Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

Right, in pointing out the hypocrisy of one side, does this user not realize that having those exact mirroring beliefs also means she’s a hypocrite?

Not really, even us JB supporters acknowledged there were legitimate safe harbors he would have to get around to survive a motion to dismiss.

But glad you are calling yourself a hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

Right, in pointing out the hypocrisy of one side, does this user not realize that having those exact mirroring beliefs also means she’s a hypocrite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you don't have anything to hide why would you care about being subpoenaed. Especially in this case where the individuals haven't even been subpoenaed, just subscriber info about them from a third party platform.

If you don't have anything to hide, why don't you post your IP address and personal information here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you don't have anything to hide why would you care about being subpoenaed. Especially in this case where the individuals haven't even been subpoenaed, just subscriber info about them from a third party platform.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you don't have anything to hide why would you care about being subpoenaed. Especially in this case where the individuals haven't even been subpoenaed, just subscriber info about them from a third party platform.

Very dangerous thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you don't have anything to hide why would you care about being subpoenaed. Especially in this case where the individuals haven't even been subpoenaed, just subscriber info about them from a third party platform.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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”