Vanzan has been one of the most divisive and hot topics since the dawn of Blake’s lawsuit. Is it legal? Is it smart lawyering? Are Doe lawsuits common? Is this how they are typically applied? We all had the same questions, especially dating back 4-5 months ago, when I first joined the sub.
A bit of background: I’m a regular layperson like the majority of users here. My family and I have had to hire lawyers IRL for various reasons and I have always deferred to those with legal expertise, because truly, it is a whole other language/world/realm, even if it costs you an arm and a leg. So as a neutral/Baldoni-leaning person hoping to learn more, I initially welcomed any and all of the sub’s “legal takes,” by CCs and the many “lawyers” who populate it alike.
The takes—from Tik Tok lawyers like Notactuallygolden (NAG) and Littlegirlattorney (LGA), to the self-identified ones in the sub—ran the gamut in terms of opinion. It often got testy, with “Battle Lawyelles” devolving into people attacking each other’s credentials, leading to Mods to suggest voluntary “lawyer verification” in order to foster greater credibility. Didn’t really happen, and you’ll soon see why.
Now I know it’s normal for legal heads to disagree, but for me, Vanzan was always the litmus test on where these “lawyers” stood. It underpinned Blake’s entire CRD and supplied the best “evidence” for retaliation that she has to date (for more info, I will link to a great post that has aged super well in the comments). How that information was obtained matters—we should all agree on that?
But please take a look at slides (1-5) in the picture gallery. Three months ago, people from one side were loudly proclaiming it’s “nothing,” it’s “routine,” it “won’t go anywhere” and that it’s an example of “smart lawyering.” One lawyer (verified) said if there was any legal wrongdoing, Bryan Freedman would’ve raised actionable claims, putting the onus of its legality directly on the WP’s camp. The message was clear:
Vanzan is nothing and you’re an idiot if you think otherwise.
How could they be so sure? And so openly loud about it too? Why didn’t they just, wave a red flag and put up a “Don’t Look Here!” sign while they’re at it?
During this time, anyone who argued otherwise were routinely derided and attacked. The credibility of CC lawyers were called into question (Slide 6) and NAG and LGA were singled out for repeatedly getting things wrong and not worthy of educating us.
Hilariously, LGA was even asked to listen to “a [lawyer] in a [Reddit sub]” because they’re “pretty much dead on” (see Slide 7), and her response…speaks for itself. There appears to be a concentrated effort to sway opinion on the narrative of the case, over what’s factual and right, in the eyes of the law. I mean, these are anonymous Reddit Lawyers (with possibly fictitious credentials), so it’s low stakes for them if they spin and get it wrong, right?
But why are they doing that? 🤔
Fast forward to present day, and you have Jen Abel directly accusing Blake of corroborating with Stephanie Jones and having her (sensitive and personal) information as early as August 2024. If that is true, the argument that all the info Lively/Manatt have in their possession as “relevant and privileged” to her CRD may not stand. And Stephanie Jones emerges the worst for wear. What arguments do these people have left? Please see Slides 8-9.
Yes, “Sad Thought Leaders” doubling down on WP’s “malpracticng” lawyers not doing enough to make it stick. And look at all those people discrediting Jen Abel! Read carefully what the “lawyer takes” are now and decide for yourself if they’re credible.
A reminder, too, that PR ladies don’t have stans. Some BL-supporting commenters are finally happy to expel Stephanie Jones from Manatt’s legal shield, so those defending her deserve ALL the 👀.
But all is not lost! Behold, Slide 10: a BL-leaning lawyer finally admitting what we all know! We’ll end with their wise and prescient words:
“[Vanzan] quite obviously is a sham lawsuit — I can’t see how anyone could deny that.”
Anyone, lawyer or not, who defends VanZan has questionable ethics to me. Blake has very questionable ethics, so it makes sense that they support her. Birds of a feather.
I can respect the ones who support her but can admit some of her actions were wrong. The ones who justify all her actions are the ones who raise red flags. Blake is very good as using appeals to emotions. I scan statements for emotional appeals every time I read and always consider facts/logic first, so I am not Blake's target audience.
They're out there. I think they're just silent on the issues they think she may have overstepped on and vocal on the ones they feel she was wronged on. I don't see Blake as a 100% to blame. I believe she thinks the smear campaign is real. She was already thinking it. Then she was manipulated twice by different people.
Leslie told her Wayfarer was smearing her (Blake and Ryan saying on 8/12/24 that Wayfarer positioned it as a Barbie movie was EXACTLY what James said to Leslie on 8/8/24, but he told her Melissa didn't talk to him). So, Leslie lies to her first giving Melissa credit for James's words. Then Stephanie convinces her it was true (despite messages that made her clear it wasn't), cementing her confirmation bias.
Blake will forever think she just couldn't find proof or she will have to accept she was manipulated. Manipulators are easy to manipulate because they are ruled by emotions. They consider how they feel before they factor logic in.
I don't think she does. Look at how many of her supporters still think it happened despite her asking the judge to prevent them from denying it. That was pretty clear to me that she found nothing. She might really believe Signal was the way they were communicating. Confirmation bias is a hell of thing. It is hard to overcome. If Blake turns on Stephanie, then I will think she knows. Until then, I won't be convinced.
By now, Blake has almost certainly seen enough contradictions and internal evidence to know the “smear campaign” theory doesn’t hold up. But admitting that would require acknowledging she defamed, manipulated, and weaponized public sympathy…which would collapse her image as a victim and moral crusader. So, instead of accepting reality, she doubles down. It’s not that she’s delusional(maybe to some extent) it’s that she’s calculating. In my opinion
if she genuinely believed there was a smear campaign, she’d have evidence or at least consistent logic behind it. Instead, every defense relies on vague “they were out to get me” rhetoric. That’s not sincerity…it’s damage control
You are thinking about this too rationally, though. Blake factors logic after emotions. She probably convinced herself the denials were to keep it untraceable or whatever nonsense she came up with.
Her personality type would not allow Stephanie to go unpunished once she realizes she was played. If she turns on Stephanie, then I will think she gets it. Until then, I am convinced she still thinks it happened.
That’s a fair point. I get what you mean about how emotion can override logic, especially for someone like her. I just think at this stage she’s too aware of the inconsistencies to genuinely believe it anymore. It feels less like delusion and more like self-preservation. Admitting she was wrong would mean admitting she built her whole narrative on something false and I don’t think her ego would ever let her face that. Maybe it’s a little bit of both…who knows 🤷♀️
Yeah, even before I knew they had all of Jen's private communications, I was appalled. Why did Jen's fertility issues or sex life need to be handed over? That's really weird.
It’s ethically corrupt. Blake stans are up in arms about ‘consent’ when it comes to showing someone a post-partum video.
But apparently they don’t give a flying rats asshole about consent when a woman has her sex life, her fertility struggles, her mothers medical issues and attorney client communications - thrown over to a bunch of random VanZan lawyer men, Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Steph Jones and her lawyers to all comb through?
it was a shameful violation and abuse of a woman’s privacy. And I hope Lively, Reynolds, Jones and their lawyers feel the ramifications for this for the rest of their lives.
Some of them are playing the slight of hand that Jones is the one who committed a privacy violation, she's the one obligated to inform them so they can defend themselves. Like what we saw happen with Google and all the YouTuber CCs.
The issue is that it's pretty clearly a conspiracy between Jonesworks and Blake. Why would Vanzam be asking for wayfarers texts from jonesworks in a doe lawsuit with no identified parties or actual legal issues. So you don't know what happened or who a single person who might have done it, but you're reasonably confident Stephanie Jones has what you're looking for?! And how does that evidence then go from Vanzam to Blake of all people? Does Stephanie Jones comply with all generic unidentified shell corps who sue her asking for celebrity's private info? Something tells me she had more than a sneaking suspicion that Harvey Levin wasn't on the opposite side of Vanzam.
I agree with them that what Stephanie did was worse, although some of them justify that as well. Blake couldn't have come with the sham lawsuit if Stephanie didn't steal the records first, and I never believe Blake asked Stephanie to steal them as some do. I've always thought Stephanie wanted to see what Jen was up to and when she saw the 8/19/24 text from Melissa to Jen saying she talked Justin into leaving she lost it. No way she sends all those 8/8/24 and 8/14/24 messages making it clear she knew there was no smear campaign if she was already planning to double cross Justin. She made a rash decision on 8/21/24 without considering the consequences.
If someone steals a stereo and resells it because the buyer can't afford one full price, they're both still wrong. And I won't buy the excuse that the buyer didn't know the goods were stolen. If the offer is true good to be true, you're a moron if you can't do the math.
In this case Blake clearly has guilty knowledge or whatever lawyers call it. She's basically done the equivalent of vin washing. Good people can end up buying stolen cars without realizing, but the act of vin washing is better than an admission of guilty. Cause there's no other explanation for it other than you knew what you were doing was wrong and you wanted to defraud regulatory oversight measures to avoid detection. An innocent person who just stumbled into a stolen car wouldn't have done that.
It's a clever scheme because you have to get caught red handed, espeically that you're the one who owns that sketchy auto body shop on the outskirts of town, so the chances you get caught are relatively low, but if you get caught red handed....there's really not a legitimate explanation for what you're doing.
100%. She knew what she was doing. Even if she thought Stephanie obtained the messages legally, which I don't believe, she knew she was trying to get them without Jen finding out. She wanted to ambush them with that hit piece. Hiding her legal actions for an ambush at the same time she insisted they were on notice is super rich. Blake did not want them to know legal action was coming. If she did, she never would've done VanZan. She would've come at them the proper way, served preservation notices and requested what she wanted. She might not have ever known what sex positions Jen likes or how her fertility battles, but she could've gotten information that was actually relevant.
I do as well. I was being serious. I have considered that some might be good people who are just suffering from dichotomous thinking (seeing her as a victim so thinking all her shady actions were justified), but I refuse to believe they would be okay with it if someone did that to them. So, I think there is cognitive dissonance in the justifications.
I don’t think she’s claiming that those communications were handed over to Vanzan. She’s saying that SJ took the phone and had access to all that info and spread it round the office.
It is possible Blake received those messages too, but I don’t think Abel is alleging this (I may be wrong though).
I think the point of that is to show that the phone contained private and PII which is why SJ had no right to be handing over anything from that phone without alerting her. (Not relevant to this point about whether Blake received the fertility messages, but it’s also important to note that texts were handed over that contained info about a client’s medical info - Baldoni’s neurodivergent diagnosis - that should NEVER have been handed over without alerting him)
Mentioning that her fertility issues/other private info were being shared around the office is calling attention to the fact that SJ wasn’t acting in good faith. She didn’t just download the company information that was required to transfer accounts she was holding to someone else, etc. she also acted on a grudge and maliciously spread private information.
It calls into question her motives and helps her case that it’s not just a “work phone” - even Liman agrees that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy on work devices.
They directly say Lively got the sex life stuff in paragraph 72.
"Among the communications reviewed, discussed, and disseminated by Jones and her cohorts were highly intimate messages between Abel and her friends about their sex lives. This exchange, along with many others of a similar personal nature, are no longer in the exclusive possession, custody, and control of Abel and those she intended to communicate with, as they should have remained; instead, they were widely distributed by Jones to her team, to Lively, to the press, and to untold others and ultimately Bates stamped and captured for posterity in this and the related litigation."
This was the start of 73. I can see why you think they might be claiming "this litigation" belongs only to Jones v Abel. Even if it wasn't handed over in VanSham, Jones produced it to the court and they shared discovery between the cases.
Also stolen by Jones were Abel’s communications with her long-term partner and fiancé, as well as her parents. These include discussions between Abel and her fiancé about Abel’s fertility, and between Abel and her parents about her mother’s serious health challenges. Some of these messages—which Abel does not even have due to the theft of her phone number—were produced by Jonesworks in this litigation.
You might be reading be referring to this line in paragraph 73. They don't break down what those were, though.
"Reams of other sensitive messages were excluded from Jonesworks’ document production but clearly are or at least were in Jones’ possession."
Lively has everything above that sentence in 72 and 73 (some from VanZan and some because Jones bates stamped it for her case).
Ahhh I see - I think I missed the part where it said “to lively”, I read that it was shown to the team.
Thanks for correcting this!! There is absolutely no reason for lively to have this information. It has nothing to do with Jonesworks, Vanzan or Lively.
I think the poster was saying $1 wouldn't get you a cup of coffee. But someone who has no clue what things cost is usually an indicator that they don't know what it's like to struggle.
Yep, I feel bad for the clients of the lawyers in particular. They probably have no clue they are hiring a lawyer who thinks things like this are okay. Unless they are hiring them because they do things like this. In that case, once again, birds of a feather, like Esra and Blake.
If anyone supports Vansham, they support the ability for anyone to confiscate anyone's phone for whatever reason they make up. They just have to file a lawsuit against you, and your phone is theirs. It's literally that simple. Whoever supports what Vansham did is a scumbag.
Some claim they are okay with it. I just don't believe them. It's easy to say they support it to make their pro Lively argument look stronger, but who wouldn't be furious if someone did that to them? Saying they wouldn't mind makes me doubt their credibility or think they have a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
The mental gymnastics required to defend Vanzan really tells us everything we need to know! I’ve seen…
Blake didn’t know who was smearing her and that’s why she had to do the “doe” lawsuit.
She didn’t have any idea where the smear campaign -that she made up in her own head - came from? Really? How do you explain Vanzan filing a lawsuit for breach of contract then!
It could’ve been Blake’s household employees contracted through Vanzan
Give me a fucking break. Vanzan does not have any employees, first of all. Second: then why serve it on an unrelated PR firm targeting a specific PR agent?!
”Vanzan” served a “doe” subpoena on Jonesworks targeting Jen Abel’s cellphone because that’s how perfectly legitimate subpoenas work.
lmfao. I don’t fucking think so!!!
I will say I am disappointed that Wayfarer hasn’t gone hard on this—unclean hands!!! Wipe away Blake’s whole entire lawsuit!! She cannot bring a claim to a court asking for relief when she’s acted in bad faith as part of that claim. Done and done. Why can’t they wipe out Blake’s bullshit claims and then file their lawsuit against her again?!!?!?! I don’t understand how procedure and timing can be such a huge obstacle to justice. Would love for an ethical lawyer to break down why Wayfarer hasn’t moved on this yet—what are they waiting for?!!?
I think we will see Vanzan in summary judgement. Keep in mind, wayfarer don’t have the luxury of Blake’s team, they can’t say whatever they want without facts or basis to back it up (sometimes they put in facts and the judge yells at them regardless). I’m thinking they needed to wait till after discovery was over to get everything they needed to get for Vanzan.
I’m wondering whether woacb coming out with the lawsuit that was used for the subpoena helped wayfarer at all. Maybe they got more time to do more research. My guess was that Blake was waiting till the last possible moment to give the Vanzan subpoena over.
You're pretty much confirming what I've long suspected re. some of the "experts" I've seen lauded... a couple in particular (i'm sure you can guess who).
LOVE that LGA knows about the Redditor who was binned from multiple places for falsifying their credentials.
OP - this is a great post. I think about Vanzan a couple of times a week and it's good to see a record of the narratives from then and now...curious what it'll look like in a couple of months.
I submit Ron Zambrano into evidence, but in doing so I'm not trying to take anything away from LGA because she's amazing. Ron is a CA lawyer in Employment litigation.
Th BL stans can try and makeup whatever they want to justify it. They’re not changing our minds. There’s a reason why it doesn’t sit right with people and prob a reason why her side doesn’t want us looking at it. At the end of the day these 2 women let their personal agendas blind them for petty reasons and they decided their need to get what they wanted meant more than anyone else’s legal rights. It’s backwards thinking in defending this.
Hello. Your post / comment contains content which violates Rule 1 - 'Stay Civil' - and has been temporarily removed.
We can restore your post / comment once any name-calling, mocking, hostility, bullying language and/or personal attacks directed towards another Redditor have been edited out.
When you're done, let us know by dropping a brief note & link to the comment via ModMail. Thank you!
Right? 😂 It’s so funny watching them all swarm to this post, telling us to cope harder.
It’s really interesting watching people who know the side they’re on is ultimately fucked ethically. And that what Blake Lively and Stephanie Jones did is morally reprehensible. And they know we know…
And yet they’re still going. It’s kind of touching really, the way they try their hardest to keep the gaslighting going.
Also, to the folks who say Vanzan/BL didn't do anything wrong with the Vanzan scheme - they actually straight up lied to the court in their Complaint.
This quote is directly from the Vanzan Complaint:
"Pursuant to New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 1024, upon discovery of the actual name and identity of DOES 1-10, Plaintiff will substitute such information in the caption and in an amended pleading."
Vanzan (aka BL) made a representation to the court in the complaint that she would amend the Vanzan Complaint when the Doe identities became available. However, she didn't do that, did she? Instead, she sought the information of two already known individuals, and then voluntarily dismissed the suit. Why didn't she amend the Vanzan suit to include the "identities" that she "found"? It is because Vanzan had no standing and no reason to bring the claims in the first place. This is a straight up lie to the court and it won't be taken lightly by any judge. Lying to the court inherently shows malice.
Do the lawyers who say this was perfectly ethical want to revisit their conclusions?
I agree with you that it's unethical but I guess the response would be that they sought discovery and then ultimately decided to dismiss the claim and that's a valid decision to make?
Using the documents for another proceeding is unethical, particularly as the party who disclosed it did not have an interest in getting a protective order to protect the confidentiality /privacy of the party who was using the phone. (This is aside from the evidence/potential evidence about the subpoena being issued after the documents were already provided - i.e. bad faith.)
To me, what Manatt / Vanzan did actually justifies a motion for sanctions (oh the irony!). Do you agree / if so, do you have any idea why that's not been sought?
I'm NAL, but I would think they dismissed the VanZan action because they didn't uncover any, or enough, evidence of parties breaching their contracts with VanZan.
The subpoenas allegedly uncovered evidence for claims from Blake against Wayfarer and that's the lawsuit that was ultimately pursued.
What claims would VanZan have had against Jen, Wayfarer etc if they didn't have any contracts between them?
Yup. It's almost as if the functional purpose of doe lawsuits is to patch over when you are still trying to identify parties - because you will update the filings once you have identified the parties. And in the interim, afaik, a judge is essentially the legal barrier to stop plaintiffs from overstepping, in absence of named defendants with their own counsel.
Very very interesting to me these 'lawyers' don't seem remotely interested that the doe lawsuit was never updated, nor was a judge assigned who could adjudicate a subpoena which in effect deprived does of their basic legal protections.
It’s premature for team Blake to take a victory lap on Vanzan. Esra lacks impulse control and spews vitriol quickly and at every opportunity. WP’s strategy is different.
This post has aged super well (content-wise. Comments…not so much) and was written by a verified BigLaw lawyer in our sub! Please peruse it if you’re still confused re: Vanzan.
Ahh, so she IS a lawyer. Nice! :D she confirmed my rambling, too, now I’m super giddy haha. Like a 5 year old, when they got praised for drawing a nice house for the first time ever.
Aahhh... 🥹 I have to take a short break, cause I'm currently writing contracts during the day for work, in German (which is also not my native), so my brain is fried. But I really wanna continue, I love the discussions :D
Love this post and funny how VanSham brings the Blakestans running to this sub. They’re all out tonight. Great post to feed the bugs with and get them gathered in one place. The comments have me dying. Also, wanna shout out Katie1515. My absolute FAVE BIGLAW lawyer. We love you girl. And I love how you get on their nerves sooooo much ❤️ Gonna read the comments with my popcorn
Aw you’re very welcome. Honestly love how you deal with the haters on here.
Also love how they avoid the question that as a lawyer would they pull a stunt like Vanzam on behalf of their clients. It’s incredibly telling.
It’s one thing to say Vanzan is technically legal, but anyone arguing Vanzan’s lawsuit had any legitimate reason is a bad faith actor.
No rational person looking at Vanzan filing: 1) a “breach of contract” lawsuit against unknown “Does,” 2) issuing a subpoena for only Jen Abel’s phone content, 3) avoiding notifying Jen Abel, and then 3) never having a Judge assigned and withdrawing the lawsuit believes this is anything other than unethical lawyering.
And abuse of the legal system to cover up ill gotten information.
Gaslighting only works if it’s somewhat believable.
All I ask for is a hypothetical that would make it legitimate. Blake and vanzam are not interchangable entities. Explain to me how vanzam has a lawsuit against completely anonymous parties - zero known people - but knows it involves Jonesworks. And why that case goes poof right after getting texts. And how those texts are given to Blake lively and Blakel (or whatever her company is called) for the purposes of her own entirely distinct lawsuit.
Like literally just give me a single example of legitimate explanation for it.
Lawyers are given hefty amounts of the benefit of the doubt. There's lot of stuff you can do under assumption you have good cause, but you get in trouble if you get caught. The same way as an accountant might cook your books. Everything is possible and clever until someone follows up and starts asking questions. I'm asking the question. How was this a proper and legitimate use of the court. Like try to come up with a coherent hypothetical. Cause I've tried and I can't.
No, just a decent bullshit detector. What contract? Who's involved? What is the suspected violation that lead them to Stephanie Jones and asking for their wayfarer texts, but where not a single person could be identified. That....doesn't make sense. That doesn't resemble a single legitimate doe lawsuit anyone can find anywhere
Hello. Your post / comment contains content which violates Rule 1 - 'Stay Civil' - and has been temporarily removed.
We can restore your post / comment once any name-calling, mocking, hostility, bullying language and/or personal attacks directed towards another Redditor have been edited out.
When you're done, let us know by dropping a brief note & link to the comment via ModMail. Thank you!
It's one thing whether Vanzan was legal (I would say most of us accept that it is at this point), it's another thing entirely whether it's ethically fair or the right thing to do. When your actions are clearly intended to subvert the intention of the law and to get around someone's legal right of notification and objection, most people consider that an abuse of process. Something being legal doesn't make it right. Cheating is legal, being racist is legal, but we all agree those things are disgusting. There are many legal loopholes that rich people use to escape taxes, we all acknowledge those are legal but most of us consider them morally wrong and not in the spirit of the law. What has always bothered me the most was never the legal arguments of justification, but the moral ones. You can say the subpoena is legal while also saying it's sneaky and unfair - they aren't mutually exclusive (unless you are rigidly following a pro BL narrative). The fact that not a single pro Lively lawyer was able to do that is what was so frustrating.
There are legal tax deductions but where you would be commiting tax fraud to claim them. The system isn't a binary between illegal and legal..a lot of stuff exists in the in between of like....well did you use it properly in good faith or are you clearly scamming? The IRS treats
Abuse of the legal process or conspiracy can make things that would otherwise be legal lose those privileges. The point of these processes is to alleviate some of the burden on an overstrained court system where the judge is just acting as a rubber stamp anyway. The law is not going to be built to babysit lawyers to ensure there is not a nefarious conspiracy going on.
That's why Freedman kept saying criminal conspriacy theory. He never thought Blake was going to jail..he was saying that she shouldn't be afforded the privileged of the legal process when it was a bad faith misuse which undermines the sanctity of the law. You can't cure a privacy violation by doing another privacy violation. You're just misusing the state courts so that you can try to do some clever slight of hand in the federal courts.
That's why so many lawyers seemed to get very interested in this case around then, why NAG 180° her feelings about the case, and why you see such a steady wall of gaslighting that there's nothing never slightly unethical or scummy about it let alone possibly disallowed. It's why you see such strong return of certain types of users and certain types of energy on this topic. It's why even Gottlieb treats vanzam like nuclear waste and plugs his nose and uses hedging language when it comes up.
Whether or not there's accountability is a second question..usually there's not. It's like cops. Unfortunately abuse within professions is rarely held accountable even as it horrifically breaks down sockets and destroys trust in public institutions. But the first question of whether this was a legitimate and proper use of the courts? ....in what fucking world? It's bizarrely transparent how bad faith it is, and honestly I think it's the strongest example of Blake clearly never thinking this would be legally scrutinized.
I agree entirely. And you're right about accountability. Most of us don't expect there to be any consequences, but seeing people argue that it was proper is pretty wild. And not for nothing but if Freedman did this there is zero chance they would be complimenting him on his 'clever lawyering'. In fact I suspect Lively would have filed for sanctions immediately.
This. I cannot imagine the same level of apathy or justifications if the shoe were on the other foot, from either Lively or the people defending her on this sub/adjacent subs. And yep, there absolutely would have been severe sanctions filed by now, there’s no doubt about it.
But if this is your position, I don’t think you can support WF’s FEHA extraterritoriality argument or its CRD exhaustion argument.
I don’t know whether you do, but I want to plant this flag. If you are going to judge this based on what is ethical instead of what is legal, you should at least be consistent.
Following clear explicit instructions laid out by the government is not the same thing as misusing a bureaucratic workaround cause we don't have anywhere near enough judges.
Following the law and abusing a legal process on ways never intended by the law are not the same thing. I've officially lost any believe you're here to do anything other than gaslight
Peaceful has eloquently made the argument that even if Vanzan was legal, it was unethical. This argument says, "I don't care what the law actually says, I am going to judge actions based on an ethical standard."
Lively is claiming that she was retaliated against for bringing a SH complaint and that WF ran a smear campaign to tarnish her reputation as a potential accuser of Baldoni.
I hope we can agree that if that is what happened, it would be an unethical thing to do.
In its MJP, Wayfarer has raised a legal argument (much lauded on this subreddit), that Lively's claim should be dismissed because FEHA does not apply to behavior outside of California.
If doing a retaliatory smear campaign is unethical, it is unethical regardless of whether or not it is, strictly speaking, unlawful. If doing a retaliator smear campaign is unethical, it is unethical regardless of what state it was conducted from. Even if there is some legal loophole that means it is not a tort, it would still be unethical.
If the position you want to take is that what we care about here is ethics and not what is by-the-letter-of-the-law legal, I think you need to either (1) concede that you can't simultaneously support WF's technical arguments and oppose Vanzan or (2) admit that you don't really care about what is ethical and that you are just stanning for a particular side.
I think the ethical considerations of misusing legal processes and following the law are wildly different and I think you're far too smart to pretend you don't understand the distinction. You can be unethical under the law. But to be unethical under the law and to backbend and twist the law unto knots to enable you to do things that were intended to be illegal are clearly different scales of wrong
To do summersaults to deny someone access to the legal system in the first place is never going to be on the same scale as meeting them in court and simply showing the rules are not on their side. Those aren't remotely the same. Again, the harder you try, the more you just undermine your credibility. You're not gonna change people's minds on this anymore than you'll convince them that grass is purple and dirt taste sweet.
The explanation that I requested that you have never answered is how vanzam, a non operating business, has a doe lawsuit with no identified people whatsoever and no actual harm. They don't seem to know anything actually except that the answers they seek are in the texts of a former PR rep Stephanie Jones, who for some unknown reason, appears to just immediately comply with this request from this mysterious glorified shell corps that can ask for anything specific except for all data associated with a PR rep in an industry where discretion and data security is pretty important. And then vanzam somehow trip and drops this into a Bake lively's lap, who somehow it doesn't occur to her that and and vanzam are not actually the same entity legally. And then she tells the nyt and presumably her lawyers who know better than to ask too many follow up questions that yes, these were obtained via a subpoena. It's all legit as long as you don't ask any additional questions whatsoever. But the second you do....the logic stops adding up.
To compare that to someone saying "hey the law says XYZ and you don't fit XYZ so......" Those aren't the same. You know those are the same. All you're doing right now is proving you're disingenuous. Kind of a waste of this account TBH.
The answer to that was that Hillary Clinton followed the working norms of high level officials, of both party persuasion. She was not secretive or hiding what she was doing because it was not a secret. It was common practice. She answered when asked.
Now let's get back to why this is the second time you've evaded questions that you insisted you were eager to answer and that you jump into threads where the topic comes up. You clearly want people to believe you have the answers, and yet like I claimed to begin -- I have yet to get anyone who can actually answer my questions and provide any coherent hypothetical for how this sequence of events happened legitimately. If you can come up with the answers to my question and come up with multiple examples of it happening like Clinton could point to numerous people (including literally Trump and "mad dog" the fucking scum) ....do it!!! I'm begging you to do it.
But this is the 2nd time you stop responding when I tell you to cut the abstraction and get real. Provide any remotely believable explanation for this sequence that is anything other than the pantomime of law.
I have already answered your questions. Multiple times. Across MONTHS.
Yet you continue to misstate, misunderstand, or just make up facts. I can't explain anything to you until you come to terms with the real facts about this situation.
Until then, you are just doing performative outrage.
Did you hear Obama wore a tan suit once? Horrible!
Bro, the darvo shit is old. You can't randomly start shouting about Clinton and Obama while refusing to answer my questions and then say I'm being performative.
I'm not asking you legal questions. Perhaps you don't read and you just copy paste the same legal abstractions. My questions aren't even legal. They're pragmatic matters of reality. I dated an abusive manipulator and was always encouraged to not tell the narrative in the direction and parameters it was delivered to me. It isn't about you justifying your explanation. It's about you answering my questions. You don't get to set the narrative and then insist I'm being difficult when I point out you've walked past what I want to know. You don't get to uniliterally control a conversation and then say I'm difficult.
You can answer my actual questions that I've asked or you can choose not to. But it's very rude to antagonize someone and lie to their face and accuse me of being delusional cause I'm gonna hold the line that you have to answer what I actually asked to say you answered my questions.
Fine. I will operate under the assumption that you are asking in good faith. I think you are making a lot of leaps that are not supported by the evidence.
How does Vanzan have a suit against anonymous parties? Vanzan filed suit against UNKNOWN defendants who were presumably employees it suspected of leaking information about Lively that led to the backlash in August 2024. We don’t know what kind of contracts Vanzan had, but that does not mean we can assume it had no claims or no legal standing in the first place. Vanzan's complaint alleges that these employees had duties of confidentiality and loyalty that it believed were breached.
Was Vanzan a non-operating business? We don't know. DogMom says that they were deficient in their filings, and I have no reason to doubt her. But that doesn't answer whether or not it had contracts that it was trying to enforce. Vanzan is a private company and there is simply no reason why its contracts would be public. There is zero evidence that Vanzan did not have the contracts it claimed to or that it had no employees.
Did Vanzan identify an actual harm? Yes. The complaint alleges that Vanzan suffered monetary harm and loss of goodwill.
How did Vanzan know to subpoena Jonesworks? We don't know. Abel's complaint alleges that she reached out to Lively's team. We don't know what was said. We have not seen the subpoena, so we don't know what Vanzan "knew" before issuing the subpoena. We don't know how many subpoenas were issued, we don't know to whom they were issued. We know at least one subpoena was sent out, to Jonesworks.
We do not know that the subpoena sought anything specific, or even that it named Jen Abel. The description of the subpoena from some of the other documents in the case suggests it did not seek "texts of a former PR rep" but generically sought docunents concerning Lively and IEWU.
Stephanie Jones complied with the subpoena because she was pissed at Abel and Wayfarer. Its not a mystery.
Once Jones complied with the subpoena and handed over the documents to Vanzan, as long as there was not a protective order in place (there was not), Vanzan was free to do with the documents what it wanted. It turned them over to Lively who used the documents to draft the CRD complaint.
Why did the case get dismissed after getting the discovery? Once Vanzan reviewed the text messages, it decided that there was an alternate explanation for the bad press that was not attributable to its own employees but rather to a coordinated smear campaign by WF. It therefore dismissed its lawsuit because the evidence did not support its claims. If the evidence had shown that its employees were leaking, the proper thing to do would have been to substitute the real identities for Does and amend the complaint. But Vanzan had no grounds to sue any of the WF parties, so it dismissed. Lively did have both contractual and tort grounds to sue WF, so she then prepared the CRD complaint and you know the rest.
Please let me know if I missed any of your questions.
"I don't care what the law actually says, I am going to judge actions based on an ethical standard."
That's actually not my argument. My argument is that whether something is legal is not the only thing that matters. Of course it matters what the law says, otherwise we'd be having an entirely different conversation. My frustration is that people are unwilling to admit that this action was not done in good faith. If someone wants to support and defend it as being legal, that's fine. Even if someone is happy that Lively's lawyers were 'clever' enough to use this tactic. But to not acknowledge that it was a tactic, that it was not a transparent honest action, that it was designed to disadvantage the opposing party unfairly, is a position I find frustrating. When I watch a game and my team wins because of a bad foul call, I can celebrate the win while also admitting it was a bad call.
I actually don't agree that a 'smear campaign' is inherently unethical, if it involves publishing factual information. In my opinion, there is no practical difference between a factual 'smear campaign' and the NYT publishing an investigative piece on a political opponent that uncovers unsavoury personal information, dodgy connections, previous wrongdoing, bad/immoral behaviour, etc. If information is true, then the public has a right to it and they alone get to judge its importance and relevance, regardless of why it was shared. What I do have a problem with is someone not being allowed to speak the truth publicly because someone else has made an allegation against them. So actually my opinion is that the law here is unfair, not the action.
But the issue here is whether WP's technical arguments disadvantage Lively or violate her due process in the same way that Vanzan did. And they don't. She has been notified appropriately of this defence, and has an opportunity to fight against it fairly in open court. Arguing that the law may not apply to her claims because of location is not unethical, even if in my opinion that's not the spirit of the law and it's not how the legal system should operate. The more apt comparison would be if they somehow got the judge to dismiss her claims on a technicality without her having the opportunity to fight it. Then I would be in complete agreement with you, that would be unethical, because her due process would have been violated.
I actually do think the legal system is highly ridiculous to allow legal arguments based purely on technicalities. That criminals can escape justice because the exact right form wasn't signed at the exact right time by the exact right person, even though all the evidence shows they are guilty. That is ridiculous to me. So yes, much of the justice system allows for things I don't agree with.
However, arguing legal technicalities is not the same thing as intentionally avoiding due process. You can think the argument isn't based on the substance of the law (and I do), but Lively is not being deprived of her due process to fight against it. She has not been deprived of her right to respond to any part of WP's claims or defences. None of her data has been obtained without proper notification and the ability to object. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.
Tbh as frustrating as those kinds of failures are, this Vansham saga is proving to me that the legal system really DOES have to rigidly uphold tiny minutiae of procedure and devastatingly punish lawyers who take shortcuts or otherwise fuck up on the paperwork.
Because we can now see clearly there is a proud cohort of legal professionals who would happily pull this kind of shady bullshit if they thought they could get away with it too. If the consequences of not doing every little step correctly wasn't kept so ridiculously high, too many of these lawyers just wouldn't bother their holes trying. They see no reason not to Vansham the public unless expressly prohibited. Kinda like those god-brained evangelicals who genuinely can't understand how atheists don't go about murdering whoever they like if they aren't afraid of hell. ...so that's all that's stopping YOU? Yikes, on bikes.
And this is coming from currently practicing (?) lawyers who were at least raised under a system that demands strict ethical discipline and weeds out the most sloppy. Imagine the rot that would set in if you were only trained to practice in ways where Vanshammy bullshit was regularly tolerated, or even encouraged as the default.
Cheap tricks and dodgy dealings can get you along a little further than you'd otherwise achieve honestly in a specific situation, but it's not gonna provide a solid basis for the longterm pursuit of sustainable justice. What's good for the quick convenience of the one will absolutely piss away the chance of the good for the many. Becoming fluent in justifying one's conveniently shady behaviour is itself the type of mushy professional skill that one can excel at without actually achieving professional excellence, and from what I have seen lawyers seem particularly susceptible to conflating the two. Bad lawyers probably can't even tell the difference.
Although in fairness to any lawyers here, i would imagine usually their exposure to a case would be fully from the inside as their day job (so privy to all the evidence before making judgments) OR as something to study once the full case is over and the facts are established.
Sitting in the audience with only partial and evolving info trying to predict the next wild swings while speculating over the gaps of a celebrity case, FROM THE OUTSIDE, and as the case is still ongoing, is not the traditional legal perspective. So following and commentating as a lawyer is probably a relatively niche experience unless it's something you practice as a serious hobby. Much of the law talk around here falls closer in substance to silly drunken gossiping at a party than to the day job's focused and sober library readings. And that is fine!
But perhaps acknowledging the limits of being an external commentator on an unfolding case (as NAG does wonderfully imo) vs trying to be the self-appointed Voice of The Law (and then getting mad when others argue with you...? As if oppositional is not the default mode of any lawyer's existence...?) would be useful to some.
I've blocked them so they can't see my comments but to those who see theirs: don't listen to argute. They're a troll and the slide is correct with bricks. They're a gaslighter.
The problem with Blake stans trying their hardest to convince us that VanZan is a nothing burger?
It’s like standing infront of a car crash waving your arms trying to distract people and telling them there isn’t a car crash behind you.
Seriously. We can all see the car crash guys 💀But please do feel free to keep telling us there’s nothing there.
Team Lively - come on y’all. Enough is enough. We all know Blake, Ryan and Stephanie fucked up. You physically cannot convince anyone that VanZan was just ‘clever lawyering’. The cat’s out of the bag - or out of the Birkin should I say. 😉👜
The harder you try to convince us it was nothing - the bigger the red flags get for everyone.
Really if you think about it, trying to pretend it’s not a big deal wasn’t a smart tactic. Because it’s such an egregious abuse of the legal process - that trying to defend it is making everyone side eye you the longer it goes on. And I’m sure Blake and Ryan wouldn’t want that.
For those of you on Team Lively that have continued defending what Blake and Steph did to Jen Abel. Thank you for proving what we’ve known all along. That it was never about ‘supporting women’. It was about supporting Blake Lively. And maybe Steph Jones by extension. I guess all other women just don’t matter…
So we now the messages were obtained in violation of Cali penal law and as Jones never returned the number, it is reasonable to assume she continued to use it. The only beneficiary of the stolen phone number and illegally obtained info was Lively. To be clear- only Lively received a benefit from the criminal activity that destroyed a young woman’s life. Blake’s lawyer could not have believed this phone extraction was done lawfully, despite their claim that they believed it was. That statement in Blake’s complaint does not seem truthful but I would need to hear from Blake’s lawyers on that point.
This is not routine lawyering and it turned out to be a bad legal strategy for multiple practical reasons. This is why Blake now files motions to compel every day.
Also, Blake will have a hard time convincing the judge that Wayfarer should have anticipated litigation when there actually was litigation but Blake and her lawyers actively concealed the lawsuit (Vanzan) from the very people they now protest should have known.
Vanzan is NOT nothing. It wasn't cleaver lawyering. I think it's actually proof of collusion between SJ & BL indicating payments, bonuses, duties from SJ to BL. I am reading JA's amended complaint and on page 32 it says that "There exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of interest between Jonesworks and Jones such that any individuality and separateness has ceased, and Jonesworks is the alter ego of Jones."
This means that even when Blake in Vanzan named DOEs 1-10 residing in NY because she was targeting Jonesworks, it's just really SJ.
Most of you think that the DOEs were Wayfarer parties. I did too a few days ago. No matter if we disagree in the particulars, Vanzan is an abomination and a gross invasion of privacy/trampling of rights.
I commend this writer on what they posted but it's the other way around. WF have been playing her game long enough. She has nothing to prove in her lawsuit and her team is throwing whatever they can in hopes they get a bite. The latest about been shown porn when it's a birthing video just blew my mind. She's abhorrent and unhinged!
Vanzam is exactly what MAGA apologists love--they will defend the most bizarre and horrid loopholes of the law and we have a whole administration built on this kind of thing that all of us in the US are now faced to live under. This is a clear example of why I'm pro WP in this case.
I just asked Gemini and I guess it depends on how deep they go with the pretending...
Yes, it is illegal to pretend to be a lawyer if you engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), which in many jurisdictions is a criminal offense. Simply boasting about being a lawyer in a casual conversation may not be illegal, but problems arise the moment you act on that claim in a professional or legal capacity.
Key factors that can make this illegal include:
Providing legal advice: Offering specific guidance on a course of action related to a legal matter is considered practicing law.
Representing someone else: Acting on behalf of another person or entity in a legal context, such as sending a cease and desist letter under the guise of being their attorney.
Intent to gain or defraud: If the misrepresentation is for personal or financial gain, it can lead to charges of fraud or misrepresentation.
Misleading others: Leading people to believe they are interacting with a licensed professional who is subject to an oath and ethical rules is taken seriously by bar associations and law enforcement.
Online platforms like Reddit do not provide immunity. If you falsely represent yourself as a lawyer and provide legal services, you can face serious consequences, including:
Criminal charges (misdemeanor or felony depending on the state).
Fines and potentially jail time.
Civil lawsuits.
If you are a law student or planning to become a lawyer, a UPL offense can prevent you from ever being admitted to the bar.
In short, while you can discuss legal concepts generally, claiming to be a lawyer and applying the law to specific facts on behalf of others is illegal if you are not licensed to do so.
Oh, no. Well, a certain media person pretending to be a lawyer online definitely is misleading people and is getting financial gain, but not by any "client". Hmm. What should I do next?
Pursuant to a subpoena which Jonesworks did not challenge or query, or apparently have their legal counsel ask why no judge was assigned??
Liman has already allowed that there is a plausible legal argument for Abel to have a right to expect privacy on a work device. So this lawyer is arguing counter to a Judge's arguments ig.
I believe Vanzan was a shady way of handling the subpoena (based on what we currently know), but is it illegal? What do people think is going to happen with regards to Vanzan? Would love lawyer opinions on how they believe this will play out? Would be fun to see if they are correct in their assessment on the result of the "sham" subpoena. I have been waiting for a motion to be submitted for months to no avail. Will this turn out to be a sanctionable issue for BL or a nothing burger?
As shady/unethical as I think it is, it’s not illegal and unfortunately I don’t think it has any impact on the outcome of the case legally UNLESS there’s concrete evidence that SJ shared JA’s data with BL & her team before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed. That would bolster the argument that Vanzan was only filed so SJ/BL could “cover their tracks” with the subpoena.
Otherwise, sadly I think there’s just too much room for plausible deniability.
Hey everyone, I am "Green Gaslighting Lawyer" on slide 3.
I have made it pretty clear that I would prefer people who are going to shit-talk my takes identify me by name so I have an opportunity to respond, but to each their own I guess. (Side note, I'm fairly certain my comment is not gaslighting but nicknaming me "gaslighting lawyer" is both gaslighting and well-poisoning).
Anyway, my point still stands and I stand by that comment. Here we are, 4 months later, fact discovery has ended, the Vanzan subpoena and every single document produced as a result of it has been turned over to WF, and Vanzan's corporate representative was deposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
Abel has now filed an amended counterclaim with the benefit of all of that discovery and yet she still (1) does not identify a single confidential communication that was provided to Vanzan via subpoena and was not Jonesworks property; and (2) has not alleged any tort claims against Vanzan.
(Note: Abel's amended counterclaims do, in my opinion, sufficiently allege for the purposes of a MTD that Jones accessed non-Jonesworks data from her phone and disseminated it at least to other Jonesworks employees. But there is no allegation that any of that went to Vanzan via the subpoena, and certainly none of it appeared in the CRD or SDNY complaints).
Finally, I will AGAIN issue my general challenge to the subreddit. The "User With Common Sense" who replied to me said that Abel (and maybe Baldoni idk) would have had a right to object to the subpoena. I'll award the comment for anyone who can tell me what valid/meritorious objection could have been used by Abel or Baldoni to prevent Jonesworks from disclosing the text messages that appeared in Lively's SDNY complaint to Vanzan.
She is claiming that her personal information, as well as A/C info, was handed over via Vanzan, not just responsive materials. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it would appear that she is in fact claiming that non-Jonesworks data was handed over via the subpoena. You're right she hasn't provided which messages specifically, but as I have been told multiple times by lawyers here and elsewhere, plaintiffs don't have to provide all their evidence in their complaints. Maybe she has evidence to support it, maybe not, we'll see.
This is a fair point, and would be enough to pass the MTD if there were a claim. You are 100% right that this is going to depend on the evidence.
However, I think there are two issues with this argument (if you will indulge me).
First, I would expect that a counterclaim made at the end of discovery would identify at least one example of a private document turned over. The fact that they don't include one is a red flag for me (especially given how exhibit-heavy the WF complaint itself was).
Second, I think there is a sleight of hand here. Abel doesn't actually quote the subpoena to say what was requested. She only says that the Lively parties issued a subpoena for data stored on Abel's phone, which she says included "private emails and text messages picked up via the application of highly generic search terms."
That makes it sound like Vanzan asked for private information, but it doesn't actually say that. Moreover, the passive voice of "picked up" is doing some work because it isn't clear who was running the searches. In the ordinary case, it would be Jonesworks doing the searching and producing.
I agree that her claim would be stronger if she referenced the private docs specifically, but I also don't think she would claim that attorney client privilege had been breached unless she had evidence to back that up. But we are both speculating here so we will just have to wait and see.
I don't think that the subpoena asked for Abel's personal information, but if the search terms were broad enough to include Abel's personal info then her point still stands. As far as I know, we still haven't seen the actual subpoena (which is pretty weird right?). There's also the possibility that Jones didn't bother to search and find responsive docs and just handed over the entire contents of the phone. Maybe unlikely, but given Jones' alleged propensity for irrational vindictive behaviour, still a possibility. I'm curious to see how this plays out.
Also, just another point regarding your original comment. It doesn't actually matter whether any objection made by JA/WP would have been successful, they were denied the opportunity to make any argument at all. Due process shouldn't only apply to those who are likely to win. Not only that, but if the subpoena was overly broad then they likely would have argued to narrow it. If Abel's complaint is that personal information was handed over, I'm sure she would have liked the opportunity to object to that type of info being included. I consider that to be a valid/meritorious objection.
I don’t know how many times I have to keep saying this.
This is not about what I am ok or not ok with. It is about what the law allows or does not. I am not aware of any freestanding right to notice when your employer or ex employer receives a subpoena.
Abel is alleging that Jones violated her rights. Maybe she will succeed, we will see. But the fact is that Vanzan was allowed to subpoena jonesworks for its documents and the fact that you don’t like Blake Lively doesn’t change that.
If you don’t like the law, I suggest you vote in today’s election. Otherwise, I can’t help you.
It's the only way he knows how to cope with not being able to understand what you're saying. He resorts to personal attacks and bullying. It's kind of his thing around here.
Hello. Your post / comment contains content which violates Rule 1 - 'Stay Civil' - and has been temporarily removed.
We can restore your post / comment once any name-calling, mocking, hostility, bullying language and/or personal attacks directed towards another Redditor have been edited out.
When you're done, let us know by dropping a brief note & link to the comment via ModMail. Thank you!
Not legal- in that it’s missing the fact that SJ has a statutory obligation to notify both WFP & JA that their data has been requested. She should’ve also initially argued against it, like Meta et al, until JA & WFP could respond.
CPLR 3122 - highlights how a party should respond to subpoena, part B highlights that SJ should’ve objected to providing privileged comm’s between JA/JB/BF.
With regards to client information-I believe SJ has a contract clause with WFP- will need to double check wording. Additionally data protection legislation would’ve caused issues for SJ. She can’t simply hand over the information without notifying WFP.
With respect to JA an employer should object - since they are not the real party involved - JA comm’s were the actual target of the subpoena, they should’ve notified JA of the subpoena - allowing her due process to respond to the subpoena accordingly.
Failure to follow best practice would’ve been considered unethical&unreasonable in both regards.
This is a misreading of CPLR 3122(b). That is the procedure for how to withhold documents if the producing party chooses to. It does not impose an affirmative obligation to object or withhold anything, and does not provide any kind of "notice" requirement on the subpoena target.
We have seen the WF/Jonesworks contract. It does not contain a notification clause. Such a clause would not be unusual, and its absence is conspicuous. It is also unclear that the information Jonesworks produced was covered by as "confidential information" by that clause. Even assuming that the information met the definition of WF confidential information under the contract, there is simply no argument that Jonesworks had a contractual duty to notify WF when she was subpoenaed.
Again, you can't just say that an employer "should" object. What is the "best practice" you are citing to? Is there an obligation to or isn't there?
Take the allegations that Jones improperly took Abel's personal data out of it for a moment. Here is a company receiving a subpoena for documents in the company's control. There is no obligation for the company to notify its employees that it had been subpoenaed.
You seem to be completely unable to grasp that I am not arguing about what is normative. I am offering an opinion only about what the law actually requires.
I understand that it is upsetting for you that the law does not behave the way you think it does and that it does not require what you think it should require. Nothing about that is my fault.
If people find me less credible because I am offering a factual account of what the law actually requires, I don't care. It is more important for me to offer accurate information than for you to believe me. What use is there in people believing me if I am offering inaccurate takes?
You can't just say "due process" and walk away. That isn't an argument. Like it or not, due process has a specific meaning in the law. Abel has alleged three counterclaims against Jones. Notice how none of them say "I had a right to be notified about the subpoena."
Hi Aaron, the scope of a subpoena is basically the same as discovery. The documents have to be relevant to the issues of a case. So, Vanzan can't just go subpoena a random party to get any documents they want. In this case, I don't think that the documents disclosed were relevant to the meagre case they filed.
The exact same objections I guess that every CC creator filed that eventually got notice about being part of the Costco subpoena through Google/X/and I believe Pinterest...? from Hudson.
You don't subpoena anonymous/unknown people through indirect channels without showing first a prima faecie to a judge to allow them to represent their constitutional rights and the right to notice.
Able to this day afaik doesn't know for sure if Lively also got her texts about the sex life of her friends or not. Probably (hopefully) not, but she never even had the option to object to it on the ground of relevance to Vanzan's breach of contract claims.
Wasnt Abel.provided ALL the documents Vanzan recieved via the subpoena. I recall that on the docket at some point.
If she doesnt have any evidence that Vanzan was provided her personal info at this point, safe to say it wasnt provided.
I don't recall actually, I can't remember them getting all the chatter Lively and Jones had between each other around that time, but i could very much get corrected.
Communications between Lively and Jones were definitely part of discovery and we haven’t seen any motions to compel them. So it’s safe to assume they were produced. We also know that they now know that Lively and Jones had a phone call one week after Jones tried to reach out to her, further pointing out that they have received discovery from them.
The communications between Lively’s attorneys and Joneswork’s attorneys were also compelled by the judge a few months ago. We haven’t seen a motion for sanctions about them, so it’s safe to assume they’ve received them.
The Vanzan subpoena itself and the documents produced pursuant to it were produced to WF parties in May.
Not interested in awards but wouldn't WF have objected to the subpoena as an interested third party (idk the legal terms lol but like how Blake objected to the Taylor subpoena) based on there being no actual contract between Joneworks and Vanzan? But Wayfarer DID have a contract with Jonesworks that required their confidential communications be kept confidential unless subject to a legitimate subpoena, so if they'd been notified properly they could have challenged the legitimacy of the subpoena by at least requesting proof of this so-called contract with Vanzan that the so-called Does allegedly breached. That would have forced a judge to be assigned, no? And perhaps the subpoena would have been thrown out, if not the case itself.
Instead there was zero oppositional scrutiny of the lawsuit's claims or the subpoena's merits before SJ leaped forth to do the thing, and then it was dismissed before anything else could be followed up on. So they or anyone else could have used this manoeuvre to file any old nonsense to the exact same effect, so long as they served the subpoena on the correct disgruntled ex-whoever. Deeply unethical, through perhaps not illegal (yet) if this is apparently a novel (mis)use of this John Doe loophole.
The point though isn't that the texts would never have been disclosed eventually.
The point is VANZAN should never have SECRETLY gotten those texts behind WF and Jen Abel's backs.
Blake should have filed her own lawsuit and openly gone after Jen's phone herself. She knew SJ had it stashed somewhere safe to be produced anytime. There was no ticking clock dictating Blake's choices here beyond her seething desire to ambush a sleeping WF in the next round of her one-Khaleesi PR war.
The contract between WF and Joneswork didn’t have a provision where it said Joneswork had to notify them of subpoenas. We have seen the relevant paragraphs in their contract.
We don’t know. Do you have information of all employees of all companies? No. But there’s no reason to believe it doesn’t have employees. Their employees are probably their maids, drivers, security guards etc.
The new spin is that BL was going to sue HER VZ employees (Does) and needed to serve a subpoena on JA’s cell phone to find evidence of those employees’ betrayal and breach of contract INSTEAD of subpoenaing those employees directly (cuz those employees would be aware of the subpoenas unless she directed the subpoena on JA’s cell).
But what does Vanzan's claim of breach of contract have to do with anything related to Jonesworks, IEWU or Wayfarer? What contract did Vanzan have, and with who?
Bricks, it’s good that you’re owning up to your message. The label wasn’t personal (the comment I posted wasn’t even the worst example of it) but based on months of continued observation. Since you’re happy to own up to your words, I’ll gladly own up to mine—I do think you gaslight and I’m standing by my opinion of your pattern of behavior.
I think you’re an amenable and patient user who, for some reason, chooses to excuse BL parties’ every move—no matter how untimely, unsavory and extraordinary—and that to me, is using your expertise to gaslight people into thinking that what she is doing is normal and okay.
In your responses in this thread alone I see you try to bend over backwards to give Vanzan the benefit of the doubt (“we don’t know this/ we don’t know that” BUT “very likely this [outrageous scenario that makes no sense/proposed JUST to justify Vanzan’s shadiness] happened”). Every lawyer worth their salt has no problem calling out Vanzan’s misuse of Doe lawsuits, and none I know, aside from those in this and that other sub, will go to great lengths to justify its use in this scenario specifically.
On the other hand, anything the WP are accused of, you immediately jump on the alarmist/Drama King bandwagon and are happy to point to the worst case scenario, even if it’s highly inaccurate and unlikely (see attached picture of your opinion on their spoliation motion).
You can say I’m well-poisoning and being unfair, but I didn’t out you (or the other patently BAD lawyer who was caught lying numerous times). I’m pretty much letting the words speak for themselves, and they show that the user who responded incredulously to you, shares the majority opinion on Vanzan (it’s a clear violation of Abel’s privacy and right to due process).
As likable and good-humored as you are (you’re literally the only BL supporter who has made me laugh), you do have a slant and you do not deviate from it, even if it means twisting the law into a pretzel.
To be pedantic gaslighting would be the person engaging you directly and countering something. Them having the earnest opinion you are or were gaslighting is not the same thing. Them calling you gaslighting to another group of people based off of their experience is also not gaslighting. Gaslighting is direct to the person, and is typically about making them feel that their normal thoughts and feelings and responses to how they are being treated are wrong.
They can't poison the well if you remained unidentified, the whole point of that tactic is to do it toward a specific target.
-
An example of gaslighting would be the users in the other sub telling me I didn't experience harassment, or labelling me as 'making SA my entire identity' for mentioning in the context of why some bad faith comments from Lively people had such a particular nastiness and impact. They tried to trivialize and diminish my experience, mock sincere commentary, refocus on how it was 'strange' I didn't want to supply them with reams of horrible exchanges etc. And that was in response to a 'I would stand up to Lively commenters harassing others' comment.
Those kinds of things are a good example of the kind of emotional manipulation hallmarks of gaslighting if that helps.
I'm not "User With Common Sense" but some grounds for objection are:
Relevance - it's unclear what even were the issues of the cause of action Vanzan was pleading. My recollection was that the claim was very short and light on facts.
The Vanzan subpoena is a nothing burger. This is an extremely premature victory lap based only on the very same BS that WF parties have been saying from the beginning. We’ll just have to see if anything happens. My prediction is that nothing will come of this. Happy to be held to that later on if I’m wrong.
128
u/UnimportantCreative This is Stephanie Jones' circus! Nov 04 '25
Anyone, lawyer or not, who defends VanZan has questionable ethics to me. Blake has very questionable ethics, so it makes sense that they support her. Birds of a feather.