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]I have been half paying attention to the CC debacle. What do you guys think happened with Hudson here: Ryan and Blake strong-armed her into issuing this subpoeanas, and then realized the backlash wasn't worth it? At the same time, these two are shameless, so I'm surprised they backtracked and I'm wondering what specifically would have caused them to backtrack.[/quote]

I wonder too. I have always been skeptical of those who think Blake and Ryan (or sometimes just Ryan) run the show and bulldoze the prestigious attorneys, but this is so dumb strategically that I'm like... maybe they were right.

You can sort of see how the attorneys seem embarrassed and try to run away from it and dance around with words. In the email to the creators they say "Please note that the Subpoena seeks subscriber information and does not seek content such as emails, messages, or related information" which really downplays the fact that they are asking for some very intrusive stuff (and it took them 4 days to come up with that verbiage, lol, and after giving people the runaround on the phone).

Then when specifically asked, they default to "blah blah blah untraceable smear campaign" in both the emails and the Hudson letter, never providing any reason why those creators specifically were targeted or why they need such specific information from google. The attorneys have to know this was baseless.

I don't blame Blake for thinking there is an untraceable campaign. Those are Melissa Nathan's words. It's just, I expect the lawyers would have explained "we can't just subpoena every person in the world who spoke badly about you" lol. So I'm really curious how they even came up with the list, if like an intern or someone from Shapiro's office compiled it or what. I had been giving the benefit of the doubt that this was from information unearthed during discovery but they failed to identify anything.

I guess they didn't expect them to fight back?! Which is dumb because these people literally read filings and comment on them as their hobby so of course they would respond.

https://archive.is/U3lLR Blake Lively Fights Back: Exposing Bots, Smears, and the People Hiding Behind Fake Accounts

This random article popped up a few days ago from a weird website I've never heard of (hence using archive link). I imagine this was planted by Blake's PR as a test balloon for bigger articles in bigger outlets but they seem to have reversed course and decided to drop the subpoenas on anyone who protests. Which is really dumb too. They withdrew 5 so there's like 38 left that can still trickle onto the docket and Hudson is going to have to keep posting the same letter mooting it, lmao. They should have quit while they were behind and quietly withdrawn all 3 subpoenas. I am concerned no one has moved to quash the TikTok one yet as apparently TikTok did not send notification emails to the account holders.[/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