haven’t learned your lesson at this point in the case about forming opinions based on edited texts taken out of context, there is no point in having a discussion.

Once again, putting in your court fuling that Baldoni said “smells so good” instead of “smells good” isn’t perjury. Remembering an exchange slightly differently than what actually happened and putting it in your complaint your way isn’t perjury. You’re describing what happened, like the barroom scene, from your perspective and your pov. That’s not perjury.

But all out falsifying facts and saying you didn’t tell your employee to draft defamatory language for a website that you ordered to be created — when your employee says you did order this and moreover has documentary proof of same — that’s not a slightly different remembrance of the facts. That’s perjury.

Perjury is a felony.

[Anonymous]

I really hate that Liman did not compel Case to submit those docs, after all the games Wayfarer has played with discovery.

[Anonymous]

And before you even raise it, if anything was wrong with VanZan, it happened through Lively’s LAWYERS. Lively didn’t just collect the phone herself from Jones and give it to the NYT. That might have been a problem for her. She hired a law firm and asked them what to do and did what they suggested. I don’t think that’s going to leave her with any legal liability. But even if it does, I don’t think it’s on the same scale of going off on your own and creating a defamatory website about your competitor, and then lying about that under oath!!! The levels of wrongness involved here are from two completely different universes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple Baldoni defendants have committed perjury, and the Baldoni ass kissers keep coming back with stuff like “oh yeah? But Lively is bossy about selling alcohol!” as if these things are even in the same universe.

Get in, losers, you’re going to … be sorry lol.

Lady, you can keep saying this over and over, as you are, but I’m not going to engage with someone who wants to gloss over everything Blake has done. Not to be mention you sound insane.

It Emds with Courts is the echo chamber you seek. Have fun

You don’t have any real response about the clear perjury from your actual defendants, though. And so you keep ignoring the issue. But it’s a hugely glaring issue signifying that your team is willing to lie under oath. Whereas Lively hasn’t done that at all.

You don’t have any real response so you just keep bringing up the same old BS. People can see through you. Just fyi.

Lively has done that. That’s the point. She’s also lied to The NY Times and the Court, through fraudulent filings.

And to finally put this miserable exchange to death, let me say, I know you don’t believe she has done these things. But you need to acknowledge others do, just as I can acknowledge that you think Nathan, and for some reason, Wallace, committed perjury, even though I don’t agree with that conclusion.

Further, if you haven’t learned your lesson at this point in the case about forming opinions based on edited texts taken out of context, there is no point in having a discussion.

Once again, putting in your court fuling that Baldoni said “smells so good” instead of “smells good” isn’t perjury. Remembering an exchange slightly differently than what actually happened and putting it in your complaint your way isn’t perjury. You’re describing what happened, like the barroom scene, from your perspective and your pov. That’s not perjury.

But all out falsifying facts and saying you didn’t tell your employee to draft defamatory language for a website that you ordered to be created — when your employee says you did order this and moreover has documentary proof of same — that’s not a slightly different remembrance of the facts. That’s perjury.

Perjury is a felony.

See, you are utterly helpless to stop typing the same things over and over. Surely you have better uses for your time. You are doing nothing to convince me.

If your the same poster who is still trying to argue Flaa is bad actor and insulting her career, after Lively herself admitted there was no such evidence, seek professional help.

[Anonymous]

In light of this allegation that Nathan and Wallace may have lied in their depositions, I remain a bit surprised that most of the Wayfarer defendants continue to share counsel. There are a number of good reasons why the various defendants might want to use different strategies if the case proceeds, especially at trial, and it surprises me that Wallace is the only one currently going that route.

Jen Abel, in particular, would benefit from independent counsel. As the connection between Wayfarer and Nathan and Wallace, she may wind up in a very difficult legal situation. Especially because the potential perjury concerns attacks on Jonesworks, where Abel was employed at the time of the activity.

Just wild to me that she is still being repped by Freedman, and that Wayfarer is paying for her legal representation. There are a variety of ways in which that's bad for Abel, and Wayfarer, though at the moment it's particularly beneficial for Melissa Nathan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In light of this allegation that Nathan and Wallace may have lied in their depositions, I remain a bit surprised that most of the Wayfarer defendants continue to share counsel. There are a number of good reasons why the various defendants might want to use different strategies if the case proceeds, especially at trial, and it surprises me that Wallace is the only one currently going that route.

Jen Abel, in particular, would benefit from independent counsel. As the connection between Wayfarer and Nathan and Wallace, she may wind up in a very difficult legal situation. Especially because the potential perjury concerns attacks on Jonesworks, where Abel was employed at the time of the activity.

Just wild to me that she is still being repped by Freedman, and that Wayfarer is paying for her legal representation. There are a variety of ways in which that's bad for Abel, and Wayfarer, though at the moment it's particularly beneficial for Melissa Nathan.

Yeah, Case and Koslow are doing it right, with their own counsel that is also being paid by Wayfarer. They've managed not to get named as defendants.

They all hate Jones but her advice about not hiring Nathan and Freedman was on point and Abel should have listened to it.

[Anonymous]

Another question: Wallace's deposition seems so obviously to be loaded with falsehoods that it seems crazy to me. Like just for instance, here is a conversation from October 2024 between Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and a redacted entity (a client of TAG and Wallace) discussing work TAG and Wallace are doing for the client: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1043.10.pdf

The conversation clearly shows TAG and Wallace discussing, in some detail, manipulating algorithms on behalf of the client in order to suppress certain info and promote other info. In his deposition, Wallace denies this is something he does, or is even capable of doing, and claims this was entirely "puffery."

If Wallace is telling the truth in his deposition, then he was lying to this client and, as well as Wayfarer, about his abilities and his actual work, while collecting large payments. That's fraud. On the other hand, if he's lying in his deposition, that's perjury. If he's committing perjury, you have to ask why, which raises the strong likelihood that if he is lying, the behavior he is lying to conceal is worse than fraud.

No matter how you slice it, Wallace seems like a bad actor here. And then it's just a multiple choice quiz as to which unethical, illegal activity he engaged in.

Wild.

[Anonymous]

The easy way to spot a bot. They post the same thing over and over. They have a new talking point each day. Today is perjury day. I think we are over two dozen non responsive posts.

They also like to report any post that calls out how crazy this appears to Jeff, hoping a new poster doesn’t realize they’ve been saying the same thing over and over for literally pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And before you even raise it, if anything was wrong with VanZan, it happened through Lively’s LAWYERS. Lively didn’t just collect the phone herself from Jones and give it to the NYT. That might have been a problem for her. She hired a law firm and asked them what to do and did what they suggested. I don’t think that’s going to leave her with any legal liability. But even if it does, I don’t think it’s on the same scale of going off on your own and creating a defamatory website about your competitor, and then lying about that under oath!!! The levels of wrongness involved here are from two completely different universes.

She clearly hired the law firm after she turned the texts over to The NY Times, and after Jones illegally gave her an employee’s phone.

[Anonymous]

I am the author of 17:22 and 17:36, these were my first and only posts on the subject of potential perjury (which I learned about for the first time upon reading this thread), and I have never reported posts in this thread to Jeff. Feel free to ask Jeff if this is true.

One sign of a troll is when they want to change the subject, they'll start calling people bots or start "boards on boards" discussions in an effort to shift focus off of discussion that is not favorable to the side for which they advocate.