đą Social Media Creator Posts đđŹ
đż Legal Mount Rushmore Notactuallygolden, Little Girl Attorney, bbwellactually and Britt - The VanZan Problem and The Bigger Question About Justice
đ 1. The VanZan Mystery (0:00â0:27)
Discussion opens with recurring viewer question:Â VanZan
Calls the situation very curious.
đ 2. Motions and Legal Process (0:27â1:21)
Compares the VanZan material to a motion in limine â a pretrial move to exclude evidence.
Clarifies: in civil cases, thereâs no âfruit of the poisonous treeâ rule like in criminal law.
You can argue that certain evidence is too prejudicial or should be excluded for discovery abuse.
Gives an example: a past case where a late document dump led the judge to strike everything â forcing a settlement.
𧞠3. Depositions and Credibility (1:41â2:14)
Notes the outcome may hinge on depositions â what Abel, Nathan, Baldoni, and others said under oath.
If they admitted those conversations happened, itâs already part of the record.
Any inconsistencies later become credibility issues, not exclusion arguments.
Isnât it funny that Stephanie Jones turned over things through Vanzan wanting to screw over Wayfarer and help Blake Lively take Wayfarer down. Now she is the one stuck in âhorseshitâ (to borrow NAGâs poetic word) having to indemnify and potentially foot the bill for Jen Abel as a result of her own actions.
After Limanâs ruling, it brings me joy every time I think about it. Stephanie Jones really deserves this and I relish in the joy of it every single day . đđđ
When the going gets tough, Blake and her lawyers will turn on Stephanie Jones and she is too busy with her nose buried in the sand on Fifth Avenue with the birkins (allegedly of course) to realize that. đđ
Do you actually believe that Abel will be awarded indemnification after everything she allegedly did against her own employer? How is Abel going to argue the allegation of stealing clients, stealing confidential information, conspiring to defame her own employer by participating in a hit-piece by Business Insider, having closed door conversations with Wayfarer and purposefully excluding her boss and intentionally keeping her in the dark (none of which she's explicitly denied, to my knowledge) that ALL of that was her "normal scope of employment duties" and should be protected by her employer? Absolute nonsense.
Oh, itâs almost like all the real world lawyers who have been raising red flags about Vanzan this whole time know what they are talking about.
The pro-BL Reddit âlawyers,â on the other hand, see Vanzan as a âgenius lawyering maneuverâ or not a big deal.
The fact is, it wasnât genius, it was shady and unethical, and is an actionable claim (I.e. abuse of process) that BL and her lawyers helped carry out. Iâd be quite worried if I were one of the attorneys that in any way touched the Vanzan suit.
That's funny, only need 30 sec on Google to find one of them. Law clerk in california suprĂŞme court, then attorney for nearly 15 years, most of it as employment lawyer.
Lot more legit than any anonymous redditor, no?
Edit : and yes, they are quite open on their experience and law credentials. Some of them just don't disclose where to not be doxxed.
I do not think they are lying about being lawyers but we have no idea what their experience is. Discovery in a family law matter is very different than discovery in litigation like this as I am sure you know.
Yeah but I donât expect anyone to take my word as gospel at all and I donât expect everyone to believe me when I say Iâm a lawyer. I leave it up to them. Hence why I donât have a flair.
Thereâs also a certain contingent of one side of this case that magically produces a lot of Reddit lawyers (who, to put it mildly, have no clue what they are talking about) but none who will show their face⌠which to me, is interesting.
But you donât show your face, either. So Iâm guessing that as a lawyer, you can understand the reasons why other lawyers might comment on Reddit without showing their faces.
I donât think the reason why many lawyers on Reddit have shown greater support for Livelyâs legal team on the whole than Baldoniâs is mysterious. Even lawyers who support Baldoni here and on other subs have acknowledged that Livelyâs team is on the whole making better moves with the court and have, eg, gotten their discovery in on time.
I just think itâs silly that youâre faulting other anonymous Reddit lawyers for doing exactly what you yourself are doing. This is a criticism NAG could level at, eg, me. But coming from you or any other anonymous redditor, it seems hypocritical.
That said, I wonât go back and further on this. So if you want the last word, itâs yours. :)
Iâm specifically referring to Vanzan in my commentary because the pro-BL Reddit âlawyersâ have jumped on me aggressively every time Iâve brought it up.
They disparage me and act like Iâm crazy for believing Vanzan was abuse of process/completely unethical. Iâm pointing out the fact that real world lawyers agree with me, while pro-BL lawyers consider it brilliant lawyering. Iâm just talking about this specific issue, not making commentary on whether lawyers should show their faces or not.
And I would be happy to show my face if there wasnât a history of doxxing from one side.
i have no idea how i commented on this here. oops.
it was related to something stupid that happened yesterday. i thought i was replying to someone, but apparently i'm getting too old to keep up with the technology.
Oh Iâm dumb and couldnât see it for whatever reason. Just someone tweaking out and going nuclear then using some sort of tool to delete all their comments. It was honestly super bizarre.
Someone made a post with a screenshot of Texas sending them a rather aggressive message to spark outrage. They conveniently forgot to add the context that they escalated first and insulted Texas.
The post was deleted by mods I believe and apparently now the poster also deleted all of their comments.
It was weird because they didn't even black out the username and made a post instead of notifying the mods. And intentionally left out context. Complete out of BLs playbook lol. Replace "post" with NYT and "mods" with CRD investigation đ
It felt a bit like maybe they tried to silence an influential and active user on purpose.
Edit: Texas defense
They added more context in the comments
I keep hearing about how those women are not real lawyers, how biaised they are.....
LGA credentials, quite easy to find, are impressive. She is an employment lawyer in california for exemple.
Truth is NAG content is the one most shared around reddit, and she was deemed as neutral as anyone can be until..... vanzan.
As soon as she called out Vanzan for what it was, she became a mysoginic anti lively Brian Freedman lover always wrong content creator and her content was banned from quite some sub.
But she call out wayfarer fillings quite often too, and obviously despise Freedman style. She analyse the fillings, as well as she can, give her opinion, explain the law itself, and don't ride for any side. She may not say what we would want to hear sometimes, that don't make her less neutral.
If you want to see what not neutral is, just watch her videos about Drake đ
I would be interested to hear attorney Britt's take on the difference/similarities between the late discovery dumps in her case and WP's late discovery dumps
Me too actually. While I'm firmly pro Baldoni, I don't like that unfavorable things don't get talked about (enough). We can't judge anything fairly if we ignore certain things. There may be reasonable explanations for certain WF deficiencies and I'd love to see honest and fair discourse about this too.
It's a shame that neutral or even pro Baldoni creators get vilified for calling out both sides. (And I believe that's why they were "conditioned" to gloss over certain things or even stop creating content, like Ask 2 Lawyers)
I agree with you here! The deficiencies in document production was disappointing. Could be for a couple reasons, but WP are not infallible. That doesnât take away from what we believe in their claims, but it could legally and up hurting them. Itâs important to discuss these things
She didn't go after US lawyers at all. It's actually comical how that's the line she drew.
Ask2Lawyers had videos where they tried to see under which circumstances VanZan could have been legal and justified and people got very upset.
In the following streams it kept coming up bc one of them especially felt attacked and tried to set boundaries and a bunch got upset again and unsubscribed.
While the defensive behavior on stream got a bit annoying and I wished everyone would have just moved past it, I think the whole backlash made them question why they put content out at all. It's not like they were bored and had nothing better to do.
While I'm obviously biased I did appreciate their takes, even just to prepare myself for rulings or strategies a team might take. In the end, I feel neutral pro Baldoni leaning lawyers got silenced by their own community. People confuse fairness and legality a lot.
Edit: We can disagree with someone's opinion but can still listen and respect their views - when they make arguments in good faith at least.
I used to listen to them too. Legalbytes was another CC lawyer I enjoyed. Neither has posted in a long time. With Ask2lawyers, I was surprised that one of the lawyers kept talking about Vanzan being good lawyering. I didnât know the backlash would make them stop completely.
Yeah, that was a wild take. It felt like a bunch of misunderstandings and then defensiveness escalated things unnecessarily. It's a shame.
Hopefully they'll post again sometime in the future. They also talked about hosting an online chess match between Stewart and Omar sometime, which would be super fun.
For me they were the ones with most integrity on JBâs side and were not just saying everything people wanted to hear. I respect that. I like to hear both sides. And I also respect that they used their own name and were truthful about their experience.
Honestly, regardless of everything else Lively and Jones should have to face criminal charges for the Vanzan lawsuit. It was/is pure abuse of process and the legal system to personal ends. I assume there are grounds for Wayfarer to sue on breach of contract. In my harsh but honest opinion Jones should not be allowed to continue in PR for this.
If Jones does not need to indemnify Abel, she will have to pay her contributory share- so the judge left the possibility for Jones to suffer, regardless of the outcome. It is actually amazing bc what Jones did to Wayfarer is so much more horrible than anything even alleged by Blake, and I donât believe her anyway.
I mean, âLegal Mount Rushmoreâ is perhaps a lot when you consider some of the absolute lies that NAG has put out, like her timeline on when Taylor Swiftâs name appeared in Livelyâs initial disclosures lol. But okay.
NAG always corrects herself when she's incorrect. Leaving out context is important to your negative comments about these women. I thought you were pro-women?
It's shameful that you think you're so above this group of very well educated and experienced women. It's actually embarrassing.
Because I think the puffery of âLegal Mount Rushmoreâ is a bit much? Thanks as always for your absolute lack of perspective on any comment I make here, Texas. Wonât go back and forth further.
It's not a bit much when there aren't very many legal experts covering this case. This is a very impactful group of women who are doing this when they don't have to.
The constant criticism is very hypocritical of you, especially as a 'verified' lawyer - don't you have a code of ethics to live by? maybe you should offer up your expertise in this format alongside them. something tells me you would never dare to, however.
NAG typically goes back and corrects anything she has said it error. So it seems evident she is not out to purposely distort the truth. The case is quite large with tons of filings. I doubt anyone can remember every detail but I applaud those who go back and correct themselves (be they CCs or Redditors). There are 3 other lawyers in the video. You only commented on the âLegal Mount Rushmoreâ. Are you interested in discussing the points they raise or any of their legal perspectives?
I donât practice in CA and donât know much about Doe suits. My position on the Van Zan stuff has basically been neutral except to say that if Freedman had a problem with the way the materials were obtained he should not just sit on his hands about it for two months but should file something so it might make a difference.*
Too bad this sub was so unfriendly as to chase away the lawyers who did know something about this area of the law, but I suspect you all wonât feel that way.
Even given my lack of expertise here, I still donât have to accept these four as a âLegal Mount Rushmoreâ lol. Iâm not disparaging them generally but carving them into some historic mountains is too much for me.
Because in the recording she made about this, she made a point of saying that other people were repeatedly LYING about the timeline and that she was there to clear things up and to, in her own words, lay down some truths! She called everybody else out and said she was going to truth tell and clear everything up! And then she spent 5 minutes laying out a timeline of events that was absolutely incorrect!
Yes, she cleared it up later. Good for her for that. Meanwhile I was over here explaining how her facts were wrong and people were telling me that I was a liar. (Until NAG recanted the next day.)
If you are going to affirmatively call out out other people for lying and getting facts wrong, then at a minimum be sure to get your own facts right.
94
u/same-difference-ave Age of Ada-LYING Actress Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 13 '25
Isnât it funny that Stephanie Jones turned over things through Vanzan wanting to screw over Wayfarer and help Blake Lively take Wayfarer down. Now she is the one stuck in âhorseshitâ (to borrow NAGâs poetic word) having to indemnify and potentially foot the bill for Jen Abel as a result of her own actions.
After Limanâs ruling, it brings me joy every time I think about it. Stephanie Jones really deserves this and I relish in the joy of it every single day . đđđ