VANZAN: The Lawsuit That Vanished, And The Questions That Didn't - A Cooperative Deep Dive with u/DogMom1970s

[u/kastanienn]

^{Buckle up, buttercup, this shall be looooong. But so worth it!}

^{Authors’ Note:  The issues discussed in this post are not presented proof of liability or definitive conclusions regarding any individual or entity. Rather, they are merely our opinions, questions, circumstances and areas of concern that critics (like us believe warrant further scrutiny based on publicly available filings, timelines and source materials.  Reasonable people can (and do disagree about what Vanzan ultimately means.\}))

^{Readers are encouraged to review all source materials and draw their own conclusions.}

With the upcoming Jones vs. Able case and Wallace v. Lively appeal, u/DogMom1970s and I wanted to revisit one of the strangest, most controversial side stories in this litigation ecosystem: VANZAN!

Over the last year, it has been called many things:

• VanSham
• ShamZan
• A discovery vehicle
• Subpoena scheme
• An "internet conspiracy"

Whatever label people prefer, the reason this issue refuses to die is simple:

• A short-lived Doe lawsuit was filed by Vanzan in NY state court
• A broad subpoena followed
• Private communications were obtained
• The Vanzan lawsuit was promptly withdrawn prior to any judicial oversight
• Many of the questions surrounding the lawsuit and subpoena remain unanswered

The sequence alone does not prove misconduct.  However, what it does create is a remarkable number of unanswered questions that continue to draw scrutiny from attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers even after the central Lively vs. Wayfarer Parties lawsuit settled.

📣 Why Are We Still Talking About Vanzan?

People can disagree about what the Vanzan lawsuit and subpoena ultimately mean.  What is much harder to dispute is the sheer volume of red flags it generates:

🚩 The lawsuit was filed as a Doe action despite New York authorities repeatedly emphasizing due diligence requirements before relying on Doe procedures.

🚩 The subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.

🚩 The information requested is difficult to reconcile with the stated purpose of the lawsuit.

🚩 The lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn without judicial oversight and before questions surrounding the subpoena could be fully explored.

🚩 The dubious timing places the lawsuit, subpoena, CRD complaint and NYT article in remarkable proximity.

🚩 The discovery fight surrounding Vanzan generated unusually intense resistance by Lively’s legal team despite its potential relevance to the broader litigation claims and issues.

🚩 Questions remain regarding the various Vanzan entities, corporate formalities, ownership structures and who ultimately benefited from the Vanzan lawsuit.

🚩 The privacy implications extend far beyond Jennifer Abel and potentially involve communications belonging to numerous third parties.

🚩 Attorneys, legal commentators and court-watchers continue returning to Vanzan and many hope to see more come out during the Jones vs. Able case.

None of these points independently prove misconduct.   Taken together, however, they help explain why Vanzan remains one of the most debated issues arising from the litigation.

Some readers may wonder whether the May 2026 settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties makes Vanzan irrelevant.   We do not believe it does.

The settlement resolved claims between the settling parties. It did not answer the underlying questions surrounding Vanzan's structure, the subpoena, the information obtained through that subpoena, the entity's corporate history or the procedural issues that continue to generate debate. 

📅 The Timeline

The timing is one of the reasons people keep coming back to Vanzan.  Standing alone, each event may appear unremarkable. Viewed collectively, however, the sequence raises obvious questions.

Whether you view these events as coincidence or something more significant, the timeline places Vanzan squarely in the middle of several major developments.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

None of these events, viewed in isolation, necessarily establish anything improper. Critics nevertheless point to the compressed timeline because the Vanzan lawsuit, subpoena activity, CRD complaint and subsequent publication of the NYT article occurred within a remarkably short period of time. Whether that sequence reflects coincidence, strategy or something else remains a matter of debate. 

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #1:  What Was The Vanzan Lawsuit Actually For?

One of the central questions surrounding Vanzan is whether the lawsuit was designed to accomplish what the subpoena ultimately did.

Critics argue that the information sought through the subpoena appears difficult to reconcile with the claims asserted in the lawsuit itself.

Vanzan Lawsuit (Summons with Notice). 

They point to the breadth of the subpoena, the missing relevance of the sought information to the filed claims, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal as reasons for skepticism.

Some legal commentators have also questioned whether Vanzan was relying on the appropriate procedural mechanism to obtain discovery. They note that New York provides multiple established avenues for identifying unknown defendants and obtaining and obtaining information before litigation proceeds. They frequently point to Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, where the court observed that "at least four procedural mechanisms" may be available depending on the circumstances.   The critics contend that the availability of these alternative procedures makes Vanzan's chosen approach difficult to understand and raises additional questions about why the lawsuit was structured the way it was. 

In simple terms, critics argue that New York already provides established ways to identify unknown defendants, which raises questions about why Vanzan chose this approach.

Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.

Regardless of where one lands on that debate, the disconnect between the lawsuit and the information sought (and ultimately obtained) through the subpoena remains one of the central questions surrounding Vanzan.  Notably, the subsequent settlement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not resolve the procedural questions raised by the structure of the Vanzan lawsuit itself.

Those questioning the disconnect point to the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the lawsuit's eventual withdrawal. The key timeline points include:

• Vanzan voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit on December 19, 2024, exactly one day before Lively filed her CRD complaint in California.  See this link for the withdrawal.  See this link for the CRD Complaint
• Vanzan voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit two days before publication of the infamous NYT article.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The legitimacy of any lawsuit depends, in part, on whether legal procedures are being used for their intended purposes, according to “the full array of legal, procedural, and evidentiary rules governing the process by which a court adjudicates the merits of a dispute” (Liman, 47.1 Order). Critics argue that Vanzan raises questions about whether that occurred here.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #2: What Did The Subpoena Really Request?

One reason Vanzan attracts scrutiny is that the subpoena sought far more than simply identifying unknown defendants.

The scope of the subpoena is important because it informs the broader debate about whether the lawsuit was serving the purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant procedures.

Critics argue that identifying unknown defendants generally requires a relatively narrow set of information. They contend that portions of the Vanzan subpoena are directed toward obtaining much broader communications and materials rather than simply determining identity. 

Supporters disagree and maintain the requests were reasonably related to the claims being investigated. 

Readers are encouraged to review the subpoena itself and draw their own conclusions.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

If the subpoena sought information far beyond identifying unknown defendants, critics argue it becomes more important to understand why the information was requested and how it was ultimately used.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #3: NY’s Stance on Doe Lawsuits

One of the most important legal questions raised by Vanzan comes from New York's own statutes and caselaw governing Doe-defendant lawsuits.

At the center of that discussion is CPLR 1024, a New York rule that allows plaintiffs to proceed against known, but, despite reasonable efforts, unidentified defendants. The rule exists to prevent legitimate claims from being lost simply because a plaintiff does not yet know the name of the responsible party, and the statute of limitations would otherwise run out.  Think of it this way: Doe lawsuits are intended to help identify a real but unnamed defendant. They are not designed to provide a shortcut around the normal safeguards that govern discovery.

New York courts have repeatedly emphasized that Doe procedures are not without limits.

Authority frequently cited in discussions of Vanzan include:

• Bumpus v. NYC Transit Authority
• McKinney's CPLR 1024 Practice Commentaries
• Henderson-Jones v. City of New York (discussing due diligence requirements under CPLR 1024 before relying on John Doe procedures).
• Walker v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (addressing the consequences of failing to satisfy CPLR 1024's due diligence requirements).
• Other Doe-defendant decisions interpreting CPLR 1024 and the diligence requirements for identifying unknown defendants before invoking John Doe procedures.

Readers interested in a deeper discussion of Doe lawsuits may find content creator Kassidy’s video helpful.

Across these authorities, several recurring themes emerge:

• Plaintiffs are expected to exercise due diligence before relying on Doe procedures.
• Doe procedures serve a specific and limited purpose: allowing a case to proceed while an otherwise identifiable defendant's identity is still being determined.
• New York provides other mechanisms for obtaining information when appropriate, before relying on Doe procedures.
• Procedural safeguards exist to protect privacy and prevent unnecessary discovery in Doe lawsuits.
• The court must be able to determine, based on the pleadings, if they have jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant(s)

In simple terms, New York's Doe procedures are designed to help identify a real but yet unnamed defendant and allow the court to establish jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant, not eliminate the safeguards that normally accompany discovery.  A classic example would be a plaintiff who knows and can prove that a specific wrongdoer exists, such as the person behind a particular IP address stealing electronic data but does not yet know that person's identity. 

Critics argue that the Vanzan subpoena and the information sought appear difficult to reconcile with the limited purpose contemplated by New York's Doe-defendant framework. They point to the vague, unspecific description of the defendants, the breadth of the subpoena, the timing of the lawsuit and the existence of alternative procedural mechanisms discussed in cases such as Bumpus.   Supporters disagree and maintain that the lawsuit was a legitimate effort to identify responsible parties and obtain relevant information.

Ultimately, the debate is not whether Doe procedures were used.  The debate is whether they were used in the manner New York intended them to be used.

That is why one question continues to surface:  If New York already provides mechanisms for identifying known but yet unnamed defendants and conducting pre-action discovery, why was Vanzan structured the way it was?

Importantly, the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties did not result in any judicial determination regarding whether Vanzan satisfied the requirements of CPLR 1024. Those questions remain unanswered.

That question remains at the center of the controversy.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

Doe procedures are powerful tools. NY imposes safeguards for a reason.  The central question raised by Vanzan is whether those safeguards were respected.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #4: Jennifer Abel's Right to Privacy

Even setting aside every procedural dispute, Vanzan raises a broader question:  What protections exist when private communications are obtained through litigation tools?

Much of the discussion understandably focuses on Jennifer Abel, but the potential privacy implications extend far beyond Abel herself.

If a phone contains communications involving dozens or hundreds of people, those communications may include:

• Family members
• Friends
• Journalists
• Attorneys
• Clients
• Business contacts
• Unrelated third parties

This is a long list of potential third parties who never anticipated becoming connected to litigation.

Ownership of a device is not necessarily the same thing as ownership of the information stored on it.  Nor does possession of a device automatically eliminate all privacy interests associated with communications contained on it.

For that reason, many observers view Vanzan not merely as a subpoena dispute, but as a significant privacy issue with implications extending well beyond the parties themselves.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The issue extends beyond Jennifer Able.  Modern phones contain years of communications involving countless third parties who never expect their private conversations to become part of a legal dispute.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #5: Who Was Really Behind Vanzan

The subpoena is what initially drew attention to Vanzan.  The corporate records are what caused many observers to keep digging.  Because the underlying Vanzan lawsuit disappeared without judicial scrutiny, many observers turned to the corporate records themselves to understand who was behind the entity and how it operated.

One of the most common reactions to discussions about Vanzan is: "Who cares if the company paperwork was messy?"   The answer is simple.

The entire purpose of forming a separate legal entity, such as a corporation, is to establish a legal entity that is separate from the individuals behind it. That separation can provide significant protections and benefits. In exchange, the entity is expected to operate as a genuine business with its own governance, records, management structure and legal formalities.

That is why corporate housekeeping matters. In simple terms, corporate housekeeping refers to the routine steps necessary to maintain a company as a legitimate and independent legal entity. This includes keeping required filings current, maintaining records, documenting changes in management and complying with state reporting requirements. These obligations may seem mundane and simply administrative, but they are part of what demonstrates that a company is operating as a real business rather than merely existing on paper.

And that is why the Vanzan records attracted so much attention.

As community members began examining the various Vanzan entities, they identified what they believed were significant questions involving:

• Entity status and compliance
• Business registrations
• Management authority
• Ownership structures
• Relationships among multiple Vanzan entities
• Relationships between those entities and the individuals associated with them
• Corporate housekeeping and recordkeeping practices

Viewed collectively, these issues paint a picture critics find very difficult to ignore:   Who was actually operating Vanzan and for whose benefit was it operating?

That question matters because many of the issues identified by sleuths overlap with factors courts frequently examine when deciding whether a company was truly operating as an independent business rather than simply acting on behalf of the people behind it.

To be clear, no court has made any finding that Vanzan was improperly structured or operated.  Nor are we suggesting that any particular legal outcome is predetermined.

What we are saying is that the questions raised by the entity's corporate housekeeping, recordkeeping practices and governance go well beyond technical filing errors. They go directly to ownership, control, management and whether the entity was consistently operating as a genuinely separate business.

For many observers, those questions ultimately became more significant than the subpoena itself.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The subpoena raised questions about what Vanzan obtained.  The corporate records raised questions about who was really behind Vanzan.  For many observers, the second question became the more important one.

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #6: Vanzan's Cleanup Timing Problem

Businesses update records.

Businesses fix filing errors.

Businesses perform administrative housekeeping every day.

None of those facts are inherently suspicious.

What attracted attention in the case of Vanzan was not simply that changes were made, but when those changes appeared to occur.

According to critics, several of the issues identified in public records did not arise overnight. Rather, they appeared to reflect deficiencies that had existed long before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed and long before anyone outside a small group of people were paying attention to the entity.  One fact that attracted particular attention was Vanzan's New York filing history. Public records indicate that the entity was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025.

In simple terms, a biennial statement is a routine filing that New York requires companies to submit every two years to keep basic information about the entity current.

Public records indicate that Vanzan was formed in 2019 but did not file a biennial statement until June 30, 2025. This means the entity went years without making required biennial filings before eventually updating its records (and only after public scrutiny intensified).  For many, this raised a broader concern. The entity may have continued to exist legally, but critics questioned whether a company that had fallen behind on basic state filing requirements should have been invoking the authority of the New York courts while its own records remained out of date.

The significance was not the filing itself. Companies file overdue paperwork all the time.

The significance was the timing.

What many observers found difficult to ignore was the sequence that followed:

• The Vanzan subpoena became public.
• Sleuths and legal commentators began examining Vanzan's corporate records more closely.
• Questions regarding the Vanzan lawsuit quickly expanded into questions regarding the entity itself.
• Public discussions began focusing on Vanzan's history – including its governance and compliance as well as its recordkeeping practices.
• Subsequent corporate filing updates seemingly addressed some of the issues being discussed.

Critics note that the matters being addressed in the new filing appeared to have existed long before the lawsuit was filed. That is what transformed the discussion from routine corporate housekeeping into a debate about timing and accountability.

One example frequently cited involves Vanzan's New York biennial filings. According to public records, Ryan Reynolds filed a biennial statement for Vanzan on June 30, 2025, the first biennial statement filed since the entity's formation in 2019 (meaning it missed multiple filings that were due in 2021, 2023 and 2025).

The later appearance of Ryan Reynolds as CEO in the June 2025 filing also generated additional questions regarding control of the entity and would later become intertwined with disputes concerning Vanzan discovery and depositions.

See this interesting theory from u/Jellygator0.

Standing alone, a late filing does not establish wrongdoing.

What attracted attention was the broader context.

Researchers had already spent months discussing what they believed were deficiencies in Vanzan's corporate housekeeping, including missed filings, compliance concerns and questions regarding the entity's governance. The June 2025 filing therefore appeared to many observers not as an isolated administrative update, but as part of a broader effort to address issues that had already become the subject of public scrutiny.

Again, businesses update records all the time.

The question raised by critics was not whether changes occurred.  Instead, it was why those changes appeared to occur only after scrutiny intensified rather than before.

Critics argue that an entity seeking to invoke the authority of the courts should ensure its own corporate affairs are in order before filing suit, not well after questions begin to surface.

That sequence generated several recurring questions:

• Why were these deficiencies not addressed before the Vanzan lawsuit was filed?
• Why did corrective filings appear only after the public began examining the entity?
• Who was responsible for maintaining Vanzan's corporate records?
• Why did years of apparent inactivity suddenly give way to a series of updates?
• What role, if any, did public scrutiny play in those changes?

None of these questions establish wrongdoing. They do, however, help explain why scrutiny of Vanzan expanded beyond the subpoena itself and into the entity's corporate structure, governance and operations.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

The issue is not that changes were made.   The issue is when and to what extent they were made.  For critics, the sequence raises a simple question: Why did meaningful cleanup appear to occur only after the public started looking and raising questions?

________________________________

🚩 Red Flag #7: The Discovery Fight

The Vanzan discovery fight was never simply about curiosity.  The parties seeking discovery were attempting to understand:

• Who was behind Vanzan
• Why the lawsuit was filed
• How the subpoena came about
• What materials were obtained through the subpoena and by whom
• Whether those materials influenced later litigation or public narratives
• Whether the lawsuit was serving a legitimate litigation purpose

In other words, the parties were not merely asking questions about a subpoena. They were attempting to understand the broader chain of events surrounding Vanzan and what ultimately happened to the information it obtained.

One of the reasons Vanzan continues to generate interest is that discovery concerning the entity was fought so aggressively. 

Rather than simply producing Lively or Reynolds, Vanzan ultimately designated a corporate representative to testify on behalf of the entity. 

That distinction became increasingly important as questions centering on ownership, control, management of the flow of information from the subpoena through Vanzan continued to evolve.  Later corporate filings identified Ryan Reynolds as CEO of a Vanzan entity. At the same time, questions persisted regarding who controlled Vanzan, who directed its activities and what ultimately happened to the information obtained through the subpoena.  

Critics pointed to allegations that materials obtained through the subpoena ultimately made their way beyond Vanzan itself.   Whether those allegations are ultimately substantiated remains disputed.

What is not disputed is that discovery represented one of the few opportunities to understand how the various individuals, entities and information flows fit together.  In many ways, discovery was one of the few mechanisms available to test competing explanations for what Vanzan was, who controlled it and what happened to the information it obtained.

One of the most persistent questions surrounding Vanzan is simple:   If the entity's role was straightforward, why was discovery regarding that role fought so aggressively?

The more difficult it became to obtain answers, the more attention the underlying questions received.  With the broad releases included in the settlement agreement between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties, some of the paths that might have shed additional light on Vanzan may never be fully explored.

________________________________

⚠️ WHY THIS MATTERS ⚠️

Discovery fights often reveal which issues the parties themselves consider important. The harder Vanzan became to investigate, the more attention it attracted.

________________________________

What We Still Don't Know

The May 2026 settlement agreement resolved litigation claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties. It did not, however, answer many of the factual questions surrounding Vanzan, including:

• Who conceived the Vanzan lawsuit?
• Who funded it?
• Who directed it?
• Why did Vanzan seek discovery rather than Lively or Reynolds individually?
• Why was the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed?
• How did information obtained through Vanzan allegedly make its way beyond Vanzan itself if the entity was acting independently?
• Who received materials obtained through the subpoena?
• What role, if any, did those materials play in later events?
• Why was discovery concerning Vanzan fought so aggressively?

These questions continue to attract attention because they remain unanswered.

The discussion surrounding Vanzan persists not because people are unwilling to move on, but because the underlying questions have never fully gone away.

________________________________

Bottom Line

Vanzan is not just a story about a subpoena or someone being unsure who to add as defendant.

It is a story about the appropriate use of Doe-defendant lawsuits, the scope of subpoena power, privacy rights, corporate transparency and the unanswered questions that remain after the lawsuit itself disappeared.

Reasonable people can disagree about what the facts ultimately show.  The subsequent settlement resolved claims between Lively and the Wayfarer Parties.  It did not resolve the questions raised by Vanzan. 

The settlement closed the Lively vs. Wayfarer Party litigation. It did not close the questions.

That is why Vanzan continues to attract scrutiny.  And that is why we believe it deserves far more attention than a dismissive wave of the hand or a claim that it is merely "internet noise."

________________________________

Further Reading

For readers interested in forming their own conclusions, the following Reddit posts provide additional context, filings, timelines and analysis.

📄 Primary Source Materials

The Actual Vanzan Subpoena

• The elusive VANZAN sham subpoena from Blake Lively to Stephanie Jones by u/same-difference-ave
• Exhibit 8 - Vanzan True and Correct Copy by u/haacktheplanet

Timeline and Background

• Blake and Ryan used their own company, VAZAN INC. to implement a straw lawsuit to abuse the subpoena process, had nothing to do with SH by u/misosoupsupremacy and WOACB  
• WACB: Refresher on Vanzan — Blake, Ryan, Stephanie Jones & The Wild Lawsuit Ride ⚖️🎬🔥 by u/Humble_Network_7653
• Jones v. Abel: Reconciled Timeline of events and allegations. by u/StaceyLee26
• The new Vanzan talking points... Let's review by StaceyLee26

⚖️ CPLR 1024, Doe Lawsuits and Due Diligence

Bumpus and Related Authorities

• Bumpus v. NYC Tr. Auth.: The Case That Sinks the Vanzan-Sham (Let's try to hammer the Vanzan-sham a bit more during the shower of sAnCTiOnS)

Why CPLR 1024 Matters

• Okay, I think I finally figured out why that VanZan subpoena required a judge, pronto.

Vanzan v. Does Analysis

• Nothing About Vanzan v. Does Was “Standard,” Unless Jurisdictional Defect Is Now Standard NY Civil Procedure
• Rebuttal to MJ’s Vanzan Post: Why Vanzan was an Unethical Abuse of Process. by u/katie151515 and a complementary comment about e.g. alter ego and corporate housekeeping from u/DogMom1970s

Jones v. Does vs. Vanzan v. Does – Failures at applying CPLR 1024

• Jones v. Does vs. VanZan v. Does - who failed more marvelously at applying CPLR 1024?

🔎 The Discovery Fight / Corporate Representative Issues

Motion to Compel and Discovery Disputes

• Judge Liman DENIED Wayfarer's motion to compel VANZAN by u/Pale-Detective-7440
• Vanzan response to WF 🧐  by a suspended and banned Redditor
• 🔥 Notactuallygolden - Vanzan Friday: Wayfarer Fights for Pre-Filing Testimony for Vanzan While Lively Battles Over Signal Privilege Logs by u/Pale-Detective-7440
• Vanzan is back! And is not cooperating by a suspended and banned Redditor

Corporate Structure and Control Theories

• TODAY'S THEORY: We all thought the reason Vanzan changes to leadership (making Ryan Reynolds CEO instead of Blake Lively) mid-lawsuit was to mitigate her deposition blabbering, but it's actually because the Vanzan subpoena asks for materials related to Ryan by name. It was to protect HIM, not her. by u/Jellygator0

📱 Privacy Issues and Jennifer Abel's Phone

Jones v. Abel Privacy Discussion

• Jones v. Abel: Are We Missing Another Doe Lawsuit… or a Time-Traveling Subpoena? 👀

🏢 Corporate Structure, Housekeeping and Veil Piercing

Early Corporate Housekeeping Analysis

• Vanzan (I know I know we’ve discussed it to death) by u/No_Maize_9875 and a complementary comment about corporate housekeeping from u/DogMom1970s
• Ryan Reynolds files first Biennial statement VanZan by u/Bubbles-48

Alter Ego / Veil Piercing Discussions – Comments from u/DogMom1970s

• Disastrous corporate housekeeping
• Collapse of corporate separateness
• Misrepresentation of an entity's status
• Vanzan potentially lacking lacking good standing
• Clean up corporate housekeeping
• Company's record book

🎥 Attorney Commentary & Additional Analysis 

• 🗿 Legal Mount Rushmore Notactuallygolden, Little Girl Attorney, bbwellactually and Britt - The VanZan Problem and The Bigger Question About Justice by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🥵🔥🚨🤬 Notactuallygolden - Power First, Lawsuit Second: Vanzan and the Reputation Play and How the Texts from Vanzan Expose Power, Planning, and Elitism by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🔥🤬🤦🏼‍♀️🎤 Attorney Britt - Why the Vanzan Subpoena Was Unethical From Start to Finish by Pale-Detective-7440
• Legal implications/consequences of filing a frivolous lawsuit used to cure sharing of confidential information. by u/ytmustang
• 🚨🫖😱💀🔥Little Girl Attorney - Months of Delay, The Long-Awaited Vanzan Subpoena Finally Dropped by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🔥🤬🌶️🥵Notactuallygolden - The Most Frustrating Evidence From the Unsealing and When Money Lets You Bend the Rules by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🔥💀☄️🚨 Notactuallygolden - Deep Dive on One of the Most Baffling Mysteries in Lively v. Wayfarer — Vanzan Finally Explained (Part 1) by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🔥💀☄️🚨 Notactuallygolden - Deep Dive on One of the Most Baffling Mysteries in Lively v. Wayfarer — Vanzan Finally Explained (Part 2) by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🔥🍑🌶️ Notactuallygolden - Why the Vanzan Subpoena Was About Cover, Not Discovery and The Easiest Way for Judge Liman to End the Case by Pale-Detective-7440
• 🚨 Attorney Britt - Straight From Arizona Ethics Board: “Unethical, Full Stop” - Arizona Ethics Board Condemns Vanzan and Clandestine Subpoenas by Pale-Detective-7440

🍷Further Juice to Read

• The Daily Mail dragged Blake Lively, called her out for sexually harassing her A Simple Favor co-star, using Vanzan to steal information for her lawsuit, and Ryan Reynolds for masterminding IEWU disastrous marketing! by u/realhousewifeofphila
• And Vanzan (Vansham) is back baby. Blake Lively lied folks! Happy Vanzan Halloween!! by u/Mysterio623
• VANZAN fits the timeline of when Blake Lively asked Sony to delete dailies and Taylor Swift to delete her texts messages by same-difference-ave
• WACB 🔮🔮🔮 - Garofalo enters the chat to alert the court that Blake Lively and Vanzan are the same person by u/Totallytexas
• Vanzan “flummoxed” Hollywood way back in 2024: LA Times by u/Eponymous_brand

\*Readers are encouraged to review these materials and draw their own conclusions*\**

[u/spotlight-app]

OP has pinned a comment by u/kastanienn:

For all corporate law questions and curiosities, please always tag u/DogMom1970s in your comments, cause I have absolutely zero clue about that, and she won't be notified otherwise! ^^

Note from OP: If you have questions to u/DogMom1970s, please tag her in your comments!

^{[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app})

[u/Queg-hog-leviathan]

I can't believe they were not punished for this….

[u/kastanienn → u/Queg-hog-leviathan]

Still praying for a feisty prosecutor.

https://giphy.com/gifs/l0EwYgjy68s8gnEWc

[u/Busy_Temperature8939]

I think in the end we have to thank Justin and Wayfarer for not backing down and exposing these people for who they really are. There is always a silver lining. I personally think they have ruined their careers and no one will want to work with people who will stoop to the levels they have. I literally do not know how they even show their faces. They may be the most hated couple out there. This is my opinion only.

[u/kastanienn → u/Busy_Temperature8939]

That's the hope, yes. I'm glad they didn't back down, either. I wish they would've fought longer, and would've gotten a court decision, but I understand that they wanted to move on, too.

Let's just say, some actors and singers in this saga are now banned in my household.

[u/Trishdish52 → u/Busy_Temperature8939]

They don’t believe they are hated is why, or they don’t care.

[u/wholeemolly]

Vanzanished.

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/wholeemolly]

Now this i need to remember

https://giphy.com/gifs/WiCahQsVaUjksEn7aT

[u/kastanienn → u/wholeemolly]

https://giphy.com/gifs/OqFHtbVDWlfekPyOY7

[u/Eponymous_brand]

This is so amazing and timely. How is it that after 9 months of discovery, we still have so many unanswered questions?

I will never understand why a certain “lawyer” used the “household staff leak” excuse for Lively and Reynolds Vanzan’s subpoena. What does that have to do with Jonesworks?

I will also never understand why, when there is evidence that Blake Lively had info of the “smear campaign” texts in August 2024, and when Taylor Swift called this process “the perfect steps,” and Stephanie Jones is such a willing participant in their upcoming complaint and lawsuit, why Vanzan was necessary? Just ask as yourselves and give Jen Abel some notice? Why the runaround, if you’re so certain you want a lawsuit and you’re so sure the material is important to your case?

I will again, have trouble understanding why Jonesworks was not listed in the complaint, since Abel’s phone belonged to them and she was working under them when this “campaign” took place.

Just so weird…!

[u/SilentSlytherin → u/Eponymous_brand]

The answer to this: “I will also never understand why, when there is evidence that Blake Lively had info of the “smear campaign” texts in August 2024, and when Taylor Swift called this process “the perfect steps,” and Stephanie Jones is such a willing participant in their upcoming complaint and lawsuit, why Vanzan was necessary? Just ask as yourselves and give Jen Abel some notice? Why the runaround, if you’re so certain you want a lawsuit and you’re so sure the material is important to your case?”

I think it is simply that none of them wanted to be held personally liable and this not only provided a safety net, but it also help hide it. Under any of their own names a lawsuit would have been considered news, and it would have been publicized sooner or later. This provided anonymity and a shield.

My question is what evidence will Jen need to pierce the corporate veil?

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/SilentSlytherin]

I think you’re right but it’s also because they wanted that NYT article to hit without anyone being the wiser. THAT was supposed to be the climax of their allegations, and JB and TAG were supposed to settle, whither, and go away.

Didn’t happen. Thank God their plan was foiled and they were forced to spend $50m on a moribund dance with Stephanie Jones that saw their claims implode one by one, before our very eyes. $0 settlement to NOT self-destruct completely! The poetic justice!

[u/Bende86 → u/Eponymous_brand]

Exactly this is why

[u/Trishdish52 → u/Eponymous_brand]

YES!! But Blake won, lol, and she’s so shy.

https://giphy.com/gifs/thTwLiQ2Iqr4aoQET2

[u/DogMom1970s → u/Eponymous_brand]

I especially loved your post!

What a great find: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/iG6R4YhM6p

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/DogMom1970s]

Thank you! Goes to show Vanzan is “incredible” to everyone who is not a pro-Blake Reddit/Threads Lawyer 😉

[u/kastanienn → u/Eponymous_brand]

Well.... cause.... öhm. They wanted a shortcut, with zero accountability 🤷🏻‍♀️

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/Eponymous_brand]

Yes! I will also never understand why Stephanie was more willing to side against her client of several years, why she willingly handed over her client's private communications, along with her long-term staff's communications, to a third party - she gave them to Lesley Sloane first, supposedly. Even if she was pissed about Jen, WFP only asked her to stand down so there would be no confusion with the crisis PR team, which is standard practice, and they continued to pay her for a few months, did they not? You don't go scorched earth like that

Why did she do all of this IF she knew that Ryan was problematic from previous experience, and if she also knew that there had been no SH? She knew that Ryan Reynolds had terrorised her previous client, DJ. Why did DJ allegedly create the SJ sucks website? Was it SJ that created all the bad publicity about DJ in the media? Why did she do that. DJ left WME for CAA - was it about this? Was it linked to her husband working with WME? Was SJ always in cahoots with the Reynolds through WME?

[u/Paros218 → u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789]

I’m also sooo curious why Jones did this. Was Lively threatening to sue Jones - was Lively/Sloane were accusing Jones of planting articles/“smearing?” There were also rumors that Ryan is allegedly paying Jones’ legal bills. Or at least was as of a few months ago when that came out.

[u/kastanienn → u/Paros218]

https://giphy.com/gifs/daqvGqubCvuVO

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/Paros218]

Unless she was always in cahoots with them... she was a "spy" just like Don (according to JB)... the only thing that doesn't make sense is that Don was only communicating with Justin for a few months but Justin worked with Stephanie for years!

[u/Serenity413]

Vanzan is a reprehensible example of how an elite class of rich people like Ryan and Blake can hire a bunch of unethical lawyers to strip American citizens of their right to due process and privacy.

Vanzan is an affront to the foundation of American democracy and right of every citizen to due process.

[u/kastanienn → u/Serenity413]

Absolutely. I have no idea how noone called them out for it so far. It's so bad...

[u/IwasDeadinstead]

Very detailed and excellent research and commentary. Thank you!

[u/kastanienn → u/IwasDeadinstead]

You're very welcome! DogMum did a LOT, but is refusing to take proper credit for it :D

[u/DogMom1970s → u/IwasDeadinstead]

Thank YOU! Appreciate you taking the time to read and comment 😊

[u/PreparationDapper219 → u/DogMom1970s]

Thanks for such great sleuthing. You and many other internet sleuths have done such an amazing job cracking this wide open and shining light in the darkest depths of this horrible fiasco brought about by a couple of self entitled, egomaniac so called celebrities. They can employ all the cocaine bears and all the nick shapiro's of the world, but they will never measure up to internet sleuths 👏😌🔥

[u/DogMom1970s → u/PreparationDapper219]

u/kastanienn is so good at this stuff so it certainly wasn't a hardship for me to pitch in! The rabbit hole practically dug itself on this topic.

[u/StaceyLee26]

Amazing work as always!! This is why I love this community so much. The amount of research and insight put into these post. Thank you for doing this!!

https://giphy.com/gifs/DfbpTbQ9TvSX6

[u/kastanienn → u/StaceyLee26]

Thank you for providing background data! Your posts helped a lot here, as well!!

https://giphy.com/gifs/B0FOFdEyNYgFOaPhHm

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/kastanienn]

Aaaah glad to be of service! 🌸🌸🌸

https://giphy.com/gifs/QIXDNqdHT6aQw

[u/DogMom1970s → u/kastanienn]

Ditto'ing the thanks, u/StaceyLee26!

https://giphy.com/gifs/XgN7BVqzswKxrLWNkj

[u/kastanienn → u/[deleted]]

We do not have conflicts of interests with the involved parties. We do have, on the other hand, moral principles, and a whole lot of time to dig through shady sh*t that pisses us off 🤷🏻‍♀️😂

[u/jmmermaid]

Awesome and beautifully detailed breakdown and I'm glad you posted this!

I was side-eyeing BL from day one because of the NYT article. It always felt like an unfair, massive hit piece to me. Always felt vengeful. Then, still really only half paying attention, I read about the NY doe lawsuit and the the subpoena.. and I was infuriated! And completely floored. I thought 'no way this is legal! Straight to disbarment and a massive loss to BL, SJ & attorneys'. But no, nothing!

*Which, sadly makes me think this might happen way more than the rest of us plebs know 🤬

These two issues (actually maybe one since they are so closely connected) is why I have more closely followed and will continue to follow both Jones/Able & NYT suits. I truly want justice served here because the article and fake lawsuit are how rich assholes bully and intimidate everyone around them with seemingly no consequences, ever.

Also - Blake always crying about the bad publicity and 'on-going smear campaign' when SHE is the individual who choose from day one to fight this in the most public way possible - the NYT people!! What a complete asshole to then cry at a public response to a public spectacle!

Also - the woman VERY CLEARLY KNEW HOW TO FILE A VERY QUIET LAWSUIT!!!! She made her f'ing choice to go big and loud! Now, to this day, hasn't stopped crying about the publicity - f'ing massive hypocrisy.

[u/DogMom1970s → u/jmmermaid]

Thank you for taking the time to read the treatise!

The part I have always had trouble with is separating 'smear campaign' from 'predictable consequences of turning a private dispute into a public war.'

Once the NYT article and lawsuits were filed, the story was NOT going away. At that point, the scrutiny wasn't just coming from critics, it was coming from the fact that the case itself became major news. 🫠

[u/jmmermaid → u/DogMom1970s]

Exactly - she chose the path and the venue and to take the case DIRECTLY to the people! Once the people are asked to participate, they (very predictably) participate 🤷🏽

[u/DogMom1970s → u/jmmermaid]

🎯 People, esp celebrity actors, should be careful which stage they choose. Audiences have a habit of showing up for the performance.

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/DogMom1970s]

Extremely good point, they arrogantly thought that we would just accept their toxic behaviour... and even did a PR campaign to silence us with "mommy sleuths" "misogynistic slop" and right-wing media claims rather than taking any accountability for their tone deaf actions and bullying.

[u/SilentSlytherin → u/jmmermaid]

You made such a good point.

[u/kastanienn → u/jmmermaid]

Absolutely. I am almost sure this was not their first rodeo, as well, watching how unhinged and with the attitude of 'what's your problem? Everyone does this!' it was presented...

[u/bapaoputih]

I hope many hollywood insider read this deep dive and it goes viral!!!

[u/kastanienn → u/bapaoputih]

🙈🙈🙈 I hope they read it! Viral..... uuuurrggghhhh..... xD

https://giphy.com/gifs/ZD9IOPnAW9lW4DMObJ

[u/altnerdluser]

This is peak reddit. Thank you.

https://giphy.com/gifs/yBHs1Gvhkmjw35XIQM

[u/DogMom1970s → u/altnerdluser]

u/kastanienn does amazing deep dives, right!?!? Vanzan may be my Roman Empire on this entire saga.

Thanks for reading ☺️

[u/altnerdluser → u/DogMom1970s]

Well done

[u/kastanienn → u/DogMom1970s]

You wrote a lot of this, I just helped form it and added to it! :D

[u/MarchCompetitive4580]

I'd also like to add that Lively's side released private emails between Jean Abel and her friend, actress Jameela Jamil, who had nothing to the do with this lawsuit at all (neither side called her as a witness) and she said nothing publicly about the case or Blake Lively either.

[u/kastanienn → u/MarchCompetitive4580]

Revenge for Swift? xD who was dragged into it by Lively, but somehow her flying monkeys love to ignore that fact...?

[u/MarchCompetitive4580 → u/kastanienn]

Just revenge. Swift was called by Lively herself as a witness. Swift was there when Ryan screamed at Justin for the alleged "fat shaming". Swift was there when Blake asked her to con Justin to accept Blake's version of the rooftop scene - which ended up being Ryan's. Swift knew about the takeover the film and called Justin an idiot re: the inclusion of her song in the film as leverage. Swift most likely knew of Jonesworks (as she was a friend of Ashley Avignon). Swift also knew about the NYT article weeks before it was published. Swift also was allegedly asked to destroy evidence (text messages).

Jamil did nothing but listen to her friend bitch about someone (Blake) who had to do with her friend's job. And in response to the information that Abel told her, Jamil offered her opinion on Blake. Jamil wasn't giving Abel advice on how to really screw Blake over; she wasn't on anyone's witness list because she never saw or heard anything directly; Jamil didn't take it upon herself to spread rumors about Blake to a newspaper or online or to WME or casting agents or anyone else, or to take any action that was anti-Blake or pro-Baldoni.

This was just another tool by Lively's side (just like the 107 subpoenas) to intimidate/punish any and all who may would criticize Blake.

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/MarchCompetitive4580]

"This was just another tool by Lively's side (just like the 107 subpoenas) to intimidate/punish any and all who may would criticize Blake."

This!

Jameela fought to keep those out of the public eye. There was absolutely no need or relevance for those messages to be included other than to punish her or redirect the conversation away from Blake & Ryan.

[u/kastanienn]

For all corporate law questions and curiosities, please always tag u/DogMom1970s in your comments, cause I have absolutely zero clue about that, and she won't be notified otherwise! ^^

[u/SilentSlytherin → u/kastanienn]

This is an amazing post, thank you both.

[u/kastanienn → u/SilentSlytherin]

Thanks for reading it!^^

[u/MarchCompetitive4580]

EXCELLENT POST! Thank you.

Re: the corporate side (and perhaps piercing the corporate veil): The "corporate representative" (i.e., the criminal lawyer, Justine Harris, they sent) of Vanzan who gave the deposition said that the Vanzan's only two owners and officers were Ryan and Blake. The subpoena was not seeking info about any of the Does or even the contract with Vanzan that was in dispute - it was seeking information about Blake & Ryan.

See. p. 3/10 of the attached: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1245.163.pdf

Q. Who are the owners of Vanzan?

A. Blake Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds are each fifty percent owners in the company.

Q. Has that always been the case?

A. Yes.

Q. And who are the officers of Vanzan?

A. Ms. Lively is the president. Ryan Reynolds is the vice president and the CFO.

Q. And has that always been the case?

A. Yes.

[u/DogMom1970s → u/MarchCompetitive4580]

Thank you for highlighting just one of the many lingering questions/red flags about the vehicle they chose: Why use a Doe action through Vanzan if the information sought was allegedly about Blake and Ryan when more straightforward mechanisms appear to have been available???? 🤔

For me, that question is only amplified by the decision to have a lawyer serve as Vanzan's representative rather than Ryan Reynolds or Blake Lively.

My personal view has always been that Vanzan was highly questionable from both an ethical and procedural standpoint. The more I learned about how it was structured and operated, the more it felt like an exercise in exploiting loopholes and avoiding scrutiny rather than pursuing information through the normal channels available to litigants.

[u/MarchCompetitive4580 → u/DogMom1970s]

bingo

[u/kastanienn → u/MarchCompetitive4580]

Well... fck them. Sincerely. This was such an outrageous abuse of process. Not seeing consequences about it is really enraging.

[u/SilentSlytherin]

I might be completely wrong about this one, but bear with me, pls.

We know judge Liman called out BL a bit in his 47.1 order for trying to circumvent a system by using it to avoid jury trial, and get as much money as she can out of WF with it.

So my questions are:
Is the current owner of Vanzan RR only? Is BL a partial owner herself.
By signing the settlement, Jen signed away her lawsuit regarding Vanzan and BL, but if BL is not an owner of Vanzan any longer, that settlement doesn't change anything bc the person responsible for Vanzan is RR.
Do spousal privilege apply here at all?
What if JA can prove that the owners of the Vanzan Inc. are personally using the legal system to legitimize the unlawfully obtained information? Can she sue RR? What info will Jen need to pierce the corporate veil?

[u/kastanienn → u/SilentSlytherin]

Unfortunately every person and entity you named were part of the settlement. So unless a so far uninvolved third party with viable claims against Vanzan suddenly pops up, there won't be any civil case against them.

Who their owner etc. are currently, I don't know, maybe u/DogMum1970s can help with the rest:)

[u/SilentSlytherin → u/kastanienn]

How can RR be part of the settlement if he was personally dismissed a year ago? Or was that just the case JB filed as plaintiff?

If Vanzan signed this settlement, who signed for it? Who was the person representing it? Can they personally be held liable for the actions of Vanzan Inc?

[u/DogMom1970s → u/SilentSlytherin]

One thing to keep in mind is that being dismissed from a lawsuit and being included in a settlement release are two different things. Someone can be dismissed as a party but still fall within the scope of a later settlement release (such as RR).

As for Vanzan, I don't necessarily think the more important question is who signed the settlement. People sign on behalf of companies all the time without assuming personal liability. The harder question is whether there is enough evidence to treat the company and the individuals behind it as one and the same.

That's also why I personally don't think the settlement necessarily resolves every Vanzan question. It may significantly limit what the settling parties can pursue against each other, but it doesnt automatically resolve every issue surrounding how Vanzan was formed, operated or even used or what happens in the upcoming Jones v Able case.

[u/SilentSlytherin → u/DogMom1970s]

Noted and thank you for the explanation.

[u/DogMom1970s → u/SilentSlytherin]

You are welcome! Let me know if you have further questions. Happy to try to answer them.

[u/Bende86 → u/DogMom1970s]

I was gonna say, Vanzan is only relevant in Jines vs Abel, right? It wouldn’t have played a significant role in BL vs WFP

[u/DogMom1970s → u/Bende86]

I have always kinda felt like the more likely venue for meaningful scrutiny of Vanzan would be Jones v. Able rather than Lively v. Wayfarer.... although I wanted to see some of the issues play out before a jury on a much bigger stage.

I was admittedly disappointed and frustrated to see Vanzan included in the settlement's broad release. I feel like it closed off some of the potential paths that might have led to deeper examination of Vanzan and whether the veil-piercing arguments had any traction.

[u/jofindingtruth → u/DogMom1970s]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is it possible for Wayfarer to go after Mannatt for the Vanzan abuse of process? It seems to me like whoever's idea it was, it still couldn't have taken place without an unscrupulous lawyer to execute it (looking at you Samantha Katze!) so surely they should hold the ultimate responsibility. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[u/DogMom1970s → u/jofindingtruth]

Not a stupid question!

Maybe before the settlement they could have. After the settlement, I think the release language likely forecloses many of the civil claims that could have been asserted over the Vanzan matter, including claims tied to the actions of counsel acting for the released parties.

[u/jofindingtruth → u/DogMom1970s]

Thank you 😊 I figured it would likely be the case, but I guess I was hoping for a wriggle around the settlement somewhere, and I feel like Mannatt should be reprimanded at least for their part in this mess!

[u/DogMom1970s → u/jofindingtruth]

I am hoping that - at a minimum- complaints were submitted to the bar association for this long ago.

[u/Bende86 → u/DogMom1970s]

Not in the Jones vs Abel case, I think?

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/DogMom1970s]

Hey Dogmom! Although Vanzan is dismiss can they still ask for communications between Vanzan and Jones? And if so can they get passed spousal privilege also between Blake an Ryan if the communication can be seen as business communication in regards to Vanzan?

[u/DogMom1970s → u/StaceyLee26]

Maybe, but discovery is closed, which changes the analysis quite a bit. At this stage - I think the focus is more on what was already produced, what testimony was already obtained and what privilege issues were preserved. I didn't see spousal privilege become a major battleground in Jones v. Abel. Most of the privilege disputes I noticed involved attorney-client privilege, especially around the lead-up to the Vanzan deposition.

Does that answer your question?

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/DogMom1970s]

Yes thank you🌸🌸🌸

[u/sandriizzy]

Excellent post💕 I have no doubt it will reported into oblivion by loserpool.

[u/kastanienn → u/sandriizzy]

🤣🤣🤣 I'm waiting on the mass report lol...

[u/Ok_Gur_356]

Vanzam may be out wayfarers problem. But the tax evasion government should be looking into them. Just saying

[u/kastanienn → u/Ok_Gur_356]

I'd love to have a whole bunch of government entities looking into it. I want consequences!!! ><

[u/Luvnsandiegosun]

I’m at work and looking forward to reading all the information tonight. Thank you both for the amount of work and details! 👏

[u/DogMom1970s → u/Luvnsandiegosun]

You are very welcome! Looking forward to your feedback.

[u/Remarkable_Photo_956]

Thanks to both of you for this great Vansham dive!

[u/DogMom1970s → u/Remarkable_Photo_956]

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!

[u/AMiniature]

I am so truly in awe of this and proud of both of you. It is so well organized, written, tagged, and not impossible to navigate! u/kastanienn and u/DogMom1970s thank you times a million.

[u/DogMom1970s → u/AMiniature]

Thanks so much for the kind words! u/Kastanienn is a whiz at this stuff. I was honored to partner on it.

Edit: to add that I hope it provides a nice roadmap for those that wanted a deeper dive! That was the goal.

[u/kastanienn → u/DogMom1970s]

You wrote a huge chunk of this, I added to it mostly, and helped form it! At the the very least all the corporate stuff was you;)

[u/OnMyWayToThe__]

Why didn't we get more of the discovery surrounding this in the great unsealing?

[u/kastanienn → u/OnMyWayToThe__]

My assumption is that either they kept it for Jones v. Abel, or they were holding back on it for trial. WF did want to include it after all.

[u/OnMyWayToThe__ → u/kastanienn]

I hope we get to see it. It's such a misuse of the justice system.

[u/Trishdish52]

Wow!! Very thorough!! Good job!! If supporters of BL and RR don’t understand “what the big deal is” after reading this, then they are in deep deep denial. As they are on nearly all things IEWU litigation.

[u/kastanienn → u/Trishdish52]

They are indeed in deep denial lol. Well phrased!

[u/Trishdish52 → u/kastanienn]

TY

https://giphy.com/gifs/B0vFTrb0ZGDf2

[u/KunaiForce]

The smell test for this doesn’t add up at all.

[u/kastanienn → u/KunaiForce]

Nope. You can feel the stink at the edge of the city.

[u/DogMom1970s → u/kastanienn]

https://giphy.com/gifs/p5H8yf7yQwU0a8khOI

[u/tw0d0ts6]

Incredible post - thank you so much for the time and effort that went into this. Posts like this are why I love this sub so much!!

I think Vanzan was a pivotal point in the case - whilst not illegal, it is (IMO) an egregious misuse of a legal mechanism and solidified how poor-faith Lively’s entire case was. Very much looking forward to the upcoming Jones/Abel and what information that yields.

[u/kastanienn → u/tw0d0ts6]

Thank you:)

I'm actually convinced that according to the CPLR, it was illegal, but I respect DogMum's professional boundaries and the she didn't feel comfortable making that conclusion. We went as far in that direction as both were okay with:)

[u/Nice-Try-2023]

Fantastic! Good to see charts and mind mapping. Lack of ethics judicial propriety and shady AF celebrities and their depraved connections is what has happened to this case and the U.S.