Judge Liman Tries to Make Heads or Tails Out of Blake's 47.1 Request. Wayfarer v Blake Lively

Añadido: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Well, hello.

[00:00:04]How are you guys? What in the nonsense is happening here? I see from you guys comments, you feel like I do. I was just like, what in the world? I I got back from Munich today. Actually came in. I I saw it. I printed it. I read it. I was like, what? I told my husband, I need a nap. And so I just I slept for like four or five hours and and then I I got back into it and I'm like this isn't really better, but let's let's do what we can do. And the only thing that I can say with absolute confidence is that I don't think anybody, including both parties and this judge, knows what the heck to do or how to explain this or even what's going on.

[00:00:55]So, I'm just going to do my best based on my limited knowledge. By all means, I think we need to look to the usuals. Um, probably best chance is little girl attorney because she is a California attorney that specializes in this kind of law. But even at that, this is a novel law. This is brand new. There is no case law. There are no guard rails.

[00:01:25]There are no instructions. There is nothing to tell anybody how to deal with this, let alone a federal judge in New York City. So, that's where we are.

[00:01:36]Nobody knows what's going on. It's obvious. And it's so funny to me because the last we heard about this is that Blake's team wanted to file something more and he was like, "Heck no, I don't need anything else." So, how this change came about is beyond me. I was thinking when he said that that he was simply going to say, "Hey, this clashes with federal procedure. This is a California state law. This is not applicable in my court." And I thought he would pass the book.

[00:02:14]Okay, let me I'm reading this real quick. So, little girl attorney has not commented yet. I was hoping she did. I I don't like to watch anybody till I do my own thing because I'm afraid it will sway me one way or the other. Nag said she read it eight times and she's still confused. Well, I'm glad to hear that because this is confusing. It's it's really really crazy. And here's the thing. I was thinking about this earlier today.

[00:02:43]when you com if you compare law to medicine for example and it's a really good comparison. So every attorney knows the procedures and the basics of law but just just like every doctor does but when there is something specific. So for example you're having some kind of inexplicable neurological symptoms. You know that you're not going to just go down to the clinic and see just any doctor. you know that you need a neurologist because the the standard doctor although they are fully certified licensed they know and understand the basics of the body once it gets to specialization.

[00:03:34]They're not who you want to rely on for those kind of specific things because they didn't go and learn all of the specific details of neurology.

[00:03:47]This is the same in law. So, every lawyer goes through law school and learns the same thing. Then once they pass the bar, once they're permitted to practice and they become attorneys, they choose a specialty. They might just do estates. They might spend their whole days doing wills and trusts and things like that. That means they're not the one that can explain this kind of stuff fully competently without going through and doing research. Or they do um divorce law, family law. Um some of them are litigators. But every attorney will when faced with something like this, they have to research because this isn't something that's just sitting there in the back of every attorney's brain. This is the kind of thing requires research.

[00:04:45]So when it's someone's forte, this kind of like like little girl attorney, I I fully trust that when she bring and and not actually golden too, this is her this is what she does every day. she knows it frontwards, backwards, inside out. So, they can just look at the document normally, read it, understand it, and quickly explain it to us. And that's been so, so helpful. But now we're talking about something that has no case law, something that none of these attorneys have ever worked on because it's never happened before. So, even the judge, I feel like he's going, "You know what, you guys? I'm not doing all this work for you. I'm not deciding all of this by myself. You guys have got to tell me blah blah blah blah blah." So, he lists out three very specific questions and then a fourth sort of question. So, we're going to go through them. We're going to break them down one by one.

[00:05:45]But, but here's where I was a little bit irked. I'm like, I thought we were going to be done with 47.1. I was hoping that he was going to be like, "There's no judgment. This isn't done. We still have a whole case with Jennifer Ael versus Stephanie Jones. I don't have to do this right now. I'm going to just put this off to later." And I I feel like that might have been where he was heading.

[00:06:11]He could have and should have, but I I a part of me wonders there's a certain type of hubris that some people have. And not to insult men, but it does tend to more commonly come with men is that they want to leave something behind. They want to make a name for themselves. Well, now this very topic is pending in Texas. So, I kind of feel like that urged him to be the first to rule on this because then he's going to be in history books. I might be way off base. I might just not like this guy and just find this guy extremely egotistical and and I'm and putting this on him of my own my own very low opinion of him. But I could see I could see this being the reason that he's just suddenly like, "Hey, we're going to we're going to have a hearing about this when it was like before." No, I don't need anything because now it's before this Texas court and the Texas court might be the one that makes the first ruling on this because they're handling it with Jed Wallace.

[00:07:24]Could that be a thing? Yes. Could it not be a thing? Could I just be like not being very nice and and and putting this bad motive to him? Absolutely.

[00:07:34]Absolutely. I fully admit that. But I also think it's a possibility that he wants to be the one to rule on it and not let Texas beat him to it.

[00:07:45]So, now that I've put that out there, let's move on. But but truly, one of these two states that is not California is going to rule on this law for the first time ever because it's sitting in federal courts in Texas and in New York.

[00:08:04]One of them will be the first. I wanted it to be Texas because Texas is so much more nononsense. They have already I if you missed the episode where I talked about the how this is before Texas right now with Jed Wallace.

[00:08:21]I talked about how antislap like Texas has already said or their circuit has I believe it's the fifth circuit has already said we don't entertain this nonsense here and ruled it out of federal courts. They do not do anti-slap. That is the binding authority there. So yes, I I agree. I am Irma. It needs to be deemed unconstitutional because it is in my opinion and I will die on that hill. So I was like, let Texas be the one then cuz it seemed like he was like, no, not going to do this right now. I don't need anything more from you right now. And now all of a sudden he's like, let's have a hearing and let's have a hearing in a couple of days. So it to me that felt very hurried and very strange. That's why it popped in my head like he doesn't want Texas to rule first. But anyway, his ruling will not uh stand in Texas as any kind of binding authority. They will make their own ruling independent regardless of what he rules. But whoever, whether it's Texas or New York, they will be in history the first court and the first judge to rule on 47.1. And it's a big deal. And sometimes certain personalities want to be the big deal in history books. So that's where we are.

[00:09:48]Anyway, exactly. I am Irma. The first amendment is sacred and 47.1 takes away that right. It also takes away your right to a trial.

[00:09:59]You nothing should say you cannot defend yourself in court. That's also a right that we have. So I feel like there are so many reasons that 47.1 needs to be taken straight to the US Supreme Court and said, "Nope, unconstitutional.

[00:10:18]Change it somehow. You got to do something different with this law."

[00:10:23]So if you want to keep it, you got to change it. You got to do something because it's it's no person, man or woman, should be told by a court that you cannot defend yourself or you cannot have your day in court when someone has defamed you. Especially in light of what we saw happen in this case. We saw as as the discovery was finally unsealed in the two times that we had great unsealings.

[00:10:51]We saw how frivolous her case was. How can you let a rule like this stand if you have not proven that it's a legitimate case? So anyway, I've I've wandered on a Cassidy side quest. I've missed you guys. I wanted to really really get into this with you, but let me get through um what I've prepared.

[00:11:13]So, we have it's it's really short and and that's why I feel like it was a little bit hurried and a little bit just out of the blue in in light of what he last said about the subject. But, we're going to go through this.

[00:11:29]Um like I said, there's there's basically four different asks. There's three absolute questions that he puts before them and then a fourth semiquest, but we're going to go through these one by one and try our best to make sense of them.

[00:11:46]So, he starts off by mentioning civil procedure 54. Let me just read it. So, it says, "The court will receive argument and letter briefs on the following questions."

[00:12:01]This next part is is really important.

[00:12:05]Assuming without deciding.

[00:12:08]So he's saying I've I've not made any decisions at this point. I need more information from you before I can do that. And and basically this is all hypothetical. That's this is the way I took it. Others might take it differently. I can only tell you how I've taken this document. And again, it's not I'm not claiming that I know exactly what he means or exactly where he's headed. I don't think any of us can can confidently say that. So, by all means, I mean, and I will be tomorrow.

[00:12:43]Whoever talks about this, you better believe I'm going to be listening to to their interpretations of it. So, this is just my interpretation of this. So take it take it for that that I'm not saying this is this is in stone or this is what he means. This is just my best effort at what I think is happening here. But I think that this assuming without deciding he's asking it it's it's all hypothetical at this point. But we know what kind of orders this man writes that his orders are often well over 100 pages.

[00:13:22]So he's going to write a very very detailed order and he has to explain how he came to his decision.

[00:13:32]So in order to to do that, he really really needs this information from them.

[00:13:41]And that's what I think is is so strange that he told them he didn't need anything and now all of a sudden he does. So, um, then he ties it together because this this law is a California state law. So, he's brought it to federal by bringing in this federal rule of civil procedure section 54. He doesn't specify which section, which I also found odd. It's just like this rule. Well, this rule has multiple parts. We'll you'll see them in a moment. We just kind of have to guess which parts he wants applied. It's all just a really big guessing game that I I think even the attorneys working this case are sitting there going, "Okay, what do we do?"

[00:14:33]So, um, like I said, we're going to we're going to do these one by one. So, we're going to start with thank you so much, Darien is leg disabled. Thank you so much for your $10. You're getting really, really good at going live. A thank you. I still can hardly stand to listen to my lives cuz I I hear all my stammers, my pauses, and and like, oh, why can't you get yourself together? Thank you for the stream. Keep up the amazing work. Thank you. Thank you so much. That um that helps a lot more than you know. Um Angel, he's throwing his ego around Napoleon complex here. Absolutely agree with that. You all know there's no love lost between myself and Judge Lyman. So which part his first question which party bears the burden of proof of showing that the communication is privileged under section 47.1A.

[00:15:40]So he's taking this serious. He could have simply said like I said this this has a conflict with procedural federal law. I'm not deciding this. But apparently he wants to decide it, which I personally find a little bit frightening because this man right at the end, right before there was a settlement reached, he took it upon himself to write a new California law.

[00:16:09]And that was frightening to me. I think I mentioned it at the time that it makes me worry 447.1.

[00:16:16]And now we see him apparently trying to work on his ruling and he's going to get into the mud about it. He's not just going to say this has a conflict. I'm not doing this in federal court. He is really going to get in there. And so I am alarmed. I'm not going to lie. I'm alarmed that he's doing that.

[00:16:42]Um thank you, Jesse. Um so what this means is this law doesn't say anything clearly itself and it has no case law that has put out there whose burden it is.

[00:17:02]There's always a burden. There are always standards to rules like this. So, he wants to know um basically is this are you are you going to say that it's Blake's burden to prove that her communication is privileged under this novel law or are you going to say that it's Wayfairer's burden to show that the communication was not privileged? And that's a huge question. He has to know that in order to rule on this and we'll get into the reasons why more in in just a moment. But this is this is a big question and you can bet that they're going to push the burden on each other.

[00:17:52]Their answers are not really going to make it any more clear.

[00:17:57]But but you'll see later when he gives them instructions how he's kind of forcing them to to make an answer that will be clear. Um let me just just get through this and and it's all going to be more clear as we go through. So let's look at rule 54. And like I said it has multiple parts. He didn't tell us rule 54A or rule 54B or rule 54 A through C. He just said rule 54. So, we kind of we're kind of feeling our way through this rule as well. We don't know which ones he meant. He didn't really put it clear. So here is where we find a mess, a big mess right here in part A, which is a def.

[00:18:51]The definition this is talking about it puts the cost together with something that we don't have in this case. We don't have a judgment.

[00:19:05]And yet this is all centered around having one.

[00:19:10]So judgment as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.

[00:19:21]We also don't have an appeal.

[00:19:27]Yeah, Lori. Sweet Nikki.

[00:19:32]Oh my gosh, Nikki.

[00:19:35]I don't know what to say about that.

[00:19:39]Um, Lori, yes. It's crazy when Nag says she doesn't understand it. That makes me feel better to be honest.

[00:19:47]But so if you look at the very first bit of this rule is that this requires a judgment um or an order about an appeal. We don't have that. The judge didn't decide or adjudicate anything. No jury did either.

[00:20:05]We have a settlement and we have a settlement for zero dollars and we have a settlement that doesn't make clear that there is a prevailing party.

[00:20:20]Neither side will appeal.

[00:20:23]So how do we apply this rule to this case? So, we have a a novel law coming out of California and we have this federal rule of procedure and neither of them are are fitting well. It's it's it's like I don't know Cinderella trying them trying to find the person who the glass slipper fits.

[00:20:51]It it feels a little crazy. Thank you, Gelf, very much for the $7.99. Chicken butt waffle is lime.

[00:21:01]There's movement on Brian's case, too, Cassidy. Something about several of the claims against him are now gone. Oh, see, I need to catch up. I was I was in Munich for 6 days and um I simply did not have time to keep up with anything and I need really needed the break. So, I've I've got a lot to catch up on. I saw several questions um on my YouTube and stuff about about things. So, I I apologize. I really really need to catch up. And this weekend, I've got um I'm going away with a a family thing. So, um I won't solidly be able to do much until until Monday. That's why even though it's so so late, I wanted to um to to get this out at least to you tonight and and spend a little time with you. In this case, it's a boot.

[00:21:53]It's a pair of unmatched boots. It's crazy. It's a boot and a ski. I mean, like, it does. It just doesn't make sense. So, this is what we've got from this rule. Her sexy boot like sexy boot.

[00:22:08]This is what we've got.

[00:22:10]I mean, it this doesn't clear anything up yet. We're still still trying to sort out um what in the world like how does this rule make anything more clear?

[00:22:23]But let's go let's go back a little more with his question and and see what's going on. I kind of forgot my notes already. Um, so let me look at them for a minute.

[00:22:36]Like I said, I think that he's speaking in a hypothetical.

[00:22:40]He's like, "Okay, I've not decided this.

[00:22:43]Assuming I'm deciding this, who has the burden of proof?"

[00:22:50]because he has to rule on this. And this this is this goes back to like when I was so upset when I when I saw the settlement. So, by the way, there was an article written and I know some people have covered it and I was a little upset when I I I haven't watched it for myself, but I was given some screenshots of some disturbing comments and stuff. I don't think I want to watch it. I haven't yet. I probably won't cuz it it it did upset me. Um there was an article that came out and and I have to say this this this person Megan Agnu of the Sunday Times UK.

[00:23:40]She spoke to Lauren and I she spoke to us twice because the original article was supposed to come out. It was supposed to be like just before trial, like going into trial, um this sort of thing, like what were our thoughts as trial was about to begin. We talked each of us for a good amount of time with her and then the settlement happened and she was on vacation. She came back from vacation and the settlement had happened. And so she spoke with us each again again for a long period of time and said, "Well, the story's pretty much changed now that there's not going to be a trial. Instead, there's a settlement."

[00:24:26]And so she wanted to know our thoughts on that. And I might have been a little too trusting, I guess. I mean, shame on me. She seemed super nice. Um, but we had two extensive conversations.

[00:24:47]And I realize that when you're writing for a newspaper, your article is probably going to be smaller than you want it to be. You have to submit it to your editor who's going to tell you yes or yes about this, no about that, more of this, less of that. And so you don't have complete control of your own article. And so understanding that about her as a person, this may not have been what she wanted to put, but she was limited in space and limited by her editor. So I I want to give her the benefit of the doubt because I felt like she was nice to me when we spoke. But that article did not represent the conversation that we had. It really did not. And it was it's the reason I didn't cover it myself to be honest. I'm like this is a small newspaper. I'd never heard of it. I thought nobody else would hear of it and that so that nobody else would cover it. This what was what my hope was. But apparently it was seen by people and so it was discussed in at least one live that I know of and that's where the upsetting comments were made.

[00:26:04]And I would think that by now we one if one thing we've learned from this case is that you cannot trust mainstream media because of the reasons I just said. Even if the journalist themselves has integrity, they are under an editor and they're limited to what they can put out there and they have to go with the the the bits, the quotes that will bring the most interest, the most reads, that sort of thing. They don't have the freedom that we have here on YouTube to just express our opinions.

[00:26:42]And we don't have a boss. We don't have someone telling us we have to limit our time or we have to limit what we say or just choose the juicy bits. So, I'll give that grace, but that's all the grace I'm going to give because that is not at all what I said. And and I'm upset that people have not learned this about mainstream media, what they will do. We've seen what happened in hearings. We've seen what filing said and we've seen what mainstream media has done with it. And so to me it was it was a bit insulting that anybody would look at that article and just assume that that's what we said because they've seen for themselves what happens in the translation to mainstream media. So, first of all, when I said the bit about calming people down, I was talking not about the settlement. I was talking about the um the statement cuz before we knew the details of the settlement, we knew that there had been a settlement and there was a statement that was put out. And the statement, a lot of us didn't like it because it said that Blake Lively deserved to deserve to be heard. I didn't like it one bit, but a lot of people were angry. And when I first went live and talked about that, I was saying, "Okay, we have to remember that this is a studio. Wayfairer is a studio. These are not the individual people. This is the studio. This is tag.

[00:28:25]This is it ends with us movie. They want to proceed and continue to make movies.

[00:28:30]So, they can't sound too hard. They can't sound unreasonable. They can't sound like they will not ever take a woman's feelings into consideration. And so, that's that's what I said about that. I never said I was calming people down about the settlement.

[00:28:50]It was about the statement before we knew the details of the settlement. And then I was very honest about my reaction once the the settlement details became known. My reaction and and I I could I could go back and delete the post that I made when I was in my feels, when I was all up in my feelings, and throw in my little tantrum. I could go back and delete that to try to make myself look better, but I haven't because that was my honest reaction. And even though I don't like it out there, because I was hoping, you know, that I could maybe interview um Ellen at some point and having that out there probably makes them not want to go near me because it looks bad. But but I wanted to to be honest, and that's what I said. I I can't go back and rewrite history.

[00:29:42]That's how I felt the day that the details of the settlement came out. And one of the reasons was this that I couldn't believe that they would settle and leave 47.1 on the table because they could have said we will not settle and leave 47.1.

[00:30:01]We will only settle if you will voluntarily tell the court not to decide this that you are withdrawing this. Do I still feel that way today? I I do now that I see what the judge is going through here with this and seeing that he's um entertaining it. Yeah, I feel Oh, she did. Oh, little girl attorney just released a video. Okay, I can't wait to watch. Um, but but yeah, seeing that he's taking it on, I I'm back to that initial feeling that perhaps they shouldn't have settled and left it on the table. They could have said, "We won't settle without this."

[00:30:47]So, um, anyway, but I did express to her my honest reaction when I saw the settlement. I wasn't happy about it. You guys know that you were here. I posted I'm like, I can't even go live. I'm so upset. This was stupid that they gave up their right to appeal and that they kept 47.1 on the table. I couldn't believe that they would agree to settle with those conditions. And then later, I think it was the next day, Kevin France went Kevin Fritz went live with Lauren and he went live with Elsie and um Bot not botchi um Carol from docket updates and um I calmed down when I heard that. I was like, "Okay, okay. This is their decision. It's not my decision, you know, but but I told her how I felt that day. I also said um I just flashed in my head and left that quick. Um I also told her that I calmed that I calmed it all down after I heard those things and that I understood that they were doing this for their clients and this is what their clients wanted. And I said, "The reason that I was upset is that I didn't, it's not that I wanted Blake punished, because I understand there were no causes of action left against Blake. There was no way to punish Blake because their case was dismissed. You can't punish her without a case against her. So, I wasn't wanting a punishment to Blake. What I wanted is that I knew that a settlement, the details would not reach the general public. I said we entered this case with a New York Times article that reached the entire world, not just this country, but it reached the entire world. And since then there had been no mainstream reporting that told the details that said these accusations were untrue.

[00:33:06]And I felt the reason I was upset a trial didn't go forward is that if there had been a trial, it would have had to have been reported on. There would have been press in there reporting on each day's activities. And so it could have possibly reached the same amount of people that the original article that caused all this trouble reached. A settlement will never the details of it will never do that. So I was disappointed. I wanted to see the facts of the case distributed far and wide and I felt like only a trial could do that.

[00:33:47]But I when I was explaining all that to her, I was also letting her know that I came around that next day that I calmed down, that I understood and that I went forward with it and accepted it and that I was we talked for a long time about still being supportive of Wayfair and that I was still going to cover the Jones versus Ael portion of the case and the Jed Wallace case. And it was a very reasonable conversation that had so much more involved in it. And and the way it was and I know she couldn't say absolutely everything that I said, but but what she put out there I feel like was just a really big misrepresentation of what we said. And then she also took um Lauren's salary information and and really misqued that. And that that looked bad. It it it looked like and and I told her how much I make. I don't I don't make that much. I always limit my commercials.

[00:35:01]my views aren't as high as like as like Laurens because I know I do long I do the law nerd stuff. It's I know that what I do is is um it's a niche. There's there not everybody wants to sit and listen for two hours or wants to hear all of these little legal details. And that's fine with me. I'm I've people ask me to do some short ones and to do this and to do that and I and I don't because I and I could I could do that to try to chase views, but that's I do what I like. This brings me joy. I love spending time with you guys because you you are into the same stuff I'm into and and I leave it at that. This is not this could never support my life. Never. And and that's okay for me. So, I feel like she made it like we're like she thinks that we're we're making all this money and we do it for that. And it's it's not. It's really not like that. You guys wouldn't believe, especially months like this month, how little this actually I actually bring in. And and I'm not saying that to to ask for money. I've never asked for money. I'm just letting you guys know that. And I and I was clear to her. I told her how much I make. And And I said, "This isn't for money. This isn't for money. This is this is what I this brings me joy and I feel like this is important and and that's why I do it."

[00:36:40]And and so it I feel like we were both so poorly misrepresented by that. And it and I have to admit my feelings were hurt that people that I admire and have supported and have um promoted um just went along with it and thought that I said those things and and didn't question my word against mainstream media when when we know what we know about mainstream media. So, and then there was some kook in the chat, someone I I don't even remember this person.

[00:37:24]Um, but they were mad about something about Charlie Kirk. We're talking like almost a year ago. And I'm sorry, I don't want political stuff on my channel. I've said it over and over again. If they got mad about that and they're mad at me a year later, something is seriously wrong with this person. I don't remember who they are, what our conversation was. All I know is um I I've when when this stuff was brought up, someone asked me to investigate his homicide. I'm like, I am not a homicide investigator. I I uh go over legal filings. That's what I do.

[00:38:10]So, I I don't know what this person's mad about that they're still mad about that they're out there badmouthing me and then being supported on that platform. That was very, very disappointing. I'm not going to lie, it hurt my feelings. But for you guys, for anybody who cares about the truth, I wanted to express that to you. That that is not what I said. I've now told you what I told her and the reasons why. And and and it's very relevant to this because this is about 47.1. This is why I was so upset about the settlement because it left this this opportunity for Judge Lyman to to rule and to rule poorly and they cannot appeal it.

[00:39:09]And so that's the reason I was so upset that day. And I was upset that day. You guys know it. I went and had my my IHOP.

[00:39:17]Do you guys remember I posted I'm like I can't even go live. I'm going to do this. And um so yeah, that's that's that's that. But anyway, back to that. That was a big Cassidy side quest, but I I've wanted to say that to you guys, but I wanted to get over my feelings about it so that I could say it more objectively.

[00:39:40]Um, and then tie it into to this to explain this is exactly why I was upset with with the settlement this what we're facing right now with this filing.

[00:39:56]Okay. Aw, thank you, Amanda. You matter, Cassidy. Keep bringing us your joy and pics of your trips and food. Yes, I I went back to Munich specifically for this this travel thing I'm going to do. Um, it's it's like it's a combination of travel and sleep because people have asked also for me to they say that they listen to my stuff to fall asleep to and I do that like I listen to stuff to fall asleep. I I I have a really hard time falling asleep without sound. And so this will serve two purposes. You can watch it in the daytime and watch the travel stuff, but I'm just going to have like some history. It's not just going to be my travel pictures, but it's going to have history of what I'm touring. And then you can put it on at night and use it to fall asleep, too. Cuz sometimes when I'm doing this legal stuff, I get fired up and I don't want to wake you up because I'm screaming about Blake. So, I thought I'll do this nice thing, this this travel and then um did I go to Munich just for sushi snacks? No, I went I I bought some books and I toured some castles and I got more information um because my first part of the series is going to be about King Ludvig I because he has a very very intriguing story. And so, um, it's going to be a really long telling of his story. I've actually bought his German diaries, what's left of them. So, there's going to have to be some translation involved.

[00:41:37]And it's I am digging deep into this dude because he is extremely interesting. And he built fairy tale castles. In fact, it's his castles that Walt Disney was inspired by to put in Disney World and Disneyland. they are that beautiful and that much fairy tale and there's just so much to his story.

[00:41:59]And so I that's where I I went and I spent spent time I've I've toured almost all of his castles now but but this time I toured the museum that has his chariots and his sleigh cuz I heard about his his chariots and his sleigh and they are absolutely magnificent. I couldn't believe my eyes. I hope my pictures do them justice. So, no, I'm not translating. I can't translate. I'm going to have to get translators. But, um, his story is just so so incredibly they still don't know how his he he died. It's it's it's so intriguing. But now I've gone on like a way off side quest. But anyway, let's get let's get back to this. Um, I apologize for those of you who who who can't tolerate my side quests, but um, anyway, let's get back to this. So, this comes to something that I've talked about before and um, I I reviewed this chart. This is from a chart that I did a long long time ago.

[00:43:09]This was when way back last this is almost a year ago that I did this and this this was my personal opinion of why I didn't think 47.1 would ever hold up in a federal court and and it has to do with anti-slap.

[00:43:31]Even though 47.1 was written to try to sidestep being called anti-SLAP, it its function comes across as anti-slap.

[00:43:45]So, it has to do, and I'm not going to go through all of these details again.

[00:43:49]Um, I did talk about this in detail in that in that one, and then I just went over it a little bit more and a lot of it showed up. I was so happy to see, I was so proud of it that Charles Babcock, who I absolutely adore, um, also used the same reasoning that I did.

[00:44:12]So you, oh my goodness, it was such a good day for me when I saw that it was all these same arguments that I had said last year, last summer sometime when I when I made this video. But so there's two videos that you can watch um that will go into the details of it. This was my first one. I think this was last June and um and then this is the one about Charles Babcock, but it it goes into more detail. Let me flip back here. It talks about these these clashes in law. So you have your federal court, which is what we're in, but they have to apply a state law.

[00:44:51]You have the substantive part. That's what the state law covers. Then you have the procedural part that falls under federal. If there's a clash between the two, the federal procedural wins. And so this is my reasoning and it was also Charles Babcock's reasonings that there is a clash. There is a clash here in things like fees shifting and burden shifting and um whether or not you allow them uh discovery and things like that. There are clashes between 47.1 and federal procedural rules. And so in my opinion, these things cannot exist in the same space. And that's that's what Charles Babcock said as well. So, oh, I want to see Gloria on what she said. I I will go and watch that as soon as I'm done here. Um, little girl attorney says that Blake will have trouble under rule 54 proving she's entitled to this fees and damages because Blake has the burden of proof as to if Wayfair did anything with malice against her. She can't prove that.

[00:46:07]Excellent. Excellent. I'm so happy to see that. I'm so happy that that's what she said and she is our best source for this being in California and practicing this type of law. Okay, so that's kind of like the conclusion where I come to here, but I'm really really happy to hear it from her.

[00:46:30]All right, let me let me catch up with my notes real quick. And I won't be too much longer here. Here, I'd written this to be short, but my side quests have lengthened it. Um, okay. So, hypothetically, he's asking questions he needs to know to make his decision and so that he can write about it. It's a novel law. There's no case law for him to follow. But like I said earlier, I feel like he's saying, "I'm not going to do all this work. I'm not going to assume what you're asking me for. So you are going to have to do all the work and then I will answer I will decide based on what you give to me. So he asks um let's see. So he asks them these questions but no one really knows for sure. So they're just going to have to do their best. And um let's see. Sorry guys. Let me get back to my notes so I can make sense of this.

[00:47:43]Basically, he's saying, "You tell me what you think it is, what you're asking for based on this federal rule." So, he he's narrowing them. He doesn't just want them to pratt on or give their opinion or just say, "Oh, this is what we want. This is what we think we deserve." He's narrowing it as we go through this document. and he narrows it more and more with each step. So the first narrowing was this stick to this rule federal rule of civil procedure 54 and um then the next rule or or the next narrowing is whose burden is it?

[00:48:24]And then the next narrowing. Okay, let me let me see.

[00:48:35]Let's go back into this rule again. Like I said before, we don't know which part he meant because he just gave the whole rule. So, we talked about that first part and that first part was troublesome already. We don't have a decree. We don't have an order. We don't have a judgment. We don't have anything decided. And there's no possible appeal.

[00:48:54]So that's problematic in A. Now B, we have this in this case. There are multiple claims, there are multiple parties, there is a counter claim, there's a cross claim, and there's a third party claim.

[00:49:12]The third party claim hasn't happened yet, and that's the Jones versus Ael. So I kind of feel like in my opinion, he shouldn't even be deciding this until that one's all done. But for some reason he's now deciding it um suddenly. Um when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. So basically he should and could wait for the final judgment which will be when Jones versus Abel is done. But if there's a reason, a just reason, um, no just reason for delay, there isn't. Blake's saying, "I want it now."

[00:50:03]And that's not a just reason. So, oh, that's interesting.

[00:50:13]She um, Little World attorney also mentioned a new case law on this exact issue, March of 2026. Oh, that's exciting. Okay, good. Good. So, I might do an update to this after I listen to hers.

[00:50:26]Um, so there isn't a just reason at this time for for there.

[00:50:38]Let's see.

[00:50:42]Now, I've I've disappeared into that. I got to come back to what I was saying.

[00:50:50]So basically this kind of stuff could and should be um decided at the end unless there's a reason to say oh we want this now. So just like the New York Times the New York Times wanted it because they wanted to file their their separate anti-SLAP um lawsuit that they have in state court right now against Wayfair. And so the judge asked them asked the parties what did they think because they could have said no let's wait. Um so really this all should just wait but for some reason it's not waiting now. Um otherwise any order or other decision however designated that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and all the parties rights and liabilities. So basically B is like you don't have to decide this now.

[00:51:57]There's this case is not over. There could be changes. Something else could happen. Let's wait till it's over. So I don't understand why it's happening now.

[00:52:07]Okay. And then see let me move comments for just a moment. Um, this one I I feel like this one may not apply. I don't really know. I was at a complete loss for this one. Um, a demand for judgment relief to be granted unless this is so a default judgment must not differ in kind from or exceed an amount with what is demanded in the pleadings. Every other final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings. Hey, Ricardo, thank you so much.

[00:52:51]What is this? It's insanity is what it is. Um, so we don't have a number because her demands, her damages, they were never adjudicated. They were never determined to be valid. They were never given any merit. There's She made demands in her pleadings, but a jury nor a judge ever said, "You deserve these."

[00:53:22]So, this to me is the most complicated part of the whole thing. What are you What are you demanding?

[00:53:34]You settled for zero dollars. You asked for hundreds of millions of dollars and you settled for zero. So what exactly are you trying to get? What are you demanding here?

[00:53:51]It's it's all so confusing. And then we get to D um attorney's fees. And we'll come back to more of that in a moment.

[00:54:01]Um, but we did see that she asked for $800 million plus the fees that are being spent right now for that case in court right now. So, it could easily end up to a million. And that's just in the Jud Wallace. What she's asking for in this case is not even clear yet. So, this is all just like really really hard to even try to come up with. I don't know why he's entertaining it to be honest. I don't know why he doesn't just say this clashes with federal procedure and so this court will not entertain it. I don't know. I don't know. But um then he gets to this. This is what blew my mind the most.

[00:54:53]whether that burden differs depending on whether the application is for attorney's fees alone or also for treble and punitive damages. I don't know how he's even considering treble and punitive damages on a Z settlement and a an idea where there was no there was no decision made on the merit of her damages.

[00:55:25]It never got to be adjudicated by anybody.

[00:55:31]So, how is he even considering? This is what scares me. This is what scares me so much. What is he talking about?

[00:55:41]Trebouing what?

[00:55:46]But he's asking, so they're going to have to answer.

[00:55:52]It's It's crazy. And then his his final question is whether the burden differs where section 47.1b relief is sought through rule 54 of the federal rules of civil procedure. So he's not even just taking it by itself.

[00:56:12]He's saying through this rule, but we've gone through this rule. And how how is he exercising 47.1 through this rule that we all just looked at that doesn't have the things that rule 54 has. So rule 54 generally has a judgment. It has a prevailing party.

[00:56:37]It has a decree. It has an order. It has the possibility of an appeal.

[00:56:44]It has dismissal orders. stipulated judgments, consent decrees, um orders retaining jurisdiction.

[00:56:54]Um what else does it have?

[00:56:58]The merits of the damages have have been analyzed and ruled on and there are actual damages there so that they can be multiplied by three which is what treble damages means.

[00:57:22]Um there are settlement amounts or not settlement amounts but um like what has the jury or the judge determined that is owed. Here we have a $0 settlement.

[00:57:38]Um there's no adjudicated injury.

[00:57:42]There's no compensatory award.

[00:57:45]Nothing has been decided as far as malice. And from what someone just said, that's that's one of the points that um little girl attorney spoke on. So, I'm happy to see that that I was at least headed in the right direction because that's here in my notes, too. Nothing was decided as far as malice or oppression or fraud or intentional misconduct.

[00:58:10]47.1 required that no malice was brought by Blake. It also required um factual records.

[00:58:19]Um none of that was no merits of those things have been decided and these are all things that rule 54 generally has.

[00:58:31]So um let's see there's no admission of liability, no factual findings, no jury verdict, no merits adjudication. I might be repeating myself in some of these.

[00:58:46]Um, there's no determination of who prevailed, what they prevailed on, what the legal determination about their prevailing is on.

[00:59:01]So how I don't even understand how he is is applying 47.1 like he says through rule 54 because there are just too many clashes here. If you go back to that chart about why a federal court, most federal courts do not entertain anti-slap. These are the reasons they don't.

[00:59:30]So, I don't get it. I really don't get what he's getting at here.

[00:59:39]Um, and then we have So, those are his his questions. Um and then he also says the parties may also address how that burden may be discharged.

[00:59:59]Again, um let me try to look through my notes and see if I sorted out what he was asking.

[01:00:11]I don't remember what I came up with.

[01:00:30]Sorry, guys.

[01:00:32]Oh, here's here's my notes on that.

[01:00:33]Okay.

[01:00:41]So basically after sorting out who has the burden of proof, what the damages are that's being sought, then it comes down to this question. How can that be satisfied?

[01:01:02]And I feel like this is all just a big fairy tale. Like it's he's just a her with her nonsense again because none of this makes sense to me.

[01:01:13]And and I'm happy to see it didn't make sense to not actually Golden either of like how he was even. So basically what what evidence would be enough, what procedures would be used, how the court would practically determine whether the burden has been met. So by asking them these questions, that's how he gets to his portion of how he has to answer this.

[01:01:39]And so then now we're going to get to he's going to really really narrow them.

[01:01:46]And um back again to to the rules, it also in the rules it talks about a prevailing party. How do you apply these rules to 47.1 or to this case where there is no prevailing party? So how does 47.1 or rule 54 apply? It just doesn't seem like it could. All right, so let's go on to how he narrows it even more. He is like, "Okay, I don't want your nonsense. I don't want your pages and pages of nonsense, and I'm not just going to limit your page numbers." He gives them the smallest. He used to give them like three or four pages. This time he's like two pages. That's all you get. And so you don't remember I used to talk about Ezra being the queen of footnotes because she was limited in pages. So she would make these gigantic footnotes that would take like half the page because the footnote can be in a smaller font and she could um crowd more in there.

[01:02:47]He's like, "I'm on to you. I know your tricks by now. You're not going to do it. You're not going to do a footnote so that you can add more." Not only that, he tells them 12 point font. He's like, "You're not going to do an eight font or a 10 font so that you can fit more words. You get two pages, 12-point font, no footnotes. Not only that, this is what he wants. He doesn't want them prattling on. He wants them to list the cases that the party would like the court to review. That's it. He's like, "Give me case law with quotes. Don't just give me the case because you can you can he is limiting the pages so they could just give the the case. Well, some decisions are very very long. He's like, I don't want the case. I don't want to have to sit here and read this whole case. Give me the case. Give me the quotes or explanatory parentheticals.

[01:03:51]So, he is really tying their hands.

[01:03:56]really and truly tying their hands. He's like, "You're not going to load a bunch of nonsense on me or going to put more work on me cuz this is a huge amount of work that they've dumped on him to have to decide this in the first place." But he's like, "No, give me the cliffnotes about what we're going to do and and that's what I'm going to entertain." And so I'm so pleased because they are going to have a terrible time coming up with a case that fits this case. Do you guys remember when they were trying to prove that um Title 7 and not just Title 7, excuse me, when they were trying to prove that FIHA covered their case.

[01:04:46]They couldn't come up with a New York case because it never happened. So, they were bringing California cases and trying to say, "Well, this proves it.

[01:04:52]This proves it. That proves it." So, this is what they're going to have to do. and they are going to struggle to come up with any case that happened in the second district, second circuit, sorry. Um, that's will support this. It's it's like a mission impossible to come up with something from their their side. I think it's going to be very easy for Wayfair to come up with case after case after case. And I can't wait. But but team Blake is going to struggle with this assignment.

[01:05:31]How are they going to find a case that says that this is okay? I I really don't think they're going to. So, this is going to be really really fun.

[01:05:43]Okay.

[01:05:46]And now this hearing is going to happen on Monday. See, he gives them so little time. Look at that. I skipped also May 31st. This is the 29th.

[01:05:58]He's not given them much time at all.

[01:06:02]May 31st. And he's not given them till midnight, which normally they do. And and it comes in at midnight or shortly after is when it finally hits. He's like, "Nope, 5:00 p.m.

[01:06:16]May 31st."

[01:06:18]and then all of this. And so then on Monday, Monday afternoon at 2:00 is going to be a hearing. And he also told them it's going to be an hour. One side gets half an hour, the other side gets half an hour. That's it.

[01:06:36]But that's Yeah, I he is it sounds like he is not pleased that he has to to do this. He's exhausted with their nonsense and he's not gonna let them make it bigger than it has to be. And he's not going to be the fool that has to sit there and decide all this on his own.

[01:06:58]He's like, "You got to come to me. You got to tell me what you're asking me for very specifically so that I can properly rule on this."

[01:07:08]Personally, I don't think he should have entertained it this far. I think it would have been very very easy for him to just take case law on on for example anti-SLAP stuff what the court has said it clashes with pro with federal procedure we won't entertain it but he's gone for some reason he's um a massochist and and has put himself through this but he's saying you're going to suffer with me and you're going to make my suffering a little bit easier and this is how you're going to do So, I'm anxiously waiting to hear what they come up with on each side.

[01:07:52]Sorry. I'm sure Blake's side is like not having a good night looking at all this, trying to sort out what they're going to come up with, and Wayfairer is probably laughing at them.

[01:08:05]But we will see how that all goes. And anyway, it was super super nice to spend some time with you guys again. I I really do miss you guys when I'm gone. I I had taken my my tablet and my microphone and um thinking there might be some free time in there at some point where where I'll get to go live and talk with you guys a little bit, but it it just didn't work out. the the schedule was really tight and I was doing a lot of research and I wanted to do it while I was there in in places that I could go to and get more information, people that I could talk to. So, it it really did take a lot of time. Um I I just didn't have any free time, but I'm really excited to to do that that series. So, um, anyway, and I I hope to see you guys there with that. So, because cuz this with this case drawing to a close. Um, I would hate this to be the end of of uh talking to you guys because I' I've really come to enjoy you guys all so much. Anyway, um, thanks for coming. Yeah, it's super late here. It is almost 2:30 a.m. So, I need to get off of here, go to bed, cuz I got a big um next couple of days um to deal with. But anyway, I will I will be checking in on your comments and stuff. If you have more questions, uh please put them in the comments and I will, like I said, I will be scrolling all day tomorrow to see what everybody else comes up with. and um get a a more informed and well-rounded um opinion on what's happening. And then again, it's Judge Lyman who's going to make this decision. So, nobody knows what's going to happen, what's going to come of it. I wish he would watch not actually Golden Little Girl attorney as well.

[01:10:02]But, um 0* 3 equals 0. Exactly. I made I made um I actually made a graphic one time of that when I was talking about troubling her damages.

[01:10:14]But um thank you Christina as always and thank you all so much for joining me even though it's this late. I I knew you would all be outraged as as stymied let's use that word. We don't use that word enough. As stymied as I was over this this ridiculous filing, I I really want to be done with 47.1 and I never want to hear about it again.

[01:10:41]Anyway, um heading over to Little Girl attorney's video. Um and I hope you guys all go there too to hear from her because she's got great great stuff. And have a really really good night.