Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

^ the P would typically file where they live/reside or file in NY if they decide NY case law was better for them on their particular issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

Not true. This is federal court. They can apply any state’s law and do everyday.

Sigh, again you’re not understanding how press cases aren’t exactly the same as the examples you’re thinking of. But ok. Let’s see what happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

BL filed the CRD in CA but filed her lawsuit in NY, so JB filed the cross complaint in ny as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

BL filed the CRD in CA but filed her lawsuit in NY, so JB filed the cross complaint in ny as well.

Aha, thanks for clarifying. I haven’t followed this case all that closely. This fact pattern is somewhat atypical in a press case like this, so I’m curious how this will play out.

Typically the P in a case like this has a fairly easy time of bringing the claim in a jurisdiction they choose, with that forums law. As example, I believe the Dominion Fox case was in Delaware even though Fox is based in NY and Dominion is based in Colorado. Fox is likely incorporated in DE (many co are, even though they rarely have even an office there) but publication/doing business there is a nexus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

BL filed the CRD in CA but filed her lawsuit in NY, so JB filed the cross complaint in ny as well.

Aha, thanks for clarifying. I haven’t followed this case all that closely. This fact pattern is somewhat atypical in a press case like this, so I’m curious how this will play out.

Typically the P in a case like this has a fairly easy time of bringing the claim in a jurisdiction they choose, with that forums law. As example, I believe the Dominion Fox case was in Delaware even though Fox is based in NY and Dominion is based in Colorado. Fox is likely incorporated in DE (many co are, even though they rarely have even an office there) but publication/doing business there is a nexus

JB originally sued only the nyt, I think the same day as the article or in close order, and file in LA County. But when Blake sued him in NY, he counter sued and consolidated all defendants into the single complaint. He’s still asking for CA law to be used, nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

The big issue is CA law leans more in favor of the injured party and NY has more press protections. Like I think false light can’t even been claimed in NY. The Wayfarer parties want CA law to apply for obvious reasons and everyone else wants NY law to be applied. The only case for NY law applying is that the NYT is based there. However, BF points out that most of the parties live in CA, work in CA, their reputations are most important in Hollywood which undeniably centers around CA, and the injury will be most felt in CA. He also points out that the CRD complaint the NYT claims gives them fair reporting privilege was filed in CA. The movie was filmed in New Jersey. So I think he makes a really good case the CA has the most interest in the case. If choice of law goes NY, that helps the Reynolds parties a lot.

I think the NY connections are more than that the NYT is based there. The alleged defamation took place in NY (the article was researched and written there) and the article was physically published in NY. The article also concerned activity (the filming and promotion of the movie) that took place in NY. Wayfarer is arguing that because the NYT is also distributed in CA and the Wayfarer parties live there, that CA law should apply. But this is less persuasive than the argument that the acts that comprise the alleged tort took place in NY, IMO.

The NY standard for choice of law is "most significant contacts." I think you can make an argument that there are significant contacts in CA and in NY, but I think the fact that the allegedly defamatory acts took place in NY by NY residents will push the court to have NY law govern. The NYT is distributed globally, but the article was researched and written in NY.

Dp. Publications like the NYT are frequently sued where the P resides outside (and under different laws) of their home base in NY, and it is presumed that they have sufficient nexus to that location because of their choice to do business and publish there, and the injury to the P occurring there. Where the article was researched and written isn’t typically a very compelling factor in the analysis.

CA forum and law would be a given here, but for the fact that as I understand it, Baldonis side voluntarily moved this case to NY. Or am I mistaken?

BL filed the CRD in CA but filed her lawsuit in NY, so JB filed the cross complaint in ny as well.

Aha, thanks for clarifying. I haven’t followed this case all that closely. This fact pattern is somewhat atypical in a press case like this, so I’m curious how this will play out.

Typically the P in a case like this has a fairly easy time of bringing the claim in a jurisdiction they choose, with that forums law. As example, I believe the Dominion Fox case was in Delaware even though Fox is based in NY and Dominion is based in Colorado. Fox is likely incorporated in DE (many co are, even though they rarely have even an office there) but publication/doing business there is a nexus

JB originally sued only the nyt, I think the same day as the article or in close order, and file in LA County. But when Blake sued him in NY, he counter sued and consolidated all defendants into the single complaint. He’s still asking for CA law to be used, nonetheless.

Thank you. And yes, that fact pattern is unusual so to the person who keeps saying this is so common and there must be tons of clear precedent to follow for COL here, there isn’t. It’s not a common fact pattern in a press case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, just noting that reading Freedman's briefs can often feel like a slog; parts of them are often petulant in a PR way that is not usually helpful in a legal brief and that can sometimes misfire with a judge (many judges will not like it -- it just makes real communication and compromise more difficult -- though most judges will not overtly punish a lawyer for this language). I have said this once here before, but attorneys who file briefs like this are real jerks to work with from my (limited) experience with such people.

BL’s team’s briefs are similar. Often littered with insults and hyperbole.

While I might agree that some of Lively's letter motions have had *some* bombastic language (I haven't gone back to look but I expect it's there), I do not agree that their official court filings -- their complaint, amended complaint, and any non-letter motions, oppositions, or replies have included this sort of language. I just went back to check their amended complaint and while it certainly has a point of view, and explains why (it argues) Baldoni's behavior was wrong and even hypocritical, the language it uses to do so is matter of fact and not florid. That's the kind of professionalism I expect from a brief. When we edge into Freedman's shoot-your-mouth off language, it's a signal that you're dealing with a loose cannon who can't always control themselves, imho.

Oh puhlease, they opened their complaint with a 2017 ted talk Baldoni gave, but you take offense to BF’s big words?!!!

Oh, COME ON. Climb off the Baldoni bandwagon for just a second and try, just try for five seconds, to be slightly objective. These are Justin Bandoni's own words! This isn't overwrought, bombastic language of an attorney to insult the other side. It's just Baldoni's very own words used against him -- that is actually a very normal thing to see in legal briefs if you are familiar with them lol. And I have certainly been involved in cases where we cite to a parties' or witnesses' statements made in other contexts (either in factual or expert testimony) to show conflicting statements and thus heighten the fact that a person has said one thing in one context but quite another in a different context, which shows off the lie and/or hypocrisy.

I’m a litigator with 20 years experience, and no, it isn’t normal to use a quote from an unrelated event in a Complaint, but you know that.

Hah, you may have a few (not many) years in me, but actually I have seen complaints and orders start with *book* quotes, so the Baldoni Ted Talk did not throw me off.

More importantly, this quote is different than Freedman’s snideness, which I still say diminishes him. Constantly taunting his opposing parties — oh they couldn’t manage to figure out the allegations that applied to them, poor things? NYT are such privileged snobs amirite? — demeans his opponents but mostly demeans himself and the entire judicial process. He’s like Trump in a courthouse, and can’t refrain from calling his opponents names as though they are his enemies rather than just the other side in a legal dispute. It’s puerile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, just noting that reading Freedman's briefs can often feel like a slog; parts of them are often petulant in a PR way that is not usually helpful in a legal brief and that can sometimes misfire with a judge (many judges will not like it -- it just makes real communication and compromise more difficult -- though most judges will not overtly punish a lawyer for this language). I have said this once here before, but attorneys who file briefs like this are real jerks to work with from my (limited) experience with such people.

BL’s team’s briefs are similar. Often littered with insults and hyperbole.

While I might agree that some of Lively's letter motions have had *some* bombastic language (I haven't gone back to look but I expect it's there), I do not agree that their official court filings -- their complaint, amended complaint, and any non-letter motions, oppositions, or replies have included this sort of language. I just went back to check their amended complaint and while it certainly has a point of view, and explains why (it argues) Baldoni's behavior was wrong and even hypocritical, the language it uses to do so is matter of fact and not florid. That's the kind of professionalism I expect from a brief. When we edge into Freedman's shoot-your-mouth off language, it's a signal that you're dealing with a loose cannon who can't always control themselves, imho.

Oh puhlease, they opened their complaint with a 2017 ted talk Baldoni gave, but you take offense to BF’s big words?!!!

Oh, COME ON. Climb off the Baldoni bandwagon for just a second and try, just try for five seconds, to be slightly objective. These are Justin Bandoni's own words! This isn't overwrought, bombastic language of an attorney to insult the other side. It's just Baldoni's very own words used against him -- that is actually a very normal thing to see in legal briefs if you are familiar with them lol. And I have certainly been involved in cases where we cite to a parties' or witnesses' statements made in other contexts (either in factual or expert testimony) to show conflicting statements and thus heighten the fact that a person has said one thing in one context but quite another in a different context, which shows off the lie and/or hypocrisy.

I’m a litigator with 20 years experience, and no, it isn’t normal to use a quote from an unrelated event in a Complaint, but you know that.

Hah, you may have a few (not many) years in me, but actually I have seen complaints and orders start with *book* quotes, so the Baldoni Ted Talk did not throw me off.

More importantly, this quote is different than Freedman’s snideness, which I still say diminishes him. Constantly taunting his opposing parties — oh they couldn’t manage to figure out the allegations that applied to them, poor things? NYT are such privileged snobs amirite? — demeans his opponents but mostly demeans himself and the entire judicial process. He’s like Trump in a courthouse, and can’t refrain from calling his opponents names as though they are his enemies rather than just the other side in a legal dispute. It’s puerile.

DP lol I now believe you’re a lawyer. Only a lawyer tries to casually throw out a word like that. So cringe.

BF has a style. It’s not the typical stodgy big law firm style (I’ve had counsel quote Shakespeare in their motions- talk about silly) but it can be just as, or more, effective. Curious what he’s like in a court room in front of a jury. I’m not sure how much time he spends there, but then again lots of big firm litigators don’t spend much time in front of a jury either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who are not as interested in Perez Hilton and Daily Mail, some new case docs:

Leslie Sloane/Vision PR memo in support of their MTF and responding to Wayfarer's last motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.126.0.pdf

Wayfarer's response to NYT MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.127.0.pdf

Oof, the response to NYT MTD is baaaaaaaaaad. Have not read all the way through but they are barely trying to refute the arguments on the merits, mostly just asking to replead to resolve the group pleading issue. Why didn't they put that argument up top?

It's worse than their response to Sloane's MTD, which was also not good.

Couldn’t disagree more. Did you actually read it? First, the Wayfarer parties rightfully highlight that an MTD is premature because the court first needs to determine if CA or NY law applies. Second, they highlight that the case law allows for a group pleading of this kind and also explain that they need discovery to clearly separate out each defendant’s specific role in the broader conspiracy. Third they highlight that the NYT article goes far beyond the CRD in its assertions and therefore does not qualify for fair reporting privilege.

I'm surprised choice of law is such an issue. Surely NYT has been sued in NY federal court before by people who live in California or other states. There should be clear precedent.

You aren’t understanding the issue. It is not that CA people haven’t sued in NY, it’s that the forum is NY but they want CA law. That is not common. Usually forum and COL go together.

This is definitely wrong. Forum and choice of law are not the same thing at all

You can’t be a lawyer because your reading comp skills are so poor. I didn’t say COL and forum were the exact same thing. I said they ‘usually’ (not always) go together in cases like this. Are you one who was going on about the protective order yesterday? You need to learn how to read more carefully and consider every word being used.

[Anonymous]

You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

+1

DP. Not a lawyer, but with so many bad arguments being made on this thread, not sure anyone should really be admitting to being a lawyer lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

Nah, there’s a number of people saying it, not just me. And it’s primarily because you keep pretending to be one but ask questions about text production and then say things like ‘I do litigation for large corporations’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

+1

DP. Not a lawyer, but with so many bad arguments being made on this thread, not sure anyone should really be admitting to being a lawyer lol.

See, that’s a sock puppet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

+1

DP. Not a lawyer, but with so many bad arguments being made on this thread, not sure anyone should really be admitting to being a lawyer lol.

See, that’s a sock puppet

Nope, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are so fast to accuse people of not being lawyers. I think you have done it about 20 times in this thread. We should all be so lucky as to not be lawyers lol.

+1

DP. Not a lawyer, but with so many bad arguments being made on this thread, not sure anyone should really be admitting to being a lawyer lol.

See, that’s a sock puppet

Nope, sorry.

lol definitely not a sock puppet