Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 14:11     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:Is she going to do this 37 more times?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.497.0.pdf


Truly an unhinged move on her part
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 23:29     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That Popcorn Planet video where he claims the Manatt secretary "lied" to him was incredibly dumb though.

Also, that woman is just a lowly receptionist being rudely grilled by some guy about stuff she could not possibly know, having it recorded, and then posted to YouTube where she is described as a liar and made fun of. That's not okay. To me, that is as bad as subpoenaing some tiny Tik Toker with 20 followers.


I feel bad for her too, for having a terrible boss who didn't prepare her staff for inevitable and reasonable questions.


Nope. I've worked in a law firm as staff. He was demanding answers to questions that she legally cannot answer. And recording it and spreading it on YouTube. That has nothing to do with he firm failing to "prepare" her for some celeb gossip YouTube personality to use her as a punching bag and then share it all over the internet. He was being an a$$hole.

The whole thing was a stunt and he used someone who makes an hourly wage doing an honest days work to get views online. That's gross. It's like a morning drive talk show calling a school teacher to humiliate her on the radio for kicks. It's punching down.


lol, the Lively bot has lost the plot.


I'm not a "Lively bot." I think people who are defending people like Popcorn Planet, Perez Hilton, and Candace Owens have lost the plot. These people are gross. It's one thing when they are going after Lively, who is wealthy and powerful. This secretary is neither. If you can't see what is wrong with that, I don't know what to tell you. Candace has a theory about Jews and lasers to sell you on, I guess.


Not a bot, but let’s summarize the various professions you’ve claimed: attorney, office staff, intimacy coordinator, fact checker, was there a screen writing claim as well? I’ve lost track.


Isn’t she also Arlington mom? And at one point she worked in news too.


So well rounded!!!


And what do you all do for a living? Still zero responses from anyone on team Baldoni here, dishing it out but not taking it, classy as always. 🤣


I am pretty sure they are stay at home moms who maybe had a job at one point but not anymore, and one was a nurse.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 22:31     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:Is she going to do this 37 more times?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.497.0.pdf


It does seem like they put chum in the water knowing most fish will get away but they hope to catch something from the ones don’t swim away/fight.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 22:17     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 18:43     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?


Exactly


They've gotten so brazen I'm surprised they think these subpoeanas are a step too far. Like why stop now? Maybe because the lawyers were finally getting scrutinized and they didn't like it.


So, I think Lively's attorneys are more traditional and have a sense of decorum before the court. It's a different style than Freedman who posts some wacky public stuff like the Taylor Swift letter. I'm not saying the Lively side is more ethical. They did Vanzan. That was never assigned to a judge, they just slid in there and did what the wanted to get a subpoena with a veneer of legitimacy, even by filing a sham lawsuit because no one was watching. I guess they were hoping the social media sites would cooperate and they could just sneak in there. Once they were actually being questioned in public and actually were going to have to answer to the judge and defend their actions, they couldn't, so they scurried away when a light was shined on them. And even then, they still only want it quashed for those who questioned them, they are still trying to slip in and hope they can get something on the other 38 or so creators who didn't file. That is so distasteful. I feel like at this point, if the judge won't quash the entire subpoena, Google and X should request that, because it makes no sense that the subpoena is identical as to each content creators but only some are being quashed.


That makes sense
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 18:31     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?


Exactly


They've gotten so brazen I'm surprised they think these subpoeanas are a step too far. Like why stop now? Maybe because the lawyers were finally getting scrutinized and they didn't like it.


So, I think Lively's attorneys are more traditional and have a sense of decorum before the court. It's a different style than Freedman who posts some wacky public stuff like the Taylor Swift letter. I'm not saying the Lively side is more ethical. They did Vanzan. That was never assigned to a judge, they just slid in there and did what the wanted to get a subpoena with a veneer of legitimacy, even by filing a sham lawsuit because no one was watching. I guess they were hoping the social media sites would cooperate and they could just sneak in there. Once they were actually being questioned in public and actually were going to have to answer to the judge and defend their actions, they couldn't, so they scurried away when a light was shined on them. And even then, they still only want it quashed for those who questioned them, they are still trying to slip in and hope they can get something on the other 38 or so creators who didn't file. That is so distasteful. I feel like at this point, if the judge won't quash the entire subpoena, Google and X should request that, because it makes no sense that the subpoena is identical as to each content creators but only some are being quashed.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 18:23     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?


Exactly


They've gotten so brazen I'm surprised they think these subpoeanas are a step too far. Like why stop now? Maybe because the lawyers were finally getting scrutinized and they didn't like it.


*I'm surprised they realized the subpoeanas were a step too far, I want to clarify.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 18:22     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?


Exactly


They've gotten so brazen I'm surprised they think these subpoeanas are a step too far. Like why stop now? Maybe because the lawyers were finally getting scrutinized and they didn't like it.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 17:59     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anyone find it weird that all of the content creators on Blake's side aren't even in the U.S.? That weird expatriarch guy is apparently from the U.K. and there's this woman named Sarah Siegel who makes TikTok videos about this case and posts on Reddit, and she's from Canada. I've also noticed some of the more ardent Blake supporters on forums tend to be from the U.K. and Australia.

I think there's a vague connection in the sense that a lot of the people who dislike Blake are from the U.S. and have disliked her for years, in part due to her plantation wedding. So people from the U.S. are going to go harder with the criticism against Blake. Whereas people outside of the U.S. are more likely to be dismissive of racism and don't understand our country's history, so they're acting ignorant about why people already organically disliked Blake.

This isn't to say that people in the U.S. aren't racist, OBVIOUSLY, but there's more of a pretense of caring about these issues, and there will be more people who care about things like plantation weddings.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 17:58     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?


Exactly
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 17:41     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.


Because he didn't want to get his hands dirty?
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 17:18     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

There definitely was a reason Gottloeb let Esra take the lead of these subpoenas.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 13:03     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:The glittery spatula lady filed a motion for sanctions against Blake for abusing the discovery process.


Go spatula lady!
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 12:43     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

The glittery spatula lady filed a motion for sanctions against Blake for abusing the discovery process.
Anonymous
Post 07/27/2025 12:02     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Flaa has posted that her subpoena was withdrawn as well. She stated she received an email from her attorney informing her of this.

That is significant, because she's one of the few I thought may have been legitimate given she was referenced in the NYT article.


Another for BL attorneys to tell RE great news! we are right on track!

Did JB attorney file anything to say the Vanzan subpoena never should have happened or is that a trial item and not before?


They have only referenced Vanzan in other ways like the crime fraud exception and in the motion to compel Vanzan to turn over the subpoena, their responses, emails, and corporate docs. In theory, once they receive all that they can make a further motion.