Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

I’m referencing Nick Shapiro. He spearheaded a $50 million a year effort at AirBnb to combat negative publicity before leaving to start his own firm, so I’d expect $90,000 is peanuts to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

The PR firms employ multiple people including assistants, have offices, and travel with clients or to visit clients regularly. For a PR firm, a fee is not even close to the same as salary and is more akin to lawyers fees, which pay for a myriad of overhead costs and the work of multiple people as well as the training and supervision of those people.

According to Wallace, he has no staff, no offices, provides no services beyond monitoring, and any promises of anything different are mere "puffery."

90k for three months of that, if true, is almost pure profit, beyond whatever technical equipment he needed (for "monitoring" this would be a laptop, a phone, and access to communications). We also know factually that Wallace was doing similar work (also promising algorithm manipulation and the work of a "team") for other clients at the same time, also with Nathan, presumably charging similar rates. If so, he was pulling down over 10k per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

I’m referencing Nick Shapiro. He spearheaded a $50 million a year effort at AirBnb to combat negative publicity before leaving to start his own firm, so I’d expect $90,000 is peanuts to him.

Maybe so, but he is offering sophisticated services and presumable has some staff. He's not one guy sitting on a couch in Texas, taking work calls while watching a basketball game and promising to reconfigure the internet to benefit his clients while, according to him, simply tracking internet activity on reddit and a few other websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

Nick Shapiro didn't *make* 50m per year at Airbnb. He was global head of crisis management for the company and his budget was reportedly 50m. For a company that operates globally with massive PR exposure since their business model is premised on people renting out their own homes to strangers in cities all over the world. He also had a team of people working for him there, offices, travel, likely an ad budget and other expenses. It's not comparable to the discrete project Wallace was hired to do for Wayfarer, a tiny company that makes maaaaybe 1-2 movies a year, has like 40 full time employees total, and that most of us had never heard of before this whole debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

Nick Shapiro didn't *make* 50m per year at Airbnb. He was global head of crisis management for the company and his budget was reportedly 50m. For a company that operates globally with massive PR exposure since their business model is premised on people renting out their own homes to strangers in cities all over the world. He also had a team of people working for him there, offices, travel, likely an ad budget and other expenses. It's not comparable to the discrete project Wallace was hired to do for Wayfarer, a tiny company that makes maaaaybe 1-2 movies a year, has like 40 full time employees total, and that most of us had never heard of before this whole debacle.

I said The Airbnb effort had a $50 million a year budget, which was entirely correct. $90,000 is also less than half of 1 percent of $50 million, which seems appropriate given the difference in scale.

As I said, what be really helpful to know what Blake has paid Nick so far. I am willing to bet it is many times $90,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.

Well, that’s a laudable job , but not one that gives you a lot of insight how much professional services cost. $90,000 is about two weeks of a Big Law junior associate’s time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.

Well, that’s a laudable job , but not one that gives you a lot of insight how much professional services cost. $90,000 is about two weeks of a Big Law junior associate’s time.

Nope. Big law second year associates make about $235K/year, so you are way, way off dude. Here, for example, is a Skadden salary grid: https://www.skadden.com/careers/associate-salary-information#:~:text=Table_title:%20Associate%20Base%20Salary%20Table_content:%20header:%20%7C,Year:%202022%20%7C%20Annual%20Salary:%20$260%2C000%20%7C

Two weeks! Even if you were thinking about fifth year salaries (I would not consider a fifth year a junior associate), $90K is STILL at least a fifth of their salary, much more than two weeks, dude. You're in a dream world, as per usual. Why must the Baldoni ass kissers lie so much, is it programmed into their DNA or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.

Well, that’s a laudable job , but not one that gives you a lot of insight how much professional services cost. $90,000 is about two weeks of a Big Law junior associate’s time.

Nope. Big law second year associates make about $235K/year, so you are way, way off dude. Here, for example, is a Skadden salary grid: https://www.skadden.com/careers/associate-salary-information#:~:text=Table_title:%20Associate%20Base%20Salary%20Table_content:%20header:%20%7C,Year:%202022%20%7C%20Annual%20Salary:%20$260%2C000%20%7C

Two weeks! Even if you were thinking about fifth year salaries (I would not consider a fifth year a junior associate), $90K is STILL at least a fifth of their salary, much more than two weeks, dude. You're in a dream world, as per usual. Why must the Baldoni ass kissers lie so much, is it programmed into their DNA or something?

You obviously never worked in Big Law, I did. Associates bill out at significantly more than they are paid. A third year associate in NYC Big Law bills out at $1000 an hour.

Maybe google before posting about something that you don’t have personal experience with if you are going to try to call someone out.

[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: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.

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace employed and would easily be proven after discovery.

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that. I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

He wasn’t really paid very much, probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work. As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager. Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable. $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree. It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions. Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr. That would provide a good basis for comparison.

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money. That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum. I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem. Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.

Well, that’s a laudable job , but not one that gives you a lot of insight how much professional services cost. $90,000 is about two weeks of a Big Law junior associate’s time.

Nope. Big law second year associates make about $235K/year, so you are way, way off dude. Here, for example, is a Skadden salary grid: https://www.skadden.com/careers/associate-salary-information#:~:text=Table_title:%20Associate%20Base%20Salary%20Table_content:%20header:%20%7C,Year:%202022%20%7C%20Annual%20Salary:%20$260%2C000%20%7C

Two weeks! Even if you were thinking about fifth year salaries (I would not consider a fifth year a junior associate), $90K is STILL at least a fifth of their salary, much more than two weeks, dude. You're in a dream world, as per usual. Why must the Baldoni ass kissers lie so much, is it programmed into their DNA or something?

You obviously never worked in Big Law, I did. Associates bill out at significantly more than they are paid. A third year associate in NYC Big Law bills out at $1000 an hour.

Maybe google before posting about something that you don’t have personal experience with if you are going to try to call someone out.

Who's talking about what associates bill out at? I'm talking about what Wallace is making for three months of work and I said that the annualized version of that -- $360,000 -- is more than I make as an attorney. If you're talking about client bills that's apples and oranges and has no bearing here. Maybe try to keep up.