Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

There's no evidence Lively was friends with Weinstein. She did have dinner with him and there are some photos of them together. They worked in the same industry and Lively did movies with Miramax. You can find similar photos of many other actors and actresses in Hollywood.

Sunshine's dad repped Weinstein. That's not "second cousin's best friend's husband." It's his dad.

When did he supposedly rep Weinstein? And was it Miramax or Weinstein personally? Big difference

His Wikipedia page just says Weinstein, not Miramax.

His Wikipedia page also says that his firm is well known for altering the Wikipedia pages of clients, so I'm guessing if he didn't actually rep Weinstein, he would have made sure to get that removed by now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

There's no evidence Lively was friends with Weinstein. She did have dinner with him and there are some photos of them together. They worked in the same industry and Lively did movies with Miramax. You can find similar photos of many other actors and actresses in Hollywood.

Sunshine's dad repped Weinstein. That's not "second cousin's best friend's husband." It's his dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

He's a public person whose wedding (to another prominent, well known person) was in Town & Country. His dad is quite well known.

I don't care what you think of me. You have thrown your blind support behind Justin Baldoni, despite never even having heard of him until a few months ago. You clearly lack critical reasoning skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

There's no evidence Lively was friends with Weinstein. She did have dinner with him and there are some photos of them together. They worked in the same industry and Lively did movies with Miramax. You can find similar photos of many other actors and actresses in Hollywood.

Sunshine's dad repped Weinstein. That's not "second cousin's best friend's husband." It's his dad.

When did he supposedly rep Weinstein? And was it Miramax or Weinstein personally? Big difference

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Dp. Where was it proven he used google AI? Fwiw lots of discovery tech used by law firms has an AI component. That’s very different than GAI though which is what this PP is implying

You don't use AI to draft emails, and if you do, you might want to correct the font so it at least looks like the rest of your email instead of an obvious copy and paste job, as is the case here.

Wait you are basing this on a font change? Wow. You are shameless.

Font change evidencing cut and paste, and the ability to recognize AI product when I see it.

Do you work for Freedman's firm? Just so you know, you don't have to go down with that ship. You can get another job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

He's a public person whose wedding (to another prominent, well known person) was in Town & Country. His dad is quite well known.

I don't care what you think of me. You have thrown your blind support behind Justin Baldoni, despite never even having heard of him until a few months ago. You clearly lack critical reasoning skills.

DP many of us have seen and enjoyed Jane the Virgin

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reddit also shows the Jamie Heath birth video that Blake claimed was pornography. I won’t post it here but wow. A family cuddling their newborn, with the birthing mom (Heath’s wife) being covered by a blanket throughout most of video. Music of Maxwell (I think) playing in the background, somewhat spiritual, a song about a woman’s worth.

And this was claimed by Blake as being pornographic—Justin and Jamie attempting to show her porn?

Wow. More receipts by Baldoni. Another fabrication by Blake.

People are speculating that SNL weekend update continues to troll Blake. If anyone saw, they had Heidi Gardner come on and play a middle-aged Karen, who was terrified of going to New York City because of what she read on Facebook.

At one point, she basically had this schtick where everything she was seeing was P-RN! EVERYWHERE!

I saw this skit and Sunday night and it’s trolling insular tourists who don’t know anything about NYC themselves but believe crazy things that people post about NYC on Facebook. It’s quite a stretch to make this skit “be about” someone who actually lives in NYC. The lady would not let go of her purse, was afraid Jost was after her cash, and was concerned about crackheads stealing her EarPods. Don’t think they would have put in this stuff or bits like how Karen buys her clothes off QVC if intended as a Lively burn.

I don’t think the lady was supposed to represent Blake, just they were making fun of that element. A lot of people see Blake as a Karen, who, when a black man showed her something she immediately assumed it was of a sexual nature, cause you know, she got married on a plantation, and had a full lifestyle brand based on the antebellum South.

This can piss you off, it clearly does, but don’t shoot the messenger here. There’s a ton of posters online really annoyed with her about this accusation. And since SNL has made fun of her multiple times in subtle ways, including when she was actually in the audience during the 50th, it’s certainly not a stretch.

I just think that this and several of the other “SNL is roasting Lively so hard” comments that have been made here are wishful fabrications of Baldoni fans that are disconnected from reality. You can claim it’s a roast, and I can disagree.

DP. I do think SNL may be roasting her a bit. That’s what they do. But either way, who cares? We won’t ever know for sure mostly likely, and it really doesn’t matter. But yes, she’s coming off as a major Karen. If I were on her team, I’d read the room and try to fix that. It’s really time she extended an olive branch. I keep thinking more and more about the NYT angle and how played they were. I am not worried about the company itself, but that journalists career could be seriously affected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

There's no evidence Lively was friends with Weinstein. She did have dinner with him and there are some photos of them together. They worked in the same industry and Lively did movies with Miramax. You can find similar photos of many other actors and actresses in Hollywood.

Sunshine's dad repped Weinstein. That's not "second cousin's best friend's husband." It's his dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Dp. Where was it proven he used google AI? Fwiw lots of discovery tech used by law firms has an AI component. That’s very different than GAI though which is what this PP is implying

You don't use AI to draft emails, and if you do, you might want to correct the font so it at least looks like the rest of your email instead of an obvious copy and paste job, as is the case here.

Wait you are basing this on a font change? Wow. You are shameless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

He's a public person whose wedding (to another prominent, well known person) was in Town & Country. His dad is quite well known.

I don't care what you think of me. You have thrown your blind support behind Justin Baldoni, despite never even having heard of him until a few months ago. You clearly lack critical reasoning skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Dp. Where was it proven he used google AI? Fwiw lots of discovery tech used by law firms has an AI component. That’s very different than GAI though which is what this PP is implying

You don't use AI to draft emails, and if you do, you might want to correct the font so it at least looks like the rest of your email instead of an obvious copy and paste job, as is the case here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

They were not filming a birth scene.

Rights it’s only the most critical scene in the whole movie.

It is amazing that you people accuse me and other Lively supporters of gaslighting, when you are MASTERS of the genre.

They were not filming the birth scene when Heath showed Lively the video of his wife. The scene had already been filmed and there were no plans to reshoot it. It *is* an incredibly critical scene, which is why it's crazy that Baldoni apparently had this vision for it to look like Heath's wife's home water birth video, but he didn't inform his lead actress they wanted to do the scene with full simulated nudity until the morning it was filmed, in violation of SAG guidelines for nudity.

You have no idea whether they had plans to reshoot it, Arlington mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Dp. Where was it proven he used google AI? Fwiw lots of discovery tech used by law firms has an AI component. That’s very different than GAI though which is what this PP is implying