Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to learn that some Lively supporters are anti first amendment and pro turning over your financial info for no reason at all. And yet they can’t fathom why Blake is organically unpopular.

Right, if there's one thing both sides should come to an agreement on, it's this. Honestly think it's disgusting that they think our rights should be trampled on to protect a C-list CW star.

Yes, you can think Lively has a case for SH or retaliation or that Baldoni and Freedman are sleazy while also not agreeing with every tactic BL ever employs. Its sus when anyone is agreeing with one side 100% of the time, even saying they would totally agree to get a subpoena from Freedman!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personal financial account is protected info, not just transaction info. If one works at a federal agency regulating banks, can only look at individual account info, including the existence of account and account info, with a security clearance

That's a totally different situation. Of course the government can't just look at your bank account info whenever they want.

If you do a transaction with a business and the business or the transaction becomes relevant to a crime or civil case, your financial info can be subpoenaed. Once I was contacted regarding an altercation at a restaurant because I'd eaten at the restaurant that day. They used credit card info to identify other patrons. They didn't get access to my credit card records and the number itself was shielded, but they got my name that way. Turned out I had not seen anything because I was not in the restaurant at the same time as anyone involved.

And I think the key here is they probably got a court ordered subpoena and made a showing of relevance before getting the info.

Maybe? I honestly don't know and no one even mentioned a subpoena to me. I certainly wasn't asked before my transaction with the restaurant was shared and it was clear they were just using a list of all cc transactions to hunt for witnesses.

In this case people are being alerted ahead of time before info is shared and have a chance to object. Seems fair to me.

But again, ultimately the only info they had on me was my name and phone number, associated with my card. They didn't get my card number, transaction history, even how much I spent at the restaurant (though they did know what I ordered, lol). It didn't feel particularly invasive once I got past the weirdness of getting a phone call that was like "did you make a purchase at X restaurant on X date?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personal financial account is protected info, not just transaction info. If one works at a federal agency regulating banks, can only look at individual account info, including the existence of account and account info, with a security clearance

That's a totally different situation. Of course the government can't just look at your bank account info whenever they want.

If you do a transaction with a business and the business or the transaction becomes relevant to a crime or civil case, your financial info can be subpoenaed. Once I was contacted regarding an altercation at a restaurant because I'd eaten at the restaurant that day. They used credit card info to identify other patrons. They didn't get access to my credit card records and the number itself was shielded, but they got my name that way. Turned out I had not seen anything because I was not in the restaurant at the same time as anyone involved.

And I think the key here is they probably got a court ordered subpoena and made a showing of relevance before getting the info.

^However, instead, they will continue to whine "ahh, how can I protect myself, I don't know how social media trending and virality work."

This was an obvious, yet great, comment posted under one of NAG’s latest videos. Since the pro-BL posters don’t understand how social media works:

“@netters: Doesn’t the kiss cam post from the Coldplay concert that got 45 mil views overnight show that one negative video (the flaa interview or her share ny location video) can go viral without there being a “smear campaign”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

That is not remotely the type of evidence needed to support a subpoena for third party financial info. Get a grip.

It's concrete evidence that TAG or Wallace may have worked with journalists or content creators to spread negative content about Blake at Baldoni's request. That's enough to ask that some content creators who spread negative content online be identified, and one way to identify is by obtaining info on who pays for a business account on a platform, which is what they are doing. They are not requesting transaction records and if they asked for them, there is no way they would get them.

Anonymous wrote:Personal financial account is protected info, not just transaction info. If one works at a federal agency regulating banks, can only look at individual account info, including the existence of account and account info, with a security clearance

That's a totally different situation. Of course the government can't just look at your bank account info whenever they want.

If you do a transaction with a business and the business or the transaction becomes relevant to a crime or civil case, your financial info can be subpoenaed. Once I was contacted regarding an altercation at a restaurant because I'd eaten at the restaurant that day. They used credit card info to identify other patrons. They didn't get access to my credit card records and the number itself was shielded, but they got my name that way. Turned out I had not seen anything because I was not in the restaurant at the same time as anyone involved.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to learn that some Lively supporters are anti first amendment and pro turning over your financial info for no reason at all. And yet they can’t fathom why Blake is organically unpopular.

Right, if there's one thing both sides should come to an agreement on, it's this. Honestly think it's disgusting that they think our rights should be trampled on to protect a C-list CW star.

A new obnoxious talking point from the pro-Lively side: "I hate this thread, where can I discuss this case, no one is neutral enough."

Personal financial account is protected info, not just transaction info. If one works at a federal agency regulating banks, can only look at individual account info, including the existence of account and account info, with a security clearance

Interesting to learn that some Lively supporters are anti first amendment and pro turning over your financial info for no reason at all. And yet they can’t fathom why Blake is organically unpopular.

Anonymous wrote:Lively has now subpoenaed close to 40 content creators between x, google and direct subpoenas. This is the definition of a fishing expedition. At least the law firms are making bank.

She’s fishing and they’re billing like crazy!!! But seriously she’s looking desperate for issuing these subpoenas and it doesn’t help her PR wise either

Lively has now subpoenaed close to 40 content creators between x, google and direct subpoenas. This is the definition of a fishing expedition. At least the law firms are making bank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

It was unsealed yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1m2xgdz/the_list_of_creators_tag_contacted_and_what_they/#lightbox

Hmm, seems to be zero overlap with the google and twitter subpoenas so there goes that argument. Keep working "concrete evidence" poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, those texts are not “concrete evidence “ of contact with the users they subpoenaed. Please stop playing lawyer, you obviously aren’t one.

That is concrete evidence that Baldoni specifically wanted to see negative content about Blake online, and Abel confirming that's what Nathan/TAG can do an citing Tik Tok, Reddit, and IG as venues for this content. It also shows Abel and Nathan discussing these demands from Baldoni and how to convey to him that they can do it without specifically saying in writing what they are going to to do. Additionally, Lively has subpoenaed lists of content creators from TAG that they communicated with regarding Lively or Baldoni (this list is under seal so we have not seen it).

Yes there is concrete evidence.

That is not remotely the type of evidence needed to support a subpoena for third party financial info. Get a grip.