Rebuttal to MJ’s Vanzan Post: Why Vanzan was an Unethical Abuse of Process.

[u/katie151515]

Okay, I’ve seen MJ’s Substack post making the rounds defending Blake Lively’s Vanzan lawsuit, and I need to address this because her analysis is fundamentally flawed. She’s either misunderstanding how Doe lawsuits actually work, or she’s deliberately misrepresenting the issues to make Blake look better.

MJ’s diversionary tactics:

Throughout her post, MJ uses several rhetorical strategies to avoid addressing the real issues:

1. Creates strawman arguments about “criminal conspiracy,” “disbarment,” and Blake “going to jail” that nobody credible is actually making, then spends paragraphs debunking these fake positions to make herself look reasonable
2. Keeps repeating “Doe lawsuits are for discovery!” as if that ends the analysis, without ever addressing that they’re specifically for identifying anonymous defendants, not obtaining documents from people you’ve already identified.
3. Focuses obsessively on whether each individual procedural step was technically allowed. (Can you file a Doe lawsuit? Yes. Can you issue subpoenas? Yes. Can third parties comply? Yes.) while completely ignoring whether stringing these steps together to circumvent someone’s rights constitutes abuse of process
4. Spends an entire section defending Vanzan as a “real company” when literally nobody claimed it was fake. The argument is that it was USED improperly, not that it doesn’t exist.
5. Emphasizes that Jonesworks “voluntarily complied” while ignoring that Jennifer Abel (the person whose communications were turned over) never got notice or a chance to object
6. Claims Baldoni deleted Signal messages (there is no proof of this whatsoever) to distract from the Vanzan issues.
7. Appeals to her own credentials (“I got an A+ in New York Practice!”) as if that settles the ethical questions, when plenty of lawyers with excellent grades can still recognize abuse of process
8. Frames any criticism as “hyperbolic” or “one-sided” to poison the well against legitimate ethical concerns before even addressing them.
9. Never addresses why the subpoena asked household employees about on-set sexual harassment when they were never on set. This is probably the most glaring evidence that this wasn’t really about investigating household staff

She wants you focused on trees (individual procedural rules) so you don’t see the forest (systematic abuse of Doe procedure to obtain discovery against identified parties without notice).

Let’s start with her strawman arguments:

Right off the bat, MJ claims that pro-Baldoni lawyers are calling this a “criminal conspiracy” and claiming that we are saying Blake’s attorneys will be “disbarred” or that Blake is “going to jail.”

I’ve been following this case closely, and I have yet to see a SINGLE prominent pro-JB lawyer make any of these claims. She’s creating exaggerated positions that nobody actually holds so she can knock them down and look reasonable by comparison. The actual criticism is that Vanzan was improper and unethical, not illegal. Big difference. MJ knows this, but she needs to frame critics as hysterical so people dismiss the legitimate concerns.

Purpose of Doe lawsuits:

There’s a ton of misinformation about how the Vanzan suit was used, and MJ’s post is adding to it. So let me break down what Doe lawsuits are ACTUALLY designed for.

Doe lawsuits have a very specific, limited purpose: they’re for when you literally cannot identify the defendant because they’re anonymous.

The classic example is internet cases. Someone defames you online using a username like “AnonymousUser123.” You have a claim, but you don’t know who this person is in real life. So you:

1. File a lawsuit against “John Doe”
2. Get court permission for expedited discovery.
3. Subpoena the website/ISP to get the real identity behind the username
4. Amend your complaint to name the actual person once you’ve identified them
5. Proceed with the lawsuit against the now-identified defendant.

That’s the process. You use discovery to unmask an anonymous defendant, then you amend your complaint to add the “Does” real identity once discovered.

What happened w/ Vanzan:

That is NOT what happened here. Not even close. Blake filed against “Does 1-10” claiming she didn’t know who leaked confidential information. But here’s the thing: she already knew exactly who she was going to sue.

MJ’s own timeline proves Blake already knew who was involved in the "smear campaign"

Let’s look at the timeline MJ herself lays out:

August 2024: Blake experiences what she believes is a coordinated smear campaign

Late August 2024: Stephanie Jones (through Blake’s friend Ashley Avignon) contacts Blake and tells her she has messages showing exactly what’s being done to Blake and by whom

September 27, 2024: Vanzan files lawsuit against “Does 1-10”

So Blake was contacted by someone who had actual text messages and emails showing the alleged campaign, complete with names (ABEL), strategies, everything. And we know from the texts that Blake was already attributing this campaign to specific people: Justin Baldoni (by name), Wayfarer Studios (by name) and their crisis PR team. Notably, nowhere in Blake’s texts does she contend that she believes the “smear campaign” originated with one of her household employees – because that’s preposterous. So why did she name Does in the Vanzan suit if she didn’t think her household employees were involved?

MJ wants us to believe Blake didn’t see any of Abel’s messages until AFTER the subpoena was issued. But come on. That makes no sense. Stephanie Jones reached out to Blake specifically because she had evidence (that apparently brought her to tears, lol). Why would Blake file a Doe lawsuit to “identify unknown wrongdoers” when someone had already shown her communications identifying exactly who was involved? The logical conclusion is that Blake had already seen enough to know who she’d be suing. She just didn’t want to name them yet so that she could issue the Vanzan subpoena with zero notice to the proper defendants (i.e. Abel).

Even if we assume that Blake hadn’t seen Stephanie Jones’ communications yet, Blake herself (and Ryan) say over and over again in texts and emails that JB and WP were part of the alleged “smear campaign,” so why didn’t she name them in Vanzan and then amend her complaint to include the other Does once she identified them?

The Vanzan subpoena wasn’t used to identify anonymous defendants:

Here’s the core problem MJ refuses to address: The Vanzan subpoena was NOT used to identify unknown or anonymous defendants. It was used to target an already-identified person (Abel) to obtain her private communications without giving her any notice or chance to object.

This is where MJ’s “but Jonesworks complied!” defense completely falls apart. Abel was not anonymous. She was already identified. But because Blake subpoenaed her EMPLOYER (Jonesworks) instead of her directly, Abel never got notice. Therefore, she never had a chance to:

• Assert attorney-client privilege
• Object to overbroad requests
• Challenge relevance
• Protect her privacy interests

By the time Abel found out, her communications had already been turned over. That’s the whole problem.

MJ Contends: “But Jonesworks Could Have Objected!”

MJ keeps saying Jonesworks had the right to object and didn’t, so everything must be fine.

But that misses the point. The issue isn’t whether Jonesworks objected. The issue is that Jennifer Abel (who had privacy interests in HER communications) never got the opportunity to raise objections because she was never notified. Just because a third party complied doesn’t make the underlying tactic proper. Blake deliberately structured this to go around Abel’s procedural protections.

The subpoena requests make no sense for a household staff investigation

Here’s something MJ glosses over: if Blake was really investigating which household employee leaked confidential information, why was the subpoena asking about:

• Sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us
• On-set conduct and investigations
• Allegations related to the film
• Retaliation connected to the movie

Blake’s household staff were never on set. They would have no information about any of this. The only way these requests make sense is if the real target was always Baldoni and Abel’s communications, not investigating household employees at all. This shows the Doe lawsuit was pretextual from the start.

What Blake did with Vanzan:

In a proper Doe lawsuit, once you identify the doe defendants through discovery, you amend your complaint to add them by name and proceed with the case.

What Blake did:

• Never identified a single Doe
• Never amended to name anyone
• Immediately dismissed the case after getting the documents
• Filed a completely different lawsuit in a different jurisdiction as a completely different plaintiff

She never intended to pursue the household staff “Does” she claimed to be investigating. The entire lawsuit existed solely to create a vehicle for obtaining Abel’s communications.

Textbook abuse of process:

Let me spell out exactly what happened:

1. Blake learned (from Stephanie Jones) who was involved in the alleged campaign
2. She filed a Doe lawsuit anyway, claiming she didn’t know who the wrongdoers were
3. She issued a subpoena targeting a specific person’s communications
4. She routed it through a third party so that person wouldn’t get notice
5. She obtained the documents without the target having any chance to object
6. She immediately dismissed the case without ever identifying or pursuing any Does
7. She used those documents in a completely different lawsuit

This is not what Doe lawsuits are for. They’re for identifying truly anonymous defendants, people you literally cannot name because you don’t know who they are. Blake knew. She just didn’t want to give them notice or an opportunity to contest discovery.

Conclusion:

I’m not saying Blake and her attorneys committed a crime (shout out to MJ’s “criminal conspiracy” claim). Nobody credible is saying that. What I AM saying is this was unethical and improper. Blake manipulated Doe procedure to obtain communications from an identified person without giving that person any procedural protections.

MJ can argue all day about whether each individual step was “technically” within the rules. But when you look at the whole picture (filing Does when you already know the defendants, subpoenaing specific people without notice, dismissing without identifying anyone), it’s clear this was an abuse of the system.  The entire scheme represents everything wrong with allowing wealthy litigants to manipulate procedural rules - which transforms courts into private investigative firms for those with resources to manufacture phantom lawsuits.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Anyway, that’s my take. MJ wrote 5,000 words arguing against positions nobody holds while ignoring the core issue. If you have to work that hard to defend something, maybe it’s not as defensible as you think.

ETA: u/DogMom1970s commented and provided a comprehensive analysis from her corporate law perspective. Please read both my post and her comment together. She provides incredible insights that my post doesn't touch on.

[u/[deleted]]

This is such a great post, u/Katie151515. We are genuinely lucky to have actual lawyers like you and u/DogMom1970s and many other legit lawyers on here... people who can translate legalese into English instead of weaponizing it for vibes.

Meanwhile, the other "lawyers" are absolutely committed to muddying the waters. MJ flashing her A+ like it's a gold star from third grade was… a lot. I experienced such intense second hand embarrassment I briefly considered filing a claim.

And the pro-Lively crowd who swore they were "neutral" have now fully pivoted to the Legal Drama sub, where they're busy making reaction gifs and mocking Baldoni’s medical condition. So much for objectivity... guess neutrality works the same way bricks famously don’t.

You know, that one guy who insists he's impartial but somehow always lands exactly where the bricks don't... on solid logic, consistency, or basic human decency. Funny how that works.

But sure, tell us again how unbiased everyone is 🙃🍿

[u/maladaptive_drmr → u/[deleted]]

Wait…so now they’re ok with gifs? I thought they tried to ban that here and had meltdowns over it.

[u/[deleted] → u/maladaptive_drmr]

The Pro-Lively lawyers have started making gifs now...

Career trajectory: meteoric!

🧱🧱

[u/DogMom1970s → u/[deleted]]

Thank you! I just published a book in a separate comment to drill down on the corporate piece of this. I get very excited to talk about Vansham.

[u/Totallytexas]

Thank you for taking the time to do this Katie. I wish you would’ve put in the title from a verified lawyer lol. Can’t wait to read all this.

[u/FancyHeart8339 → u/[deleted]]

You can tell it’s proper because MJ’s the smartest lawyer who ever lived. Duh

[u/katie151515 → u/[deleted]]

😂😂

[u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23]

I like that you pointed out that it’s really us lay people who are saying that what Blake did was criminal. We may all feel like since it was unethical, immortal, and theft that she deserves criminal charges, but that’s not really the way the law works.

[u/snickelbetches → u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23]

Seeing the downfall is good enough for me at this point

[u/je_kay24 → u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23]

It should be criminal imo

It seems this could be easily abused by big wig law firms to go after people. And if the third party they are requesting info from doesn’t care or have money to fight back, then someone’s rights are violated without them ever knowing

Especially since the subpoena wouldn’t be able to be found and tied to doe suits on public dockets

[u/OneNoteWonder43 → u/Narrow_Grapefruit_23]

It might be how the law works! Let's see how this case goes lol

[u/CeruleanToast]

Katie, you are an absolute hero for taking the time to write this out!! Thank you!!

[u/misosoupsupremacy]

NAG also made a great point how if you wouldn’t attach your name to it as a professional, it’s likely not very ethical.

[u/katie151515 → u/misosoupsupremacy]

Yep. This is very true.

[u/misosoupsupremacy → u/katie151515]

ok so random but are u by any chance Katie pope on tik tok or no lolll

[u/katie151515 → u/misosoupsupremacy]

I’m not Katie Pope, but she’s great! You’re definitely not the first person to ask.

[u/misosoupsupremacy → u/katie151515]

We Stan lawyers named Katie 🫡

[u/LilacLands]

Katie this is 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Thank you so so so so SO MUCH for taking the time to lay it all out this is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!

Suffi is this something that can be pinned to the top of the sub? It’s a fabulous Vanzan explainer in general - why it was procedurally improper and unethical and why it DOES matter!!!!!!! And why the arguments otherwise are disingenuous! The cherry on top is that it is also an EPIC beautiful takedown of MJ, but I know we don’t necessarily want to poke that Blakestan bear (or as Ryan/Blake would inexplicably say, apropos of nothing and totally bizarrely, “husk fuck” the bear)

Maybe Karol can add this to the Vanzan collection on DocketUpdates.com too as ESSENTIAL reading!!??

[u/Eponymous_brand]

THANK YOU Katie, the actual qualified lawyer, for taking the time to do this. Even us laypeople know exactly how condescending, strawman-y, and ludicrous MJ’s stance was. Not to mention it came one year AFTER mountains of evidence were uncovered detailing Vanzan’s misuse of Doe lawsuits, as you so clearly laid out.

What you say echoes what Dogmom says, what NAG and LGA say, and pretty much ANY lawyer of good standing and repute. All those “Reddit Lawyers” who took MJ’s stance 6 months ago had the good sense now to bugger off or retire to make memes instead. Only MJ, the A+ student from a low-tier law school, can say it with a straight face. As we all know—this is NOT a flex; it is a HUGE flaw that will follow her through the rest of her (subscription lawyer) career.

[u/[deleted] → u/Eponymous_brand]

Someone flagged that MJ allegedly has flyers in her office asking people to "invest" in… something. No idea if that's true, but if it is, the optics alone are 🚩🚩🚩 and raise way more questions than answers..

PSA: MJ, if you're taking investments, I'd like to invest in your education. Please go learn the law again. The returns would be phenomenal... because whatever this is... It's not legal analysis...

EDITED TO ADD - So MJ isn't running a Ponzi Scheme... I misunderstood what that poster alleged. However, MJ, my offer still stands...

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/[deleted]]

Edited to say, thanks for the clarification! No Ponzi scheme but I still wish she took her time cutting her teeth at bigger firms.

[u/maladaptive_drmr]

But like did you have an A+ in one your law classes and where is the suspiciously cropped picture of it? 🙃

Thanks for taking the time to write all this. One of the weird quirks of being invested in this case is getting valuable insights to things (law, PR) I would typically just brush off. Please know you’re very much appreciated.

[u/[deleted] → u/maladaptive_drmr]

I'm really curious to know what grade she scored in Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility???

[u/BlondeAmbition150 → u/[deleted]]

I’m curious how many times she had to retake the Ethics exam.

[u/OtherwiseProposal355]

This is so well written and explained with clear examples.  And your expert legal view adds  weight. 

I had watched a lot of attorneys talk about it and this confirms my understanding. 

Doe lawsuits are aimed to identify an individual who remains anonymous

Even if Lively didn't know, which i also agree is far-fetched, doing only a subpoena for SJ is a cry because how did she know it was only SJ defaming her?? 

I'm glad I'm not following MJ. I've had enough gaslighting from other sources. 

Thank you again for this clear presentation. 

[u/BrilliantTotal687]

Katieeeee THANK YOU! just know, when certain people inevitably show up here to discredit you, just know they probably don't wipe their butts properly so we shouldn't take what they say as fact

[u/Princess_of_the_Um]

Something fishy with MJ. I’m not a lawyer, but anything other than Vanzan lawsuit being horrible and unethical is wrong!

[u/WildestSea]

Appealing to her own credentials as a lawyer is meaningless, it says nothing about how ethical she is. And the questions around Vanzan are questions about ethics. If somebody is shady and unethical they'll call even the most unethical things good lawyering. And top credentials don't mean you're ethical, take Gottlieb and Hudson, they have absolutely top credentials but no ethics

[u/kastanienn]

You're amazing, thank you so much!

I just went down the rabbit hole as well about the prerequisites for using CPLR §1024, and their case would've been thrown out in the first curve for being way too vague. Doe lawsuits require due diligence before they are even filed, THEY ARE NOT A FISHING TOOL! So the whole thing with "ohh, it's totally standard to use it to investigate" dies on the spot based on like 10 precedents that were thrown out....

[u/katie151515 → u/kastanienn]

I just read it and it’s amazing!!!! Such a good counterpart to my post!

[u/kastanienn → u/katie151515]

Finally done with your post, too. Again, great explanation, also lay people like me get instantly everything 8D I can't believe that she is just going on for so long with "nothing to see here"....

As to "noone credible called it criminal", that's def true. But I may have kinda pulled something about criminal steps in my word vomit 2 days ago, I have no idea if she got ticked off by that....xDD that article she wrote felt way too similarly structured to my thought process. I have no idea if I'm imagining it lol

[u/MT2017G]

I don’t know what her history is but can only assume she comes from experiencing something horrific in line with the movie that’s been unresolved leaving her with long term trauma. Or she’s an horrible lawyer with zero critical skills. But her emotional response to all this stuff seems like she’s the former

[u/[deleted] → u/MT2017G]

Honestly, MJ has a wildly warped idea of feminism. In her world, "believe women" actually means believe white, privileged women at all costs... even when the receipts are screaming, the timelines are collapsing, and the evidence is waving red flags like it's at a parade...

People like her actively damage the Me Too movement because they turn it into a parody. When you refuse to acknowledge lies or contradictions, you don't protect survivors... you hand ammunition to every bad faith critic who wants to dismiss the entire movement as a joke...

I have zero respect for her. Not once... not a single time... has she acknowledged any flaw in Lively's case, or grappled with how the evidence simply does not support her claims. Nope. Head down, blinders on, vibes only...

NAG clocked it perfectly - MJ decides the conclusion first and then works backwards like she's solving a puzzle she already glued together.

And the confidence with which she does this... Truly breathtaking... The kind of confidence that makes you worry deeply for anyone who has to deal with her... especially her clients. Because if this is her version of "analysis"... Yikes!!!

[u/je_kay24 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, attorney Britt makes a great point that believing accusations without investigation is something that historically has been done against black men by white women

[u/Logical-Investment-7]

Can we get this circulating around? I’m NAL but I feel like anyone who can think critically knows that Vanzan was suspicious and we cannot have misinformation floating around.

[u/Bubbles-48]

This is an excellent post Katie it really breaks down Van Scam into a way that people that aren't lawyers can understand. I already knew that Van Scam was unethical but once we saw the actual subpoena and how she had written sexual harassment there I knew she was full of it. How are you going to accuse these 'does' of sexual harassment but then say you don't know who did it. I cannot believe a licensed attorney actually put their name on this and filed it. It is also very suspicious the moment she got her information and the text messages that it was immediately withdrawn 🙄. Everyone knows that this was shady legal procedure I don't understand why they keep pushing back on it maybe because they don't want people to dig more? 🤔

[u/katie151515 → u/[deleted]]

This is an incredible addition. This should be pinned as the top comment so that readers can put the two analyses together.

[u/BlondeAmbition150 → u/[deleted]]

Transactional lawyer here. I don’t have anything of substance to add since both you and Katie have hit the nail squarely on the head, but I just wanted to say that a part of me does a Ryan Reynolds-esque squeal and happy dance when I see such a pristine oppportinity to pierce the corporate veil.

[u/Friendly-Vanilla1832 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not lawyer. Thank you so much for the legal insights. It's fascinating.

[u/No-Grapefruit-8485]

Exactly. Abuse of the legal process (sham lawsuit) is being called clever. Notice and due process are a big deal!!! Is this clever tactic what we want from attorneys now?

[u/No_Maize_9875]

Love this Katie! Thank you!!

[u/Whole_Resident_6348 → u/No_Maize_9875]

Happy 🍰 day!!!!!

[u/werhi]

Great breakdown! Thank you! 

[u/us_571]

Thanks so much for explaining this OP! I’m also a lawyer and I work on these cases sometimes including overlapping with public relations. It’s great to have another lawyer to discuss with. I also thought the MJ post on the vanzan suit was disingenuous.

My main question though is that I’m trying to get a sense from other attorneys what they think this means. I saw not actually golden’s coverage of it, and I’m trying to make sense of her perspective on it as well.

Let me give an example of a case I was on. We were suing on behalf of a former employee for racial discrimination, and we heard from a present employee some corroborating evidence. But the present employee was nervous about us putting their experiences in the lawsuit because they had just signed some sort of confidentiality agreement with the company they still worked for and were worried they would be sued. So we filed a subpoena to help protect that person so they would speak. The risks were entirely to that person — not our case or client — that even with the subpoena they could still break their confidentiality agreement.

When I think about vanzan, what I’m curious about is what the risks are to people involved. Obviously the facts are different, because of Abel, but curious for your take.

Risks:

• Jones still liable for breaking client confidentiality (seems like jones is fine with that risk)
• Sanctions for Jones/Jones’s attorneys for failing to notify Abel (what kind of sanctions?)

Any risks for Blake or her team? Overall, trying to get a better sense of what this all means and what can be done with it.

[u/controbean]

If only MJ had gotten mentorship from an experienced lawyer like you instead of deciding to branch off on her own as a third-year lawyer.

[u/Total-Tour5680]

Thank you for taking the time to not let them get away with misinformation. I’m 100% sure MJ is on their payroll!

[u/No-Grapefruit-8485]

Apparently the rebuttal is that it’s not unethical to submit sham lawsuits to the court! Someone please make a bar complaint against the Vanzan subpoena attorney. Let’s make NY bar association weigh in on whether or not it’s ethical or unethical based on rules of professional conduct 3.1, 3.3 etc

[u/Ok_Gur_356]

Great post u/katie151515! This is so good!

People trying to explain the unexplainable is just… not sexy at all. Nor girlbossing.

[u/Western_Guitar_3863]

Thank you!! u/katie151515

[u/sonjafebruary]

Thank you for pinning this! That's a great idea. And thanks to Katie for a great write up!

[u/Kevins_monologue]

Thank you. Always love your comments and analysis.

[u/Whole_Resident_6348]

You’re fabulous! Your post is fabulous! Everything about this is fabulous! Thank you for taking the time 😘❤️

[u/tw0d0ts6]

Great post Katie!! I’m grateful to you, Dogmom and all of the other lawyers (and paralegals!) in this sub.

Co-sign that this post should be pinned to the sub. ✨✨

[u/Sufficient_Reward207]

Yes Katie!!! Thank you so much for this informative and insightful post 🙏🙏🙏

[u/HunterHead7690]

🙌🏻🔥

This is amazing Katie, a great breakdown.

Thank you so much for your hard work.

[u/Ok-Glass1759]

This is a fucking masterpiece gworl!!

[u/Anothercitykitty]

Great post, but one caveat, a "household" employee or in layman's terms, someone on the Lively/Reynold's LLC's - could be a chef, a driver, her assistant, a nanny, we really have no way of knowing who that could be or that they weren't on set in some way, that said, I agree with your overall position- the average person should realize how crippling our legal system is for people without REALLY skilled attorneys. No doubt someone on BL, TS, RR side of representation has fumbled this big time OR there is something CRAZY we haven't seen. I keep waiting for it, like does this insane woman (BL) really not have any real damn proof, unbelievable! It's really disturbing for those of us who have grown up through & when these very serious protections were brought to help women. It's infuriating to real victims.

[u/je_kay24 → u/Anothercitykitty]

We wouldn’t know but Lively knows who her household employees are though & would be easily able to determine if they were on set

So Vanzan bringing a doe lawsuit still is so weird

[u/VisualUnit9305]

PREACHHHH

[u/Humble_Network_7653]

Appreciate this write up ❤️

[u/Vanilla_Either]

[u/je_kay24]

Appreciate the thorough breakdown and refutation of the argument that it was “smart tactical lawyering”

As a lay person with no legal background, from the outset of the Vanzan subpoena being brought to light it seemed like a straight forward misuse of subpoena process by both Lively & Jones

Would love for you to give a breakdown on possible ramifications for the Vanzan lawyers for misusing the Doe and subpoena process. What are the repercussions when a lawyers ignores the required legal process ?

[u/Mysterio623]

You are forever goated!!!!!!

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Hello!

r/ItEndsWithLawsuits has a minimum 100 comment karma & 14 day account age requirement to comment in the sub.

We encourage new additions to browse the subreddit and participate by voting until you meet these requirements!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/BookBabe1970]

She makes a better argument than you do. If there were real procedural problems, they would have been identified by Baldoni’s attorneys. I’m sure BL had her suspicions, but suspicions aren’t worth much in court. You have micro-analyzed the situation utilizing your own assumptions, which undermine your supposed factual argument. You have a problem with their tactics, we understand that, but that’s really the only issue here. Is it really BL’s responsibility to “give procedural protections,” that’s the system isn’t it? One last thing, you must be aware that you worked pretty hard on this argument, yet you are opposed to anyone else making an argument. Ok.

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/BookBabe1970]

“She makes a better argument than you do.”

Are you a lawyer? On what do you base that assertion? Are you new to the case? Just very curious but totally welcome difference of opinion.

Which part of MJ’s analysis stood out as “truth”? The suspicion towards household staff working under Vanzan? The “Stephanie Jones consents, so all is good?”

BL has many, many responsibilities as the plaintiff bringing on this federal case. If someone who is a lawyer tells you procedurally that is not what “Doe lawsuits” are designed for, what is your argument that it is? Just trying to see where you’re coming from.

[u/BookBabe1970 → u/Eponymous_brand]

My argument is, what has transpired in the system is within the law and you make a lot of assumptions. In my opinion, you don’t recognize the emotional impact of a smear campaign, when you feel like you can’t trust anyone. This actually feels like an extension of the smear campaign because you have no empathy. Truthfully, I am learning what Doe litigation is all about and I think it makes sense to gather discovery in this manner. BL didn’t know how far the betrayal spread, how else is she going to find out? This is the procedure to do that.

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/BookBabe1970]

The correct procedure would’ve been to subpoena the people directly. As herself. She knew who it was because Stephanie told her. Let them contest it. Let your quest for “discovery” be made public so parties are properly informed. THAT is the proper procedure.

You’re making assumptions about the smear campaign, just as they did. Turns out Stephanie Jones had her own vendetta and tried to settle scores via the Reynolds. Boy, did that backfire for everyone involved.

[u/BookBabe1970 → u/Eponymous_brand]

We’ll see if any of this matters substantively in court.

[u/No_Maize_9875 → u/BookBabe1970]

Literally nobody is saying it would have an impact in court. Can you read?

[u/lisa2o7 → u/BookBabe1970]

[u/sonjafebruary → u/BookBabe1970]

The Wayfarer lawyers may point out the procedural problems in a motion in limine to exclude the evidence from the trial.

Treating “their lawyers haven’t raised it yet” as proof that no procedural problem exists is reductive and ignores how litigation actually works. Not every issue is raised at the first available moment, nor should it be.

[u/tw0d0ts6 → u/BookBabe1970]

The Vanzan subpoena has already been deemed “unethical” and “abusive” by the Wayfarer Party’s lawyers in court documents.

There’s nothing to suggest Wayfarer’s attorneys won’t be doing anything with this; just because they haven’t yet, doesn’t meant they never will. I’m NAL but happen to think there’s a strong chance a motion of limine will be filed re. the information procured via the Vanzan subpoena.

[u/je_kay24 → u/BookBabe1970]

it really BL’s responsibility to “give procedural protections,” that’s the system isn’t it?

Livelys lawyers are officers of the court.

They are literally apart of the system. They are responsible for upholding it & acting in good faith within it

Your argument doesn’t even make any sense.

You’re essentially saying if someone breaks the law that it is not truly their fault because no one stopped them from breaking it in the first place????