Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange
conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

That was me and I posted it to make a point. Often the Lively person/people claim they are just random parties, here to post (when they’re not at their law firm jobs) about these cases, read motions, research legal parties, etc etc. All in the guise of fairness and truth, so I’m just curious why not one of them (and they claimed to be multiple people) was interested in opining on that issue. Seems funny given their commitment to this case, including commenting on every peep the other sides lawyer makes. My question was ignored again and again, even though these poster(s) had time to scroll back for 30 pages and apparently have continued reading and posting since I left hours ago.

That’s some law firm job that allows so much non billable time! Wow!

So I’ll ask again…

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.

And yet you are also here.

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time. You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather.

DP. That's because you assume those that agree with you are normal posters, and therefore different, while the ones on the other side must be the same poster. Constantly insulting the posters and telling them they have no lives is not normal behavior either.

We don’t have to assume. Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person. She freely admits it.

PP. Yes, think that one is the same person, but I don’t think every person that is defending her from personal attacks about her age and being a cat lady are the same person, which people are implying.

Anyway, to the person posting about Shapiro, I would be open to any proof they are planting stories on Baldoni.
That wouldn't surprise me.

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman signed Lively's dismissal of the emotional distress claims with prejudice. (Not available yet on court listener but won't be any different than the proposed order circulated earlier, except signed.)

Liman denied Lively's Motion to Compel third party responses to Lively's subpoenas, stating those subpoenas were filed in California and Georgia and thus would need to be brought in those courts, rather than in NY. Loss for Lively, here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.339.0.pdf

Sarah Nathan withdraws the motion to quash the subpoena filed against her because of the dismissal order, having been informed by Sloane that the issue was now moot since no claims against her remained. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.338.0.pdf

I wonder if this means Lively also won't get the texts etc. that Freedman sent to Vituscka - had they not been produced yet when the dismissal order came down.

As to your last point, the answer is almost certainly yes. A number of parties are now out of the case.

Now that they are known to exist, can Lively subpoena them herself as relevant to the smear campaign?

I don't know, but I doubt Liman would enforce their production since he has said early on that this isn’t a trial against the lawyers. So mho is that if Lively doesn’t already have this stuff they won’t get it without some greater showing of wrongdoing, and I say this as a Lively supporter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman signed Lively's dismissal of the emotional distress claims with prejudice. (Not available yet on court listener but won't be any different than the proposed order circulated earlier, except signed.)

Liman denied Lively's Motion to Compel third party responses to Lively's subpoenas, stating those subpoenas were filed in California and Georgia and thus would need to be brought in those courts, rather than in NY. Loss for Lively, here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.339.0.pdf

Sarah Nathan withdraws the motion to quash the subpoena filed against her because of the dismissal order, having been informed by Sloane that the issue was now moot since no claims against her remained. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.338.0.pdf

I wonder if this means Lively also won't get the texts etc. that Freedman sent to Vituscka - had they not been produced yet when the dismissal order came down.

As to your last point, the answer is almost certainly yes. A number of parties are now out of the case.

Now that they are known to exist, can Lively subpoena them herself as relevant to the smear campaign?

Thank you PPs. That makes sense on the MTC. Although those parties are using Wayfarer counsel, they aren’t parties to this case so they have to compel each individual in their jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman signed Lively's dismissal of the emotional distress claims with prejudice. (Not available yet on court listener but won't be any different than the proposed order circulated earlier, except signed.)

Liman denied Lively's Motion to Compel third party responses to Lively's subpoenas, stating those subpoenas were filed in California and Georgia and thus would need to be brought in those courts, rather than in NY. Loss for Lively, here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.339.0.pdf

Sarah Nathan withdraws the motion to quash the subpoena filed against her because of the dismissal order, having been informed by Sloane that the issue was now moot since no claims against her remained. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.338.0.pdf

I wonder if this means Lively also won't get the texts etc. that Freedman sent to Vituscka - had they not been produced yet when the dismissal order came down.

As to your last point, the answer is almost certainly yes. A number of parties are now out of the case.

Judge denied Lively motion to compel third parties on jurisdictional grounds.

Judge Liman signed Lively's dismissal of the emotional distress claims with prejudice. (Not available yet on court listener but won't be any different than the proposed order circulated earlier, except signed.)

Liman denied Lively's Motion to Compel third party responses to Lively's subpoenas, stating those subpoenas were filed in California and Georgia and thus would need to be brought in those courts, rather than in NY. Loss for Lively, here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.339.0.pdf

Sarah Nathan withdraws the motion to quash the subpoena filed against her because of the dismissal order, having been informed by Sloane that the issue was now moot since no claims against her remained. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.338.0.pdf

I wonder if this means Lively also won't get the texts etc. that Freedman sent to Vituscka - had they not been produced yet when the dismissal order came down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

Me again, but from what you posted before, it seems like Shapiro will actually put even his worst plans in writing, which Nathan was not willing to do saying it could get them in big trouble, so I’m not sure Shapiro is as dirty of a crisis PR firm as Nathan tbh. But please drop some crisis PR firm knowledge if you have it.

Any thoughts from you on why Freedman is being so delinquent on his discovery obligations? Or general thoughts on whether Costa Rica has been more relaxing for Baldoni than Hawaii?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

So, to be clear, posting about Shapiro a dozen times over the last 3 pages is not flooding, correct?