Anonymous wrote:I had to turn Perez off after 1 second, I can't bear him. From what I scrolled on reddit, it's just him saying Baldoni's team confirmed Vituscka lied. Can someone provide further details. How do they know, why did he lie, what bearing it has on the case, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

What is there to be accountable for? Am I Garofalo's mommy?

Seriously. In any case, there is nothing wrong with the motion. Lively denies she and Van Zan are the same party. Van Zan has produced nothing. Lively produced without metadata (ironically after arguing successfully that metadata had to be included in the TAG production). Van Zan must have the originals, or needs to state for the record they do not.

Frankly, the Blake supporter owes us all an apology for spamming us with such obvious bullshit.

DP totally agree but haven’t we learned by now? This totally organic (sarcasm) lively supporter goes nuts spamming this thread with crap, often to distract from a legitimately bad issue arising on Blake’s side… like the fact that it seems there is no a separate witness who was intimidated to mislead/lie/delete evidence. And of course that’s separate from the entire fraud Van Zan litigation.

But no, they’d like us to believe the real bad actors are Freedman because he ‘lied’ when he didn’t file an amended complaint (like he owes the public anything, and doesn’t take direction from his client) and Garafoala bc she asked for metadata.

Wait, what was that again? Let's do a little review, shall we:

* 16 days ago, your boy's ENTIRE COMPLAINT got completely dismissed, almost all with prejudice.
* Freedman took a day to read over the opinion and then got on TV and gave an incorrect statement about how many claims remained, but affirmatively stated he would file an amended complaint for all four! (Reader, there were only two.)
* Tick tock that deadline passed and there was no filing. Reddit explodes with confused and disappointed Baldoni supporters.
* Later, Freedman issued a sad little statement about how they weren't filing an amended complaint after all but were pursuing all legal avenues.
* Meanwhile Ellyn Garofalo files a MTC asking a non-party for materials that she has already received in part from party Lively but fails to note that anywhere in her motion.

And you say I'm trying to distract you from a "legitimately bad issue" on the Lively side?? Seriously?!
* How do you think Vituscka is going to hurt Lively when the Motion to Dismiss was decided entirely without consideration of his declaration? In what world are/could any of the Lively parties be applying pressure to him?
* We have been saying for weeks that if Baldoni has something, anything, on this VanZan subpoena to contest events with, than for pete's sake, BRING IT! BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT! And Freedman et al have stuck it in a tiny footnote and otherwise sat on it. And finally, FINALLY, now Garofalo brings it, and THIS is the way you bring it? By making it look like you don't have the subpoena when you've had it since May?

Your lawyers cannot write their way out of a tin can. I thought Garofalo would help but we're right back in the trash where Freedman started. Let's see how this goes for you, I'm sure you will get everything you wanted.

Anonymous wrote:You sound like you need a Betty Buzz break

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

What is there to be accountable for? Am I Garofalo's mommy?

Seriously. In any case, there is nothing wrong with the motion. Lively denies she and Van Zan are the same party. Van Zan has produced nothing. Lively produced without metadata (ironically after arguing successfully that metadata had to be included in the TAG production). Van Zan must have the originals, or needs to state for the record they do not.

Frankly, the Blake supporter owes us all an apology for spamming us with such obvious bullshit.

DP totally agree but haven’t we learned by now? This totally organic (sarcasm) lively supporter goes nuts spamming this thread with crap, often to distract from a legitimately bad issue arising on Blake’s side… like the fact that it seems there is no a separate witness who was intimidated to mislead/lie/delete evidence. And of course that’s separate from the entire fraud Van Zan litigation.

But no, they’d like us to believe the real bad actors are Freedman because he ‘lied’ when he didn’t file an amended complaint (like he owes the public anything, and doesn’t take direction from his client) and Garafoala bc she asked for metadata.

Wait, what was that again? Let's do a little review, shall we:

* 16 days ago, your boy's ENTIRE COMPLAINT got completely dismissed, almost all with prejudice.
* Freedman took a day to read over the opinion and then got on TV and gave an incorrect statement about how many claims remained, but affirmatively stated he would file an amended complaint for all four! (Reader, there were only two.)
* Tick tock that deadline passed and there was no filing. Reddit explodes with confused and disappointed Baldoni supporters.
* Later, Freedman issued a sad little statement about how they weren't filing an amended complaint after all but were pursuing all legal avenues.
* Meanwhile Ellyn Garofalo files a MTC asking a non-party for materials that she has already received in part from party Lively but fails to note that anywhere in her motion.

And you say I'm trying to distract you from a "legitimately bad issue" on the Lively side?? Seriously?!
* How do you think Vituscka is going to hurt Lively when the Motion to Dismiss was decided entirely without consideration of his declaration? In what world are/could any of the Lively parties be applying pressure to him?
* We have been saying for weeks that if Baldoni has something, anything, on this VanZan subpoena to contest events with, than for pete's sake, BRING IT! BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT! And Freedman et al have stuck it in a tiny footnote and otherwise sat on it. And finally, FINALLY, now Garofalo brings it, and THIS is the way you bring it? By making it look like you don't have the subpoena when you've had it since May?

Your lawyers cannot write their way out of a tin can. I thought Garofalo would help but we're right back in the trash where Freedman started. Let's see how this goes for you, I'm sure you will get everything you wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

What is there to be accountable for? Am I Garofalo's mommy?

Seriously. In any case, there is nothing wrong with the motion. Lively denies she and Van Zan are the same party. Van Zan has produced nothing. Lively produced without metadata (ironically after arguing successfully that metadata had to be included in the TAG production). Van Zan must have the originals, or needs to state for the record they do not.

Frankly, the Blake supporter owes us all an apology for spamming us with such obvious bullshit.

DP totally agree but haven’t we learned by now? This totally organic (sarcasm) lively supporter goes nuts spamming this thread with crap, often to distract from a legitimately bad issue arising on Blake’s side… like the fact that it seems there is no a separate witness who was intimidated to mislead/lie/delete evidence. And of course that’s separate from the entire fraud Van Zan litigation.

But no, they’d like us to believe the real bad actors are Freedman because he ‘lied’ when he didn’t file an amended complaint (like he owes the public anything, and doesn’t take direction from his client) and Garafoala bc she asked for metadata.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

What is there to be accountable for? Am I Garofalo's mommy?

Seriously. In any case, there is nothing wrong with the motion. Lively denies she and Van Zan are the same party. Van Zan has produced nothing. Lively produced without metadata (ironically after arguing successfully that metadata had to be included in the TAG production). Van Zan must have the originals, or needs to state for the record they do not.

Frankly, the Blake supporter owes us all an apology for spamming us with such obvious bullshit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

What is there to be accountable for? Am I Garofalo's mommy?

Anonymous wrote:Perez Hilton reporting that it is true that the Daily Mail reporter lied in his declaration. Start making the popcorn . . .

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.

Anonymous wrote:And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.