Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.[/quote]

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.[/quote]

I'm one of the posters you are referring to here and I'd just like to state that I'd have no problem with having Freedman and Wallace subpoenaing my personal info to see if I'm being paid to post here, because I'm not, and I'd actually welcome the opportunity to prove to you that I'm a legitimate poster so you would stop accusing me of being a "paid shill" just because you can't come up with actual arguments against what I post here.[/quote]

Are you married? Do you have any shared bank accounts with your DH or maybe your kids or an elderly parent? Are you sure they would all be OK with a subpoena for those records?![/quote]

Who is subpoenaing bank records? Lively has subpoenaed identifying info only. No one is getting bank info here and they won't unless there is evidence to show payments from one of the parties.

I think some of you don't understand how subpoenas work. These subpoenas aren't even served on the content creators or X users at this point. They are being served on Google and X to provide user info so Lively can see if there is anything there that would justify seeking additional info. Most of these subpoenas will come to nothing because Google or X will provide this info and it will become immediately obvious these are not paid employees of Wallace or TAG, and there will be nothing further. The users will only be directly subpoenaed if unmasking them reveals anything suspicious.

And again, if Freedman or whoever wanted to subpoena Jeff for my IP address and posting history, I would have no problem with that because all it would turn up is that I'm a regular person with no relationship to any of the parties in this case who has posted periodically about my actual views. No one is getting my bank statements off that, lol.[/quote]

Trying to respond point by point because there's a lot of misinformation here:

Lively's subpoenas are asking google for bank account information of users. The only reason to do that is because the next step is to subpoena the bank for the records.

It's difficult to find copies of the subpoenas because I think there's only screenshots of livestreams floating around, but other than identifying information, they were also seeking things like every IP session and location information over a long period of time, in addition to any connected bank accounts or credit cards.

I find it obnoxious when people here post things like "you don't understand X..." it is usually JB supporters I think, but it's annoying when either side does that.

Yes, Lively is identifying user information. That's not going to show whether these CC colluded with WP. Getting a random YouTube's name, phone number, and address doesn't show substantively whether they received payments or communicated with WP. It's merely an opening for Lively to then issue substantive subpoenas to the CC seeking all communications with WP, subpoena their bank records, possibly subpoena their email providers, phone records, etc, etc. Think about why Lively is requesting an extension on discovery.

Your IP address and history would not show whether you were paid or a regular person. How could it? Freedman would then have to subpoena your IP and get your name and address, and then subpoena you personally, possibly try to get your phone records to see if your number links up to any of the Lively parties, etc. Luckily there's no bank information on this site, but if there were and he had your account number, he could then subpoena your bank as well to see what payments you received. And there would be a very reasonable chance that this all shows up somewhere in an attachment on the docket.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics