Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

DP. Totally agree. I suspect she’s the same one who runs to Jeff to try to get us banned and shut down. Similar long winded style and incredible skill at twisting and exaggerating facts to the Nth degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

And this is precisely why this thread is hundreds of pages long. Not only does she reply, but it’s always at least 4 or 5 paragraphs, always stating that “she sees all the facts differently.” It’s like everyone seeing the same color green, but she doesn’t see green. She sees powder blue unicorns.

Different people have different opinions about the case, guys.

For the hundredth time, there are 15 comments per page, whether your comment is 5 paragraphs or five characters. So you responding with a paragraph and then responding again with “oopsie I meant me not them” actually makes the thread roll faster than one 7 paragraph comment.

Props from me to the PP that pro-Baldoni fans are belittling. They continue to bully and demean her, and she basically just stands her ground and makes her points, and mostly doesn’t even throw insults back at them despite extreme provocation on their part. They are behaving like hoodlums and she is just making her points. It’s like one of those after school specials when a kid gets bullied over and over. 🙌

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.

FWIW I think they were just trying to protect Taylor’s privacy. I don’t think the leaks about the Taylor subpoena have been coming from JB’s camp, as you can see freedman didn’t even give a statement, which is unusual for him. They don’t want to poke the dragon and enrage swifties imo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

And this is precisely why this thread is hundreds of pages long. Not only does she reply, but it’s always at least 4 or 5 paragraphs, always stating that “she sees all the facts differently.” It’s like everyone seeing the same color green, but she doesn’t see green. She sees powder blue unicorns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

Anonymous wrote:Jones replied to Wayfarer's letter right around midnight: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.209.0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.