Well. Sorry. Had to 🤣 my Reddit algorithm put this in my way on one of my followed subs, I felt like it was a sign to take a breather.
Let's all be more like bear-bear. G'night y'all! #consentisforeveryone
I am admittedly incredibly triggered by this 😂 So I'll use Andy's video to help me out. Not gonna lie, it feels good that he's screaming about this, cause... 🤬. Video summary below!
Well. Leopard's eaten everyone's face, hasn't it...
So, Lively, the shy woman, the mother — whose kid was admittedly, at the very least, manipulated by her dad and his director buddy into repeating sexual profanities up to hundreds of times about her dad's best friend's private parts, her "uncle from another mother" so to speak — is now riding the tail wave of yet another gang r*pe victim. (Last year's Gisèle Pelicot mention at the TIME 100 gala, anyone...?)
Said woman has decided to post Instagram stories, assumed from her comfortable and safe couch, about how important it is to teach boys to accept a "no."
I think she's skipping the first step: idk... maybe teaching girls (or grown ass men, too, tbh) that SAYING 'NO' is valid, encouraged, and won't be met with retaliation...? Hmm?!
TL;DR of my TL;DR: Blake is welcome to pipe up about teaching consent the moment she demonstrates she understands and accepts what it is.
-----------
🔥 BLAKE LIVELY
📢 New PR team controversy — Right after announcing a new PR guru focused on "doing the work," Blake publicly addressed a horrifying assault/consent story — the hosts found that tone-deaf given her own track record.
😤 Andy's core argument: Blake is "the last person" who should speak on victim advocacy, saying she has zero credibility left after losing her legal battle. He accuses her of using the tragedy to rehab her image.
⚖️ Victoria Burke reference — The creator of the Me Too-related law Blake allegedly tried to hijack is featured in Andy's documentary (episode 4), and per Andy, even she's angry at Blake.
💬 Ryan Reynolds' texts — Kim cites messages (discussed in the case) where critics of the It Ends With Us campaign were apparently dismissed as immature "13-year-olds," though many were actually survivors sharing lived experience.
✂️ The editor story — Jacqueline, the film's editor (a survivor herself who cut the DV scenes), was allegedly sidelined; Blake/Ryan reportedly rejected her flashback-heavy cut and had someone else re-edit.
🙅 Bottom line from Andy: No apology was ever issued for how the movie's promotion treated survivors, and until that's acknowledged, Blake touching advocacy topics will keep getting called out — by him, every time.
🎭 ANNE HATHAWAY (short, cause less relevant)
📹 A viral red-carpet clip showed Anne bossily directing photographers ("1, 2, 3... sir, you just come in second") on the Verity press line — heavily pregnant.
💬 Online backlash called it patronizing and "Blake Lively-ish," also citing her being in five movies this year (overexposure).
✅ But: On Jimmy Fallon she owned it immediately, laughed at herself, apologized ("full cringe crouch on the inside"), and explained she was just trying to help overwhelmed photographers.
👍 Both hosts agree: nowhere near Blake territory — she took accountability, end of story. Andy even relays a Dwayne Johnson anecdote to show he relates to her bossiness.
🕵️ BONUS TIDBITS
📰 TMZ seemingly cropped Colleen Hoover out of a group photo — Andy finds it slightly satisfying karma.
💌 Andy has DM'd Colleen Hoover three times hoping for a chat, citing an unverified tip that she privately dislikes Blake.
🎟️ Constant plugs for the hosts' documentary tour (It Ends With Justice).
TL;DR:
😡 Blake inserting herself into consent advocacy = hypocritical and unacceptable.
🌸 Anne bossing photographers on a red carpet = forgivable, because she owned it and apologized.
Nem megyek bele, hogy miért tartom Reynolds-ot az egyik legnagyobb patkánynak Hollywood-ban, mert egy hétig itt ülnénk.
Viszont Kari Gerit látni, ahogy beoltja, mondván 'ehh, Kenneth Brannagh és Shakespeare közelebb áll hozzám', megmelengette most kicsit a szívemet. Hátha más is így áll hozzá, és egy kis mosolyt tudok csalni pár arcra azzal, hogy felhívom erre a cikkre a figyelmet 🤣🤣
Baahaahahaha. Found my 2 favorite snippets in Ellyn's answer🤣🤣 🍿🥤
Page 13: "$543,165.70 in fees to $10,512.5" mymymy...
I wanted to do a quick follow-up after our post yesterday which explains in excruciating detail what I personally think about the 47.1 fee documentation on Lively's side.
I think it's a very plausible comparison to look at whatever the NYT filed in their anti-SLAPP lawsuit in NY state court. It should be imo comparable attorney's fees for getting the same defamation claim dismissed at the same point in time, after the same amount of discovery, and against the same plaintiffs.
So. What exactly did they file as their documentation when asking for their attorney's fees covered?
They did have external counsel (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) as well, and their team was lead by Katherine Bolger.
But directly from the next page in the PDF, Mr. McCraw filed every single invoice they have received from DWT (I won't give all of them, cause the whole PDF is 37 pages) with both the names of Mr. McCraw and Ms. Bolger on it.
Especially in the big sum invoices, DWT also attached a breakdown of what they did, when and how long. I would specifically like to point out the level of detail that the descriptions have in each entry.
In the end, Mr. McCraw also happened to declare under penalty of perjury that the in-house hours in Exhibit H are also true and correct.
--
In comparison to this kind of documentation, what did the Lively team do?
Gottlieb: he's willing to testify about the facts under oath, if necessary. But the only thing that he mentioned in connection with what Ms. Kantner filed is that the rates are correct. As far as he knows.
Hudson: didn't even mention Kantner or Exhibit B at all.
Diana Kantner: she is neither from Willkie, nor Mannatt.
She got a bunch of invoices from Mannatt and Willkie, which - as far as I can tell - she has no possibility to double-check, if they were correct and complete, or not.
She was not part of the litigation team, she never represented Lively and as far as I can tell, she cannot declare it under penalty of perjury that these costs are indeed a true and correct copy of all the relevant work the attorneys did for Lively - like Mr. McCraw did for the New York Times.
The authentication of the 4.000+ fee entries imo would've been the job of Hudson and Gottlieb, compared to the documentation that the New York Times provided for their anti-SLAPP suit. I am VERY surprised and curious why neither of them did that, and why the only person who ever said under penalty of perjury that these are a true and correct copy of the attorney's fees is an external financial expert, who is not employed by either of the law firms working for Lively.
I only have highly speculative, and not particularly good-faith theories about why, but without any actual evidence I don't find it ethical to write them into the post.
Okay guys, I read through that pain of a Memorandum of Law for fees. Yikes. I will never get back that time in my life or the painkillers I needed for the headache after it. Anywho, here is my commentary on it together with u/DogMom1970's analysis of the never-ending money table that allegedly shows all their hard work.
Disclaimer: I am still NAL, DogMom is though, and neither of us have litigation experience, but both of us are very nosy and incredibly pissed off.
Lively bears the burden of proving the requested fees are (1) recoverable under §47.1 and (2) reasonable under Rule 54.
Before we jump in, let's all remember 2 things.
The way I read it, Liman built this decision like a sandwich.
First and foremost, he decided that the procedural limits for this motion are primarily governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). This is what tells us what Lively must file to show that she's entitled for anything.
Whatever Lively seeks to recover, she first must satisfy the ordinary requirements of a Rule 54 fee motion. Judge Liman said exactly that on Page 14 of his Order:
When I look at it from this angle, any discussion about what §47.1 allocates is secondary to the fact that Lively and her team simply must fulfill the formal prerequisites of a Rule 54 fee motion. IMHO - they failed at that.
Now that we have our focus and know what to look for, let's try to go through this sorry excuse for a waste of paper/kbites. Try to look at what team 'I can't read proper English' put together.
Pages 1-5 are similar to the nonsensical and deeply emotional ramblings of Reynolds. We then have a short break with a little bit of substance (exactly 5 rows) on page 6, so I looked up what actual facts could be connected to it. Let's refresh our memories about discovery in the cases. Discovery started on March 14th, 2025, and the relevant part for any attorney's fees motion ended on June 9th, 2025 (when the WP claims got tossed).
During this period of less than 3 months, I found seven (7!!!!) Motions to Compel on the docket:
Of the 7, there were 3 from Lively and 1 jointly from Lively and Reynolds.
And there were 3 from others:
Then comes again some more irrelevant rambling about how life is so unfair to Lively, with a bit of crying about their miserably failed Rule 11 Motion. Then, they end up rehashing some cherry-picked words from Liman's 47.1 order. Since the man himself wrote that not so long ago, I am not really sure what point they are trying to make here. Based on what people said about the oral hearings he led, he has excellent memory and doesn't seem to forget what he ruled in the past.
Therefore, I deem almost 3 pages out of the allowed 10 a completely irrelevant waste of space.
Finally, we arrive to the really, really painful part: the so-called 'legal' arguments. I swear haven't seen the English language butchered this bad since that poor lady auditioned in Bulgarian Idol with a Mariah Carey song (huge respect for her bravery btw).
To discuss this deeply upsetting part, let's refresh our knowledge about 2 basic things.
§47.1 is only relevant for the latter, as - even if we entertain Hudson and Hairplug's notion that they can ask for fees "for successfully defending themselves in the litigation" - only a prevailing defendant can collect anything based on 47.1, and Lively was the defendant in only the case "Wayfarer Studios LLC v. Lively (1:25-cv-00449)". In Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC (1:24-cv-10049), she was a plaintiff - even if she forgot this halfway through and litigated as if she were a defendant.
Parts I and II may survive, but Part III appears to suffer from an identity crisis and should be yeeted immediately.
Also, gurl(bro), you already marvelously lost that Rule 11 Motion. Let it finally R.I.P.
1. What 47.1 (b) says, without cherry picking its words (>>heavy sigh<< Here we go for the 123.576^(th) time….):
"A prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged under this section shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending themselves in the litigation, plus treble damages for any harm caused to them by the defamation action against them, in addition to punitive damages available under Section 3294 or any other relief otherwise permitted by law."
My grandma was often hard on me for repeating words (somethingsomething about talking with poor vocabulary), and whoever wrote this law was probably also raised like that. IMHO, even a 1st grader should recognize that if we have "defamation action" and "litigation" in the same sentence while establishing causality, then the word 'litigation' is pretty-fckn-obviously a placeholder for the 'defamation action' mentioned in the previous row (to avoid unnecessary repetition). And just in case this would not be obvious, in the next sentence, the treble and punitive damages are again referenced in connection with ‘defamation claim.’
I don't really want to get into a Kindergarten-level English debate, so let's see instead how Liman phrased his decision.
SPOILER ALERT: The word 'defamation' was mentioned 73 times! Here is a small sample:
He did not once used the term "litigation defendant". It was always only ‘defamation defendant.’ And that's all I'm going to spend on the kindergarten-level English assignment when a US federal judge already pretty ‘effin clearly wrote about it in a 47-page order.
For a fun and light read, I highly recommend the 192-page document from the Federal Judicial Center entitled Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee Litigation. It describes in excruciating detail how the 'lodestar' method functions, but most importantly, what formal and substantial conditions the filings must fulfill.
"In Hensley v. Eckerhart, the Supreme Court established that, in fee shifting cases, the basis of a fee award is the “lodestar”—the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the applicable hourly market rate for legal services."
In summary, Lively claims that her attorney's rates are reasonable.
Let's see what formal requirements Lively needed to fulfill to show that she’s entitled to attorney’s fees under a Rule 54 motion. The Federal Judicial Center writes about this. A bit challenging is, though, that the whole document assumes that a prevailing party is a plaintiff, so it's a bit hard to translate it into the case, when a defendant is considered as a prevailing party. I shall try my best still, to make sense of it.
Two Supreme Court cases addressed the definition and composition of attorneys’ fees. First, the one that says what does count into attorney's fees:
And then one that says what does not count:
a) Downward Adjustments
Limited Success:
In Hensley, the Supreme Court did not limit downward adjustments in attorneys’ fees for incomplete success to situations involving unrelated claims
b) Upward Adjustments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, I wouldn’t even bother starting with a response to Lively’s arguments. My whole reaction could be summed up with “Bruh… WUT?!”
Instead, I would begin by laying out my arguments for Liman as if I am just making arguments for him. Maybe give one short statement like a German lawyer would do, at the beginning: “Die Argumente gehen im vorliegenden Fall an der Sache vorbei.“ (Translation: The arguments for the present case are beside the point.). This just basically shows that we read it, and they are not even worth it to mention them – like at all.
If I were to write WP’s answer, I would fundamentally start arguing along these 2 main points:
Pasting together a spreadsheet based on allegedly existing invoices and then having some random “expert” (not an attorney) file the spreadsheet with the court is not the same as actually providing contemporaneous evidence. This is arguably hearsay. (See LGA’s commentary on that)
If the court decides that the documents provide sufficient evidence about the performed work, Lively is still not entitled to barely any attorney's fees, since (wait for it!!!!):
Under Hensley and Farrar, the degree of litigation success remains relevant to determining a reasonable fee award. To be more precise: if fee awards are, under certain circumstances, supposed to reflect the degree of litigation success, then Lively's success was limited.
In her case, she didn't just recover low damages (reminder: she settled her case for $0). In fact, she never proved any damages caused by the alleged defamation (or any other claim for that matter) brought by the Wayfarer Parties and only achieved 'technical' success on her MTD. Specifically:
Therefore: even if she is technically the prevailing defendant under § 47.1, the degree of success may not justify the sweeping fee request.
Only after making points 1 & 2 above, I would maybe write max. half a page about Lively's arguments claiming that they can collect for more, than just the defamation claim. Liman seemed to have been pretty particular about §47.1 applying to defamation defendants, since he used this phrase 14 times in his ruling. Once I argued fees should be limited to the defense of the defamation claim against her, only then I would begin to decimate that expert report of 162 pages.
-
And this is where u/DogMom1970s will take over the podium!
-
One of the biggest problems with Lively’s §47.1 fee request is that it appears to sweep in work far beyond what is statutorily authorized.
Fee-shifting statutes are not blank checks!!!!
The fee applicant (Lively) bears the burden of demonstrating that the reimbursable fees and costs were reasonably expended on work that is recoverable.
Billing records alone do not satisfy that burden. The application must provide the Court with enough information to determine that (1) the work falls within the scope of the applicable fee-shifting statute, (2) was reasonably necessary and (3) is adequately documented.
Judge Liman's order directing Lively to submit her fee application was intended to provide the Court with that information. He did not ask for huge stack of time entries (that clearly have been copied and pasted into a new document). Likewise, the Federal Judicial Center's Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee Litigation explains that fee petitions should permit meaningful judicial review by (1) identifying the work performed, (2) establishing that it is compensable and (3) separating recoverable work from nonrecoverable work where necessary.
The Second Circuit applies the same principles. Under this Circuit’s precedent, Lively bears the burden of documenting the hours claimed with sufficient specificity. Courts routinely reduce or deny fee requests where the records are vague, duplicative, inadequately documented or fail to distinguish between compensable and non-compensable work.
Looking through the billing records supplied by Lively’s team, several categories immediately raise legitimate questions on whether this burden was satisfied.
Perhaps the most significant issue in the fee request is the enormous amount of attorney time devoted to Rule 11.
The invoices contain months of attorney time devoted to researching, drafting, revising, cite-checking and litigating Rule 11 issues, together with numerous internal meetings concerning the sanctions motion.
Sample of Time Entries that Reference Rule 11 Work (excerpt from the sheet, Exhibit B, that Lively filed, and u/Mysterio623 converted into an Excel file)
There are approximately 260 references to "Rule 11."
The problem is that Rule 11 was litigated as a separate sanctions motion. Judge Liman already devoted substantial attention to that motion and ultimately granted it in part and denied it in part. The fee application does not explain why the extensive body of Rule 11 work is recoverable under a separate statutory fee-shifting provision.
This raises an obvious question: If Rule 11 has already been litigated as a standalone sanctions motion, to what extent, if any, is the same work recoverable under §47.1?
There might be factual overlap between Rule 11 and §47.1, but factual overlap alone does not establish that every hour devoted to Rule 11 is recoverable under a different fee-shifting statute. Lively still bears the burden of identifying which work was reasonably incurred in pursuing recoverable §47.1 relief and which was devoted to the separate sanctions proceeding.
Wayfarer should argue that Lively has not carried her burden of demonstrating which Rule 11 hours are recoverable under §47.1, rather than simply including the entire body of Rule 11 work in the fee request.
Even setting Rule 11 aside, the billing records include substantial categories of work that are not self-evidently recoverable under §47.1. That does not necessarily mean the work is unrecoverable. It means Lively bears the burden of demonstrating why those categories fall within the statute's scope, and the application frequently leaves that question unanswered.
Among the entries are references to:
Sample of Time Entries that Reference Unspecified Discovery Activities
These entries reflect work that is not facially identifiable as defending the defamation claims.
Some of this work may involve facts that overlap with the retaliation claims, and may have been necessary, but factual overlap does not automatically transform every litigation task into something that’s recoverable under §47.1 (a narrowly targeted fee-shifting statute).
Whether some or all of this work is ultimately recoverable is not the point. The point is that the application gives the Court little basis to distinguish recoverable hours from broader litigation activity, even though Lively bears that burden.
One feature of the Wilkie billing entries deserves separate attention.
According to the filings, more than $3.3 million of Wilkie's requested fees fall within a category labeled "Fees Related to Both Matters."
That description leaves several important questions unanswered:
Sample of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP “Both Matters” Time Entries
The label "Both Matters" answers almost none of the questions the Court must resolve in determining what fees are recoverable by Lively under §47.1.
Fee shifting compensates a prevailing party for recoverable work performed on that party's behalf, not the law firm’s entire client roster. It does not automatically authorize recovery simply because another different client had aligned interests or because Lively may have benefited from the work.
This issue becomes more significant when viewed alongside the supporting declarations, which describe Wilkie's role somewhat differently. Hudson characterizes the firm's work as representation of Lively, while Gottlieb's declaration uses broader language that appears to encompass work for Lively, Reynolds and related matters. Even if those descriptions are not inconsistent, they highlight the need for Lively to demonstrate which fees were actually incurred on her behalf and are recoverable under § 47.1, rather than asking the Court to assume that all joint work is compensable. Lively is the only party entitled to recovery under §47.1.
The burden therefore rests with Lively to demonstrate that these joint fees were:
Without that showing, the Court is effectively being asked to assume that all joint work is recoverable simply because Lively seeks reimbursement. Fee petitions require more.
The fee request also raises questions regarding expert work.
Take Professor Ashlee Humphreys. According to her expert report, Professor Humphreys was retained as a ‘digital reputation expert’ to analyze the impact of the alleged online retaliation campaign on Ms. Lively's reputation. However, the billing records include entries describing work such as "47.1 draft research."
Sample of Time Entries for Expert Witness Fees
Experts routinely work closely with counsel. The issue is not that the work occurred. The issue is whether the application demonstrates that the requested expert fees are recoverable under §47.1 and provides the Court with enough information to evaluate that request.
The billing descriptions do not answer that question, and the burden remains on Lively to demonstrate that they do.
The invoices also contain entries for tasks such as:
Sample of Time Entries Reflecting Administrative, Organizational or Potentially Delegable Tasks (excerpt from the sheet, Exhibit B, that Lively filed, and u/ Mysterio623 converted into an Excel file)
Many of these tasks are essential to litigation, and attorneys often perform them. However, courts evaluating fee petitions distinguish between work requiring legal judgment by attorneys and work that is administrative or clerical in nature.
The focus is not who performed the task. It is the nature of the task itself and questions whether the work was legally necessary.
Whether these entries ultimately warrant a reduction will depend on their context. The difficulty is that the application often provides too little context for the Court to determine whether attorney-level billing rates are justified.
The billing records also reflect numerous attorneys working simultaneously on the same projects.
Many entries show multiple lawyers:
Complex litigation often requires large teams. That said, fee-shifting statutes do not automatically require the opposing party to pay for every staffing decision made by counsel.
The question is not whether multiple attorneys worked on the case. The question is whether the application demonstrates that the staffing reflected reasonable billing judgment.
The Second Circuit has reduced fee requests where work is duplicative, inefficient or reflects unnecessary overstaffing.
Meaningful judicial review depends on billing entries that describe the work performed with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the time was reasonably expended and is recoverable under the applicable fee-shifting statute.
Throughout the billing records, however, numerous entries rely on generalized descriptions such as:
Standing alone, these descriptions reveal very little about what counsel actually did. They do not identify the underlying issue, the motion or claim involved, the purpose of the work or whether the task related to compensable §47.1 work as opposed to broader litigation activity.
As a result, the Court is often left unable to determine whether the hours were:
The burden of providing sufficiently detailed billing records rests with Lively, not the Court. To the extent the billing descriptions fail to permit meaningful review, reductions are an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion.
A handful of billing entries warrant separate discussion.
The billing records contain thousands of entries. Most appear routine, even if Wayfarer ultimately disputes whether they are recoverable. A handful, however, stand out because they illustrate why the Court cannot simply accept the fee request at face value.
Researching Potential Perjury
Among the thousands of billing entries, one stands out. Counsel billed time to research “perjury” in connection with the CRD complaint and statements made to state agencies.
Standing alone, the entry proves very little. It does, however, raise a question relevant to this fee application. If counsel devoted time to evaluating potential exposure arising from the CRD complaint itself, Lively should explain why that work is recoverable under §47.1.
Like many other entries discussed above, this billing description appears directed toward issues collateral to defending the defamation claims, reinforcing the broader concern that the application sweeps beyond the statute's intended scope.
Sanctions Work Involving Natasha Heath
Another entry reflects attorney time devoted to sanctions work concerning Jamey Heath's birth video.
Whether that motion was appropriate is not the issue here. The relevant question is much narrower: why should sanctions work concerning discovery disputes and evidentiary issues surrounding the Heath video be compensable under a fee-shifting statute directed at defending the defamation claims?
This entry again illustrates the broader concern running throughout the application. Like the Rule 11 entries discussed above, this billing entry appears directed toward collateral sanctions issues without explaining why that work falls within the limited fee-shifting authorized by §47.1.
The “XX” Entries
Another series of entries presents a different problem.
Numerous billing descriptions refer only to “XX” (there are nearly 200 references!!) leaving both the Court and Wayfarer unable to determine what matter, individual or project those entries concern. One entry even references research regarding preventing the public disclosure of “XX,” while another discusses strategy concerning disclosure of texts involving “XX.”
Whether the redactions were appropriate is a separate issue. The problem here is different. Lively seeks reimbursement for these fees while simultaneously withholding information necessary to evaluate whether the work is recoverable under §47.1.
The burden rests with Lively to demonstrate entitlement to the requested fees, not with the Court to speculate about what “XX” might mean. Where material portions of the billing descriptions are redacted, the Court cannot meaningfully determine whether the work is compensable under §47.1.
Hasn't really mastered the usage of the blue kiddy pool yet. 🤣
Hey everyone, I want to switch away from ChatGPT, for a million reasons. Tried the Proton AI one already, but it was agreeing too much on everything. My current usage of ChatGPT mostly covers:
Most important is the mental health aspect. I need an AI that gently pushes back and/or helps untangle emotional flashbacks while in it, and ChatGPT is rather good at it by now.
Anyone has experience with such usage of LeChat/Vibe? Could it be a good alternative? Or if it's been answered already somewhere, give me the link to the post?
Thank you!
Edit: not really sure what people are upset about, but to avoid further unnecessary judging, my AI usage is complementary to therapy and psychiatric help. Known and accepted both by my therapist and psychiatrist, not a substitute for them.
Thank you for the people who constructively replied to my question. 🙏🏻
^(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:
Whatever label people prefer, the reason this issue refuses to die is simple:
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.
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 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.
________________________________
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:
________________________________
⚠️ 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.
________________________________
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.
________________________________
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:
Readers interested in a deeper discussion of Doe lawsuits may find content creator Kassidy’s video helpful.
Across these authorities, several recurring themes emerge:
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.
________________________________
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:
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.
________________________________
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:
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.
________________________________
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:
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:
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?
________________________________
The Vanzan discovery fight was never simply about curiosity. The parties seeking discovery were attempting to understand:
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.
________________________________
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:
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.
________________________________
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."
________________________________
For readers interested in forming their own conclusions, the following Reddit posts provide additional context, filings, timelines and analysis.
The Actual Vanzan Subpoena
Timeline and Background
Bumpus and Related Authorities
Why CPLR 1024 Matters
Vanzan v. Does Analysis
Jones v. Does vs. Vanzan v. Does – Failures at applying CPLR 1024
Motion to Compel and Discovery Disputes
Corporate Structure and Control Theories
Jones v. Abel Privacy Discussion
Early Corporate Housekeeping Analysis
Alter Ego / Veil Piercing Discussions – Comments from u/DogMom1970s
**Readers are encouraged to review these materials and draw their own conclusions**
He's my loved to death, complicated and can't cope with big feelz boi, almost 5 now. He hates it, when I have my phone in my hand during walkies (so I don't, it stays in my backpack for emergencies), but today it took a bit longer for a stranger dog to pass us in safe distance, so I thought 'whatthehell, let's try to snap a pic, while we wait'. And he tolerated the first try 🥹 only body slammed me, when I got cocky and tried to make a second one 🤣
* AS A MOTION. He said one can bring it as a counterclaim, and get all those awarded after a proper fact finding procedure (via litigation). I miswrote the title. And obligatory: imo, NAL.
I am currently still reading the decision, and I'm first and most of all very unhappy that Lively got anything. But I wanted to carve this small part out.
For starters, I can follow Liman's logic, I'm sorry. Based on the statute (and we all know how well it was written), he had to award fees. He extensively talked about how it differs from anti-SLAPP motions (which also reads logical), and why he eventually decided on making this ruling. And it makes sense.
But.
He basicaly ruled that by Lively bringing this motion in federal court, under Rule 54, he cannot award anything more, than attorney's fees, as this kind of motion simply does not award treble and punitive damages. Period. No matter how 47.1 says it.
So, as a precedent, it's actually not so great for fraudsters, cause at best, they get some attorney's fees back - but no big cash cow in federal court, cause the procedure is just not given for it. Which is good, and it heavily restrains the pool where fraudsters could even start thinking about abusing 47.1.
So, back to California to deal with it.
Disclaimer: I am not diagnosing anyone of anything. Just like I'm not a lawyer, I'm also not a psychiatrist.
I will never say any person in this saga must have (a) specific Cluster B personality disorder(s), or other condition(s). There's a lot of (gender) bias and misinformation about them, and I don't want to further them like that. What I do know from personal experience is that people can behave highly narcissistic, and still not fulfill the criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder diagnosis.
However... as I said I know people with strong narcissistic traits (have made posts and comments about it along the way already), and I'm gonna be honest, the absolute diabolical way Lively and/or people around her are now just bulldozing anyone that come in their ways who dare to try to resist the takeover of whatever results they already put together themselves, has far exceeded anything I've ever personally experienced. The current trigger was how they dealt with Burke, and I'm just floored. Completely floored.
I don't think anyone's a super sophisticated manipulator in this saga, but some people do seem to know how to apply very effective high pressure in a very short time, after mapping the biggest weak spots of the people who happen to have things they want for themselves. Personally, that's not what I call 'sophisticated manipulation', but it's definitely been effective for a long time, apparently.
This article gives a very good introduction into what the beginning of such mechanisms can look like, and why it's not that easy to spot them in time when it starts happening to us. It also fits the theories about how things got taken over on several fronts. Showing interest, wanting to participate, first just constructive small criticism, then slowly taking over the original ideas, starting to sell it as their owns and eventually completely pushing the original creator out of anything that still has anything to do with their own work and results.
In my opinion, the described processes fit rather well to both what happened to Baldoni/WF as well as Burke.
I have a lot of empathy for everyone who had to go through the rude awakening of realizing they got very, very badly violated predominantly on an intellectual, but also heavily on an emotional level, and the work of their lives got taken over and violently robbed from them. Now they can slowly claw their way back to where they were before this all went down, already damaged and being attacked on all fronts. Both 'how could they let it happen in the first place', 'how did they not see it in time', but also 'how dare they not behave in hindsight as someone who should've seen the manipulation and violation right from the start', making it their fault for falling for the manipulation.
A lot of nuance about what this kind of manipulation does to people is getting lost in translation, and I feel very uneasy about this, obviously being someone who also has been highly manipulated by similar people in the past, catching up only decades later, realizing what I have done according to said people's bidding. While I absolutely think accountability is part of healing, there's a boundary of how far I'm willing to go to atone for sh*t that wasn't my fault in the first place, but has led to secondary decisions on my part that were absolutely in my control.
What I think is important to know is that this kind of overtake is not obvious for a long time after it already starts, and at best we just feel like something is off, but can't quite put our fingers on it. It's like a dissonance, a bad vibe that you just can't shake, but on the surface these people just seem to be someone who are super interested and enthusiastic about something that's very important to you. And when you try to talk to people about your bad feelings, they look at you like you have 2 heads, and why are you even complaining when someone's so supportive and excited for you. 'Isn’t this what you always wanted...?'
The article gives very good examples of how such seemingly harmless situations eventually evolve into something incredibly toxic. By the time we realize we were screwed over, it's usually too late to stop it, and now it's just an uphill battle to get ownership back over our own narrative, fix the mistakes we also were drawn to make in some way by someone who originally had literally nothing to do with the positive results we made and got hijacked by them. And add to it, that we also should fix it without potentially causing even more damage to ourselves or whoever we wronged in the process. Some of those people have all moved on by the time we realized what we did, and don't ever want to be reminded of the things that hurt them in the first place.
We can only hope we will eventually be able to get our own narrative and dignity back from the people who just saw the attention, empathy, support we received for being authentic and god forbid successful in something, and they got greedy.
____________________________________________________________________
Here's the text of the article from Shahida Arabi, MA, but be a gem, and give them a click for some traffic;)
We’ve all heard the common saying that “imitation” is the highest form of flattery. Yet this is a denial, invalidation and dismissal of the exploitative and abusive nature of what I call psychological identity theft — an exploitative and manipulative method to extract and replicate the traits, characteristics, words, ideas, dreams, goals, life stories, fashion, interests, hobbies, lifestyle, and appearance of another individual to gain resources, popularity, clout, recognition, opportunities, ego boosts or the thrill of conning others for profit and pleasure.
Narcissists and psychopaths engage in psychological identity theft in numerous ways. At first, in the context of relationships or friendships during the love bombing stage, they may mirror your hobbies, interests, and personality to morph into your “soulmate.” However, they begin to attack and devalue the very traits they envy and covet in you.
They then begin to adopt the same traits, mannerisms, gestures, words, ideas, style, and achievements that make you unique in an effort to erode your sense of self and take credit for your organic gifts, positive qualities, and accomplishments. They try to “become” who you are even though they cannot truly embody your authentic self — they become distorted “copies,” echoing and parroting you from afar.
As a researcher, thousands of survivors of narcissistic and psychopathic partners, friends, family members, and coworkers have expressed to me that they feel abused and violated by this type of malignant mimicry. They have disclosed to me that they feel deeply violated by the psychological identity theft they’ve experienced by narcissistic and psychopathic individuals.
As survivors tell me, it can feel like getting “devoured” or even erased by the manipulative individual – a person who seems to follow your every move, mimicking and mirroring whatever they see to make themselves appear more interesting and palatable to other people around them while “wearing” your personality.
In these cases, such emotional abuse can also escalate into more dangerous forms of alienation, stalking, harassment, smear campaigns, intellectual property theft, and in extreme cases, assault and murder.
Below, you will find examples of what this identity theft can look like across various contexts. These examples highlight common scenarios based on thousands of survivor accounts, but psychological identity theft can cover a wider variety of transgressions not included on this list.
Melissa began noticing that one of her co-workers, Brenda, would constantly bring up ideas she had disclosed to her during one-on-one conversations at staff meetings, taking credit for these ideas in front of others. Brenda had also adopted the way Melissa spoke, going so far as to frequently use the same gestures, tone, and word-for-word phrases as her. She began dressing like Melissa and even began expressing interest in topics she had never had any prior interest nor expertise in that she knew Melissa was genuinely passionate about. Melissa was thoroughly creeped out by this behavior, especially when Brenda plagiarized a copy of her proposal before another staff meeting and tried to pass it off as her own.
Linda felt disturbed by the attention-seeking antics of her next-door neighbor, Laura. Laura had seemed kind and pleasant in the beginning but was now infiltrating her life in invasive ways she did not feel comfortable with. She would regularly invite herself over to Linda’s house even when she wasn’t invited to play with Linda’s kids and even tried to flirt with Linda’s husband, going out of her way to perform favors for him that he never asked for. It was almost like she was trying to be a mother to Linda’s kids and her husband’s “new” wife. Linda noticed that Laura started wearing the same jewelry as her and even dyed her hair the same color as Linda’s platinum blonde hair.
At first, Linda thought these “interesting” new changes was just a coincidence. However, as time went by, she began to realize that Laura was not just stealing her sense of style, she was beginning to talk like Linda and even take on her personality traits, hobbies, and interests. She had been telling their other neighbors Linda’s stories of vacations and travels that she herself never went on, pretending these stories were her own. She even began imitating her career. Linda was a therapist and professor and suddenly Laura was acting like she was a mental health expert, even though she did not have a college degree let alone a career like Linda’s. She wanted to be Linda and take over her life.
Jennifer was disturbed to find out that her ex, Steven, had been going around repeating a traumatic life story from her childhood and using it as his own to garner sympathy from potential dating partners and friends.
When she spoke to his friends and family, they told her that not only had he been repeating this life story, he seemed to have taken on facets of Jennifer’s identity.
For example, Steven was suddenly pretending to be passionate about animal rights activism and jiu-jitsu, both passions Jennifer had that she had enthusiastically told Steven about during their relationship. Yet Steven never seemed all that interested in these passions until he could pass them off as his own and pretend to be more fascinating, athletic, and compassionate to the people he wanted to impress. He had even begun regurgitating the same jokes Jennifer had told him. Jennifer had also began going to school to become a veterinarian, a dream she had also disclosed to Steven about many times and Steven was now also pretending he was applying to veterinary school, telling his family about his newfound passion about becoming a vet.
This platitude of “imitation is flattery” is akin to telling the victim of a robbery, “You should be flattered they stole some of your hard-earned savings from you! They wanted what you have and now can pretend it is their own while benefiting from it! Now they’re off telling everyone that they worked hard for money they stole. Isn’t that a compliment?”
Let’s be clear: It is not flattering to have someone take on your personality, steal your words, labor, work, life stories, goals, dreams or sense of style to the extent narcissistic and psychopathic individuals do, especially when they are not giving you due credit or profiting off something they did not create.
Through psychological identity theft and erosion, manipulators and pathological con artists can try to siphon the same attention from people they would not otherwise get by “becoming” you.
In spiritual communities, they refer to this as attempted “destiny swapping,” but we can be more optimistic and say that your destiny can never be stolen. However, your sense of joy and fulfillment, as well as your mental health, can be temporarily disrupted when encountering such manipulative individuals.
They try to mimic talents and skills they do not possess, embody the energy that makes you unique and special, pursue the hobbies and interests that they have no genuine interest in and reap the benefits of a life they did not live and the labor or creativity they did not undertake. This is what makes identity theft such a disorienting and violating experience for so many.
Survivors of this insidious manipulation tactic often have to take time and space to recover from this type of psychological violence and reclaim their identity and mental health after such an experience. They may also pursue legal avenues of justice to combat stalking, harassment, or intellectual property theft arising in these cases to gain compensation for what they have been subjected to. Building a strong support network is also essential.
If you’ve been the victim of psychological identity theft and erosion, it’s important to seek support from a trained professional who is well-versed in narcissistic manipulation tactics and empathic to your needs. You may need more specialized trauma therapies such as EMDR, DBT, or somatic therapies to process the traumatic intrusive memories that may have caused you to feel fragmented in your own identity after this experience and to reclaim your power in both your body and mind.
You must also reconnect to what makes you unique and special, and take the steps to reclaim ownership over what is rightfully yours. You are the one who deserves to reap the benefits of your life, skills, and personality – not a distorted copy.
Some enablers in society may gaslight you about this phenomenon, but it is important to resist this gaslighting.
Psychological identity theft isn’t normal nor should it be encouraged. It is a blatant violation of privacy and of one’s basic rights.
We should not be teaching people to chronically imitate others or behave like it is a compliment. Adopting the same hobbies, passions and interests in an attempt to seem fascinating to other people when you are not authentically interested in these pursuits is an insult to the person who is genuinely interested in them and has spent years of labor building expert knowledge and insight in these areas. Drawing general inspiration and diligently giving due credit to sources is one thing, plagiarizing and closely paraphrasing one’s unique expressions is another. Passing off the life stories of others as your own is downright exploitative and violating. Sharing mutual dreams organically is different from suddenly pursuing a dream you never had just to get “bragging” rights and one-up someone you’re envious of. You cannot covet what others have when you have not done the work or do not possess the natural qualities to be who they are.
So, everyone, I am currently watching the video myself, but for everyone asking if Professor Victoria Burke's IG post about condemning Lively for using 47.1 in the wrong way is real - it seems to be.
Victoria Burke is the person who started 47.1, or the Speak Your Truth Act. She seems to really take it seriously, is doing a lot of advocacy work and pro bono service in employment law.
Based on the stuff I saw about her, I have a lot of respect for her, and I can imagine how bad it must feel to see something that was supposed to help victims, be misused like this.
Now I shall go and finish the video itself haha
Okay, I'm done now.
Okay. Holy fck. So, Lively’s lawyers basically just emailed Burke saying (paraphrased) 'we're taking this law on a national spin, you cool with that? Good, thx'. And Burke was just sitting there, saying 'öhm, I've been working on this for years, introduced it to 4 states already, in the works for 15 more, dafuq...?' (also paraphrased, obv.). She says she deliberately wanted to keep it toned down, cause like that they'd have less opposition to it. And she was worried that Lively would just use it for PR, and not for actual advocacy for victims (this woman is not stupid). And she had no plans to turn her bill into the MET gala 😂😂😂
They just fuckin wrote back 'thank you for your perspective', and ran with it anyway, leaving Burke completely out of it, talking to advocacy groups behind her back etc. 🤯
THE FCKN AUDACITY, JESUS. Burke really sounds livid, kinda shaky voice, like she's pushing down anger. I can 100% understand that.
I may not agree with every corner of this law and how it's gotten written, but I do have a lot of respect for her and her principles, after hearing this interview.
Edit: you find the follow up video here. Thx u/araf1!
This one deserves its own post. WHAT'S HAPPENING?! SOMEONE EXPLAAAIIINN, pretty please. 😬😂
So, apparently Kevin Fritz said they were reading Reddit the most out of all the social media sites. Besides watching LGA and NAG videos.
Therefore, with the support of the OP of the linked post, I hereby 'officially' request the WP lawyers to do an AMA here, and answer as many of our questions as they feel comfortable with, and as detailed as they feel comfortable with! I, for one, am dyyyying to know how much we helped, and if there was anything new or 'we haven’t thought of that, good point!' out of what we blabbered here 😂
Ohmy, Babcock, the uncrowned king of legal precision and sass - is Lively finally gonna be forced to go to California and ask for fees there, if she wants to get anything out of 47.1? And explain it to an actual California court why tf she filed that California Civil Rights Department complaint (via her lawyer, and not as a poor, clueless employee not knowing any better) about alleged New Jersey conduct happening to a New York city resident? Allegedly partially done by Texas entities she never even met?! 👀
Here are my favorite snippets from the last filing all the way from Texas.
So, should this 47.1 motion be thrown out, and just like Leslie's anti-SLAPP 'motion' be brought in a state court? And since it's a California law, make its merry way to Cali?
Apparently, the NYT lawyers are the only ones who at the very least know where to file a lawsuit lol...
ROFL gurl, keep dreaming. Noone wants to touch you even with a 10-foot pole… (I know relationship was meant here in the legal sense, but I am definitely sensing a dig buried between the words haha). Also, very, very good point! The communication was the New York Times article, not the CRD itself. That was not made in or from California. BAAHAHAHAH
Just a bit more hammering with the truth. I played around with the colors to really show the worsening of this whole argument chain layer by layer xD
Obligatory footnote, a bit of ELI5, so hopefully Hudson and Gottlieb will also understand what happened. In case the previous 10 pages were not enough.
Get yo ass to California, if you wanna hammer people with a California statute!
Gurl, stop being a coward, get in the ring and fight it out like someone with a spine. You don't get to throw a tantrum, demanding everyone says poor you and give you candies in front of the other kids, just cause you're stomping the hardest. Even though you caused this whole mess (or your pal Jones, but that's still undecided in SDNY)
TLDR for Hudson and Gottlieb, in case it's still not crystal clear. Color-coded for easier understanding, or better visuals for people in the back.
Interesting!
Not even Lively is denying that she did not plead her allegations as if they were in any way different based on who it was against. Big mistake that started all the way back in her CRD complaint (not to confuse with the attached 60 pages description that came with it).
Yes. 100% this.
Are we going back to SDNY? XD or can they sue her in California, if she's so hellbent on using California law??
ROFL. Nice try bro (and gal)
As always, this filing was such a delight to read. Does really good for the heart and the brain cells. Finally someone who knows how to argue against this BS. I feel like WP could've also argued some of these, especially that the communication about the alleged conduct, that was the basis for the defamation case, stems from New York, and not from freakin' California!!
The tectonic plates strike again.
Lauren is my common sense, my angel when I need some help with regulation, cause I'm deeply, deeply triggered by the aggressive gaslighting from Lively’s camp. Reminds me of the situations where I almost finally got through to my narc parent with logic, but then they realized what was happening, and then the rage flipped on because how dare I be right. Then the verbal smackdown, until I completely, unconditionally surrendered, so their soul could be at peace again.
Anywho. I'm taking Lively’s fake-ass, lying, manipulative victory lap a lot harder than I expected lol. Listening to Lauren say how she's so tired by now by their BS was surprisingly helpful.
What I find ironic is that even Heard back in 2022 managed to get through her lawsuit, even though it was even televised, and we were all sitting at home in lockdown having nothing better to do, than watch that trial. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Amber Heard still had more spine, than Plantation Khaleesi and her bunch of scheming, manipulating lawyers. And when it was all over, Heard released a statement how she fought until the end for survivors, and then disappeared in Spain (kinda). She may have been imo a fraud and a manipulative POS, but she actually walked the whole mile. I have never in a million year thought that I will despise someone even more, than Heard back then, but here we are.
I guess I was wrong.
So, Lively is basically throwing 47.1 around, like we did back in the early 2000s in msn messenger using shortcuts, verbally slapping our friends in the face with a stinky carp.
What now, you ask? We know she filed a 47.1 claim against WP without an actual California-relevant harassment claim. Apparently, now she filed one against Wallace as well, in Texas, still without an actual California-relevant harassment claim. XDXDXD
Just as an intro to my vent-round: 47.1 is about a specific situation. Namely, it protects:
Section 47 defines what communication falls under the scope of such a privileged publication, as follows:
I don't know how much the CCRD can be called a "law enforcement agency", it does enforce civil laws in California though. So there's at least that.
In any way, I don't get this. It has already been ruled that Lively's underlying grievances had no sufficient nexus to California to invoke California laws. So, what now? How is 47.1 even in question anymore at all? Like WP wrote, now anyone, in the whole United States, from Idaho to Alaska, when they file a CRD complaint in California, regardless of how much basis they have to do it, can now invoke 47.1??!
Make it make sense.
This is how she starts the complaint, now against Wallace (for dramatic reasons, I made my comments into the screenshots of her complaint this time):
She continues, on page 7
Page 8
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
If we wanna talk specific factual allegations, the CRD complaint puts everyone under one umbrella, and alleges both SH and retaliation against all respondents and co-respondents. She only filed one CRD complaint (which was not the way to go for employers and non-employers, and if she wanted to make different allegations against separate groups of (co-)respondents. Here, for reminder, her amended CRD):
Wallace never even met her. And Street Relations Inc. is a legal entity.
Page 15
Page 15
I can't find any case law they bring, where a defendant, who filed a report about conduct that did not have sufficient nexus to California, would've prevailed on a fee-shifting claim. The case they cite was also against a California based plaintiff, and not from outside the state.
I am unsure about how the fact that her whole CRD complaint and, consequently, her whole SDNY lawsuit rests on stuff that she did not even plead as happening in or around California, changes this whole argument chain. Because from where I'm standing, nothing ever happened in California, other than her running to the other end of the U.S. from where the actual alleged conduct happened (New Jersey) and making a legal paper trail to make her NYT article regarding sexual harassment and retaliation against people who she, partially, never even met.
And here's what I don't get in general. IF she is so hellbent on getting damages based on 47.1 - why isn't she filing these lawsuits in California? She's literally running around in far away jurisdictions (SDNY, Texas) to hammer people with California law. Is there a rule that 47.1 has to be invoked in the court where the original defamation claims were filed, or what am I missing? It's like she's avoiding the exact state's courts whose laws she's so hellbent on using, in every possible way she can find. WHY?!
