“YOUR LAWYERS MESSED UP!” Did Blake Lively ACTUALLY Beat Us?! My Lawyers React

“YOUR LAWYERS MESSED UP!” Did Blake Lively ACTUALLY Beat Us?! My Lawyers React

A lot of people I respect out there just do not understand what happened in my case with Blake Lively. And a lot of people are saying, “My lawyers missed a lot of stuff.” No, they didn’t. In fact, I got them here right now to defend themselves and for me to stand by them because guess what, folks? We’re going to appeal. It’s official. We’ve filed it and we got so much to tell you guys. Welcome to Popcorn Planet. I am Andy Signor. I’m so happy to be here with my attorneys, Jack Gordon, Dave Mitchell. Fellas, welcome back to the show. I got to be honest. I know we’re all disappointed, but I’ve been more frustrated by some of the, I got to say, ignorant or just uh uneducated takes out there as to what they think happened in our order from the judge, and it’s massively frustrating. Now, I made a video. We’ve talked and I’ I’ve shared some of the thoughts, but I wanted to get you both in here, not to defend yourselves in a way, but kind of I feel like I’m I’m forced to explain ourselves as to why so many people out there are missing what’s going on. I I want to get right to it. I know you guys go on to say, but like here’s an example. From my reading of the And these are people I love, Larry. No, no disrespect. I just these are lawyers out there in the YouTube space. From the reading of the record, Andy’s lawyers missed the deadline to quash the subpoena. That’s the only reason Andy has to respond to prove it, but his business records by December 17th. It’s really a simple issue that could have been avoided very easily with a timely filing by Andy’s lawyers. Their failure to act is why Andy is where he is right now. Here’s another one from Legal Bites. I have what may be an unpopular opinion. Signor was always going to lose this because his lawyer didn’t do what they were supposed to do and ended up waving any privilege he may have had. Jack, let’s start right there with this criticism I’m seeing across the bat, which I’ve been out there responding and defending. Is that true, Jack? Did we not respond and do what we were supposed to do? No, no, no. Again, we we and we appreciate your continued trust and confidence, but you know, we’ve Here’s what happens. Even as professional athletes, when you get a bad call, right, an umpire or or or a referee makes a bad call, you can lament about it, and we always go back and we review the film and what perhaps could we have done better? Nothing. In other words, this was picture perfect lawyering. And again, it’s a very discouraging opinion and clearly we’re disappointed, but this is not unlike a bad call in a in a professional athletic competition and you can bemoone what happened or you can take action and continue to rally and fight as you’re doing. So, there are some certain procedural circumstances that I’m very disappointed in the manner in which the the court ruled. Again, I’m not disparaging of her honor, Judge Griffin. I think she’s an excellent judge, but there are some some questionable thought processes being expressed in her opinion as it relates to some procedural circumstances. And then most importantly from a substantive perspective to just make a determination as a summary matter that someone who is not publishing a magazine or otherwise considered to be part of mainstream conventional media can never be afforded the same rights as as as someone again who does enjoy those benefits. The first amendment applies remember to the lonely pamphlete as well as it does the the large socioeconomically audible voices in society. But again, with all due respect to the viewing audience, no, you guys just don’t like you don’t possess the legal sophistication to understand what happened here. This David, but I’m showing it on screen like here’s our motion to quash. If you go and check out the motion to quash it literally, which none of these people did, you would see right here, we’re calling reporters privilege day one, right Dave? And that’s really what we had to do. Correct. Can you elaborate? Right. That’s right. And additionally, we had an agreement. The rec the record doesn’t show this because it’s not part of the record. Um, we had an agreement with Blake’s lawyers to file it when we did file it. So, it wasn’t untimely filed. That argument was never even made by Blake’s lawyers. The judge raised that suante, which is another, you know, outcome determinative um, suggestion here that that this ruling wasn’t based on anything that was actually in the record. Um, which is very disappointing obviously. Yeah. again because if if there was some procedural deficiency as it relates to timeliness, then Blake Lively’s lawyers would have objected could have objected but clearly didn’t and otherwise confirmed that everything was done timely. The other issue that’s procedural in nature and Dave can probably speak more more intuitively about it. But one of the criticisms from some of these the these I don’t know how to characterize the people who are critical of what you’re doing and what you’ve done an but these people who are critical just don’t possess proper legal sophistication. Contrary to this indication that a privilege log is required, when you file a motion to quash and make a blanket assertion that privilege applies, there is no requirement to file a log. That’s the whole purpose that you file the motion to quash because sometimes even in enumerating what it is you’re in possession of. You might be un subconsciously or inadvertently providing certain disclosures that you as a journalist shouldn’t have to disclose. Right? There’s black letter law supporting that. It never came up. We never made the argument because the argument never came up during any of the case management hearings that we had, which is why it really came as a shocker that it was part of the order. It was never argued by any either side. There were a lot of promises in those hearings. And again, I’m trying to be respectful for the judge as well, but and she also acknowledged she was unfamiliar with a lot of this. So, I was actually hopeful because I’m like, “Okay, great. She’s going to really try to learn and hear it all out.” But we didn’t even get our final hearing or or a go by. You know, we were there was a lot of stuff, guys. You don’t realize in those hearings as transcripts eventually come out, you’ll see uh we we were left pretty much in the in the crapper with her seemingly having an opinion. I I feel you know that she had early on right at the beginning of the case. I mean, is that fair of me to assume? When when you say early on, I don’t know about early on, but Dave use uses a particular term outcome determinative. And it’s clear to me that this was an outcome determinative conclusion, meaning she knew where she wanted to go. She wanted to deny Popcorn Planet the same privileges of First Amendment that all journalists otherwise enjoy. So the question was how was she going to get there? So there’s a principle in law called the tipsy coachman principle or doctrine. And we see it in specifically in appellet law. When a judge reaches a conclusion but for the wrong reasons, the appellet court will still uphold that decision saying, “Well, it’s like a a taxi driver who’s drunk. He may go the wrong way. He may go up a may go the opposite direction up a one-way street, but he still gets you to where you should have been delivered to. And based upon the manner in which this order was drafted, it’s clear that the court was trying to protect itself in its conclusions because it’s based on an alternative set of of of algorithms, if you will. The court makes a determination that the journalist privilege doesn’t apply. But in that same order, however, if the court’s wrong and the journalist privilege does apply, then there are certain bases upon which Blake Lively can overcome that. But then there’s no basis from a from a evidentiary or or substantive perspective as to how Blake would otherwise have been able to overcome that privilege. the there’s a compelling interest that you have and that and that we have as you have as journalists and we have as an obligation to protect journalists to make sure information is not inadvertently disclosed and to make sure there are no hardships provided to third parties. You are not a party to this action. You don’t have a dog in this fight. This is between the wayfairer defend dance baldon and and the Blake Lively camp. Yet you are otherwise caught in the middle in in in the in the crossfire and it’s costing you a tremendous amount of money, time, energy, effort, and resources. In this case, we provided a substantial amount of affidavit. Evidence in this case, there was no evidence ever provided by Blake Lively in no uncertain terms. We demonstrated hardship. We provided invoices showing the amount of money you’re being required to spend. you even and it was beautiful because at a hearing it’s not something that we normally see but again someone of your socioeconomic sophistication given the intelligence and your ability to articulate matters we said judge go ahead and ask Andy yourself and she asked you questions and you explained it in a very straightforward fashion and specifically advised the court that you would make your financial your your own ledgers your own financial records I did that through an affidavit I didn’t talk but yeah I did it through an affidavit absolutely None of them took it. Like I thought that was the whole heart of the case which she says is I mean there I want to show this part the heart of the matter which she gets so wrong because she never understood the actual case. But to to prove what you were saying earlier there’s this whole thing uh of just where she even says even if required even if this got this even like she’s constantly one uping like well okay even if I’m wrong well there’s this then and even if that’s wrong and there’s this then but in a way where none of them are focused which for my limited experience of the raw is is not how it’s supposed to be. And and I want to spotlight I have some on screen. I know you guys can’t see it, but there there’s this whole thing about, you know, arguing about the scope and whether the materials are more convenient from another source. Rule 45 requires a party to exhaust all other source information even if required. Even if that’s required, which it is, Lively has attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the same communications from the defendant in the underlying case. When did that come testify? Everything was sealed. It’s not only not only did we introduce evidence and were we the only party that introduced evidence, they didn’t introduce anything and in fact hid behind the privilege of the the seals that were filed up in New York to shield themselves from having to discuss any evidentiary matters on their side. So, how does the judge know that that Lively attempted unsuccessfully to request these from third parties? We don’t know that because every time we brought it up at a hearing, Lively’s attorney said, “Judge, that’s sealed. They couldn’t possibly know that, you know. So, when you asked for these, just so we’re clear, as I’m looking at the docket there, you asked for those uh documents. It’s in there. Right. Right. There was a point where we were demanding some of those exhibits. What’s that called, Dave? It’s a request for judicial notice where we actually submitted to the court that that this is the status of the discovery matters up in the New York case. And and Lively’s council here said, “Well, that’s not 100% accurate, judge, but I can’t tell you anymore because it’s all under seal.” But we were What we were able to do is that’s what it’s called. We we were able to demonstrate it almost by inferentially by by purposes of by reason of deduction because they did file specific motions to compel discovery of certain items suggesting that the Baldon or the welfare defendants didn’t provide it. But Popcorn Planet was not among those things that they specifically indicated were not properly provided. So we were able to demonstrate that inferentially. We’re just disappointed from a legal perspective as follows. Guys, you know, for any decision that needs to be made, especially at a federal level, it has to be supported by both common law, meaning case law, precedent, history, other appellet courts or other courts of similar jurisdiction. And it has to be supported by legal authority or statutes. And in this particular circumstance, there is no law that supports this conclusion. So it’s interesting because the manner in which the order was drafted, the court relies upon um certain website, certain online dictionaries doesn’t rely upon any case law. The one case that is pretty much directly on point involves BuzzFeed. It’s not authoritative because it’s at the same level. It’s a southern district. There are three district federal courts in Florida. We are in the middle district. The southern district basically decided the same exact circumstance. was BuzzFeed, an online media source, eligible for the same first amendment protections as all of the conventional news agencies? And the court said yes. In our circumstances, her honor, Judge Griffin, said, “Well, I don’t really find that case very persuasive.” So, I I I I don’t think I’m going to consider it. But then she quotes portions from that case to support other parts of her of her order. The other issue is the one case that that the court does reference does not involve the journalist privilege. It invol it’s the McDermott case which involves the clergy privilege and it’s a criminal case and the clergy privilege is not provided for anywhere in federal law. It’s only based upon the Florida statute. But this court utilized that reasoning to support the decision that we couldn’t get into some of the protections otherwise set forth by the 11th circuit court appeal. Right. Well, and just to add one more thing I want to go to Dave, like another part I want to address is now they’ve delayed this trial two months, which acknowledging that they have so much evidence they still have to haven’t been able to get through and at no point did any issue of Popcorn Planet’s communication come up at any play in any of these things. So Dave, I mean, this this only helps and proves how how odd the judge’s ruling was in our case about how urgent and everything else that this ruling was. No. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that. Um, I mean, it’s just more, it just adds more to the the pyramid of information that we already have built up by way of inference that they weren’t really ever after anything that Popcorn Planet had or they believe Popcorn Planet had. Um, you know, I say the the um golden ticket there is their disclosures that they filed with the court. Uh, you’re required to file what’s called initial disclosures or rule 26 disclosures that identify all sources of information that you believe exist. Popcorn and Planet wasn’t even mentioned in that. You know, they didn’t mention it then. They didn’t mention it in the summary judgement filings. They didn’t mention it as part of a basis for continuing the trial or any of that. So, you know, it it seems pretty obvious that they guys, and with all due respect, we’re talking about this from an academic or legal scholastic perspective. This isn’t about them trying to get information. This is all about trying to squatchch or otherwise silence Popcorn Planet. It’s as simple as that because you spoke critically in a critical manner and now they’re attempting to punish you by virtue of again the the the resources they have. It I mean you guys have said it feels like they’re coming for me specifically like they have some thing out for me. It’s really absolutely personal. No, and I know you mentioned some of the folks have talked to you about you know other subpoenas that were quashed. No, there were no other subpoenas that were quashed. What happens was other subpoenas were withdrawn. This these subpoenas against you were not withdrawn. The only ones who were successfully able to convince the other side that they should withdraw was the Google subpoena. But this is the only this is the only time that a court h has in this particular circumstance has ruled to on whether or not to quash and again in this circumstance the court ruled in the negative. But I got to tell you guys again not unlike if you get a bad call uh on the football field. You can do a replay but at the end of the day you know if the play if the play on the field stands it stands and you have to continue your fight. You have to continue your struggle towards victory. What I find most might not stand right cuz we’ve filed a notice of appeal and now multiple that’s why we continue the fight. Well, first let me say this before we go into that because the what I find most encouraging is the manner in which the large journalist organizations and the wellrespected legal first amendment entities have reached out proactively to us as lawyers to you Andy as a as a journalist and have pledged their support and we can talk a little more about Amika’s Curi in a bit but the the the numbers of of of organizations from the Freedom of Press Foundation to the uh College of American Reporters to the University of Virginia Law School, Duke Law School, University of Georgia Law School, First Amendment Clinics. So many acronyms I’m forgetting which ones are which. But yes, we we’ve been inundated with those the the amount of legal scholars who agree with our position and are otherwise critical of this ruling is just it’s profoundly inspiring to me. Yeah. And let me say this, even really good judges make wrong rulings sometimes. I mean, if if trial court level judges always made the right ruling, we we wouldn’t need appeal courts. We have appellet courts. If appellet court panels always made the right ruling, we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court. The thing the fact of the matter is in this case at this level, it’s one judge making a decision. One person can be wrong sometimes. And in this case, we believe she was wrong. As you go up the the appellet scale, uh the panels get bigger. You have more people having to decide these things. And that’s why when you get to the Supreme Court level or even NB bank at the circuit court level, the decisions tend to be a little more palatable, right? And this is a circumstance. And again, we don’t want to be disparaging the judge because I I’m familiar with the judge. I think she’s made some great rulings in other cases. I have a tremendous amount of respect for her. But again, you talk about Tom Brady Tom Brady being perhaps the goat, the greatest of all time from a quarterback perspective. Once in a while, he threw he threw to the wrong guy. He threw into triple coverage, right? He threw interceptions. It was beautiful. But he shouldn’t have took back to the appeal. What’s the plan now? So, we have we’ve now filed our notice. We have, I guess what it is, 30 days or something. We are already beginning our appeal process, guys. And we’re gathering the IM amicus briefs, if you will. Uh, but Dave, you feel confident? Yes. I mean, I know we’ve talked a lot. We can’t I don’t know what you want to share, but I defer to you. I feel confident based on our conversations. Uh, but you feel there’s a lot of points here to bring up. Yeah. Let me say this. You know, usually when courts feel confident in their decisions and their rulings, they don’t do these if I was wrong about this, then there’s this, and if I’m wrong about this, then there’s this. They call that a belt and suspenders ruling. Um, I think that a lot of times to the appellet panels, that stands out as well. If you felt strong about it, usually the the court’s going to say, “I need not further address these other issues that were raised.” And especially, you’re not going to see suisponte arguments made by the judge and not by any party. So, I think that’s going to stand out to the the 11th Circuit. I feel like we have a really strong argument on the First Amendment. Um, you know, and look, appellet courts, they’re like anybody else. You know, they’re going to look at what’s the most important um issues that that are facing us. And when it comes to the Constitution, you can’t get much more important than that. So, I think they’re going to take this case seriously. Absolutely. that and that’s really the import of what we’re doing here because again the fundamental rights to which we’ve been provided by virtue of our founding fathers they never get extinguished spontaneously right it’s just they’re eroded over time and one of the concerns that I and I’ve spoken about again to a number of lawyers from a number of different states and from a number of different freedom of the press foundations and all of them you know concur this is a this is a fight that has to be had out here on the periphery to make sure that it doesn’t come into our backyards It’s it’s really a matter of fundamental rights here, guys. Well, and speaking of my rights, something that really frustrated me as my last point as we wrap up, like she kind of the judge revealed a lot of information about my in camera supposed to be confidential privilege conversations and the way she wrote it with this the the amount of length it is, it it reads nefarious. Uh and uh I know you have read the you’re the only other people who have read my logs specifically, Dave. It’s kind of frustrating how she’s now put that out there. It almost feels like it’s a a play for for Lively. Is that is that normal? I mean, she even says inc camera review reveals that responsive materials are directly relevant to material to the claim, which is absolute BS. I don’t think she understands it, but sorry. Go ahead. Yes. Yeah. I don’t know that she meant it to come off like that, Andy. I actually don’t think she did. I think that like you said a minute a few minutes ago, she said she started right off in this case saying that she’s not really that familiar with this type of of issue. And so I I think that has plagued the decisions throughout this matter that she’s looking at this through the lens of of typical civil litigation where you’re dealing with, you know, privilege claimed as to, you know, materials that experts prepare. Um, that’s not what’s going on here. And and privilege logs with regards to the reporter’s privilege are much much different than other privilege logs that attorneys typically prepare. And and for that reason, like Jack said, you have to be very careful not to disclose too much because if you put too much in the privilege log about what you’re claiming privilege to, you’ve waved it at that point. And so, we’ve been very careful about avoiding waiver. So, it, you know, it sort of stings that the judge actually found waiver in the fact that we were doing what the law says we’re required to do. But again, we never got to make these arguments at that um at any of the hearings. So, you know, I think the appellet court’s going to look at this and and take that seriously. Right. There there’s other Just one point to echo that. Sorry, and then I want you to do it, but like she we we took 3 months to provide it after nonsense. This is why I didn’t want to provide it right away either because she totally used it and revealed what was supposed to be privileged confidential correspondence. That was clearly what it was and she’s already using it against me the time parameters the court allowed us to provide it in as well. Correct. there was no errors in the court and she there was no issues in the court hearings saying that we had any problems. She gave us a delay uh happily and then we met that immediately. Anyway, it’s beyond frustrating but Jack go ahead. Final thoughts. Head scratching. Just final thoughts again. At the end of the day, if you if a decision needs to be made upon the merits, substantive merits, and it’s always much more, it’s important both on a state level and on a federal level. You’ll find this is throughout jurisdictions in the United States through, you know, all types of levels of of of of law. Matters should be resolved on substantive merits, not on procedural technicalities. And we never got to the sub substantive merits in this case, guys, because we never had an evidentiary hearing. Blake never testified, nor did she provide any affidavit or any documentation or any information. So rather this was a function of a determination being made. Again, from our perspective, we think that that determination had been made earlier on. There was an outcome that that the court felt was the proper outcome and then the court had to work very hard to find some type of authority to support the outcome to support that decision. And again, based upon the manner in which the order has been drafted, there’s really not any legal substance to support it. and that’s why we will be appealing and I’m so grateful to these two. So, please stop any weird, mean, ignorant comments. Uh, my lawyers have been bringing it. They’ve been working their butt off. Dave, shout out to you especially. I know we’ve been on the phone a lot putting some of these final pieces and and Jack, bravo. I stand by and support and I don’t feel like we’re doing anything wrong at all. And everybody trying to claim otherwise, just do more research first is where the take is. And where you can help is as we’re appealing, if you guys know of any other journalistic uh entities or big uh outreach platforms or networks that will help us spread this story, please reach out to me. You can email at presspopcorntoplanet.com. Uh you can also go to popcornplanet.com to learn more about how to share our press release or get in touch or give to our Gibson go. I’ll put those in the pin comment. Jack David, appreciate you guys so much. Uh guys, make sure you subscribe. Stay tuned. We got a lot more coming for you. And we got this battle. We are not giving up. Hit that bell for all alerts. Smash that like button, leave your comments down below, and stay tuned for more here on Popcorn Planet.

“YOUR LAWYERS MESSED UP!” Did Blake Lively ACTUALLY Beat Us?! My Lawyers React

Help Support Our Documentary “It Ends With Justice: Justin Baldoni vs Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds here: http://ItEndsWithJustice.com
Watch the Trailer here: https://youtu.be/v2OGwByAIQU?si=8HfJvuD41dNH_St0

You can also become a MEMBER or Purchase New Merch here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com – All paid members will be able to see our documentaries first and all funds raised there go toward future productions!

Thumbnail images are fairuse satire created by adobe photoshop and artificial intelligence artwork.

S U P P O R T T H I S C H A N N E L:
Join, Donate, & Follow here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com or here: https://linktr.ee/AndySignore

Popcorned Planet offers commentary on the biggest Celebrity News, Pop Culture Outrage and Viral Internet Stories from all over the internet. Created and hosted by Andy Signore (as seen on Piers Morgan Uncensored) Popcorned Planet is your one stop place Daily News, Celebrity Gossip, Drama, Hollywood insight and Pop Culture Commentary.

C O N T A C T / B U S I N E S S : PopcornedPlanetTeam@gmail.com

Or Send Packages, Toys & Fan Mail To:
Andy Signore
16350 Bruce B Downs Blvd
PO Box # 48742
Tampa FL, 33647