Lively v. Baldoni 7 - Who's Afraid of Stephanie Jones? Well, Abel et al. Probably Should Be...

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:26 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 7 in the Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively legal saga. I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia Smith. How you doing?

0:00:35 Lydia: Hello, I well.

0:00:36 Thomas: So we introduced some of the characters last time and I'm really excited because this could be a very important complaint. There's stuff in here that I think is really interesting and sheds light on the other stuff.

0:00:48 Thomas: And it seems pretty compelling. So there's more backstory we've got to get to. So Lydia is going to tell us who the hell these people are, what they do, and some very interesting things about them. Start digging into this complaint. Course, you can avoid the ads at patreon .com slash gavelpod. Please consider supporting the show. You get extras, you get no ads. It's great. It has had by all. And also you get access to the back catalog, which is a lot. In addition to the entire Trump trial, there's many other bonuses as well to check out. So please support the show, patreon. Com slash ga vel pod. After this break, we're going to dig into Stephanie Jones and others.

0:01:35 Lydia: We left up, mentioned, I you know, December 23rd, Jennifer Abel had posted on Facebook about the situation. Following day after Jennifer Abel had posted that on Facebook and then deleted it at some point thereafter, Jones filed a lawsuit in New York in the morning on behalf of herself and Jones Works LLC against Jennifer Abel primarily, as well as Justin Baldoni, Wayfair Studios, Melissa Nathan.

0:01:55 Thomas: Melissa, Nathan. Yeah.

0:01:57 Lydia: Yep. And John does. Yeah. Wrap picked this up and and out to Jennifer Abel for comment, essentially. And Jennifer Abel responded that she resigned last summer from Stephanie Jones's firm over Stephanie Jones is, quote, bullying of colleagues. And

0:01:58 Thomas: John does. One through ten. Fact that this was released same like day tells me they probably were working on this and maybe in similar fashion, maybe Stephanie Jones tipped off, maybe who knows. But it's not like they just saw the lawsuit and wrote this whole thing in the same in a few hours.

0:02:28 Lydia: Hours later. It's yeah. Not much time at all. They included actually her resignation letter because there's some interesting stuff here. Abel sent a resignation letter in July of 2024.

0:02:43 Lydia: Sent on July 10th. And the email that she sent is includes an emoji, by the way. That's it's a winky one. I'm going to be thorough here. Said, Hi, Steph. First of all, I wanted to say thank you for the call we had a couple days ago. I know it wasn't easy, and I'm so appreciative that you trust me enough to be vulnerable, honest, and for us to have a real conversation about our working relationship. I hope you know me well enough by now that no matter how dramatic I can be, winky face, I really do strive to make work life easier on you and take as much as possible off of your plate. Since I resigned, I have been doing a lot of thinking about what I want with my career. I may have quit under unforeseen circumstances, but these past two weeks, I've really taken a step back to reevaluate what I what for next steps. Really do believe that everything happens for a reason, and I wanted to really reflect on why things continue to escalate between the two of us and why I was constantly feeling like I was letting you down. I take full responsibility for my part in all of this. I'm not proud of how emotional I get in these situations or the way I choose to step away when I feel like we're not making progress in our conversations. I know I have things to work on as well. With my communication. This whole situation has been a good learning moment for me on the ways I need to improve how I get my point across. With all of this said, the facts remain. I respect you immensely. I feel so grateful for the opportunities you've given me with your premier clients and how you've lifted me up as your partner. I would not have had the opportunity to be in many of the rooms that I've been in without you opening the door. This company you have built is exceptional, and I hold our teams with the highest regard. Know I didn't do it by myself, but I do take pride in what I have contributed to your LA office and the team I have been building and managing over the past four years, along with the new clients and opportunities I have procured. Do feel it's necessary at this point that I continue to move forward with my resignation. I say this with heavy heart, yet with the excitement that I can take everything that I have learned from you as I start on this new path with my own business. I know this path won't be easy, but I hope I can keep you in my life as a mentor, a friend and a close confidant because I truly view you as family and would be lost without your support. Want to assure you, however, I can, that unlike those who have burned you in the past, that there is not one ounce of ill will here. Have left a company before with Grace and with my relationships intact, and that's what I fully plan on and hope for. In order to plan, I will need to stick with my previously communicated end date of August 23rd, which I hope is plenty of time to ensure a smooth transition for all. I thank you again for the most amazing time here at JW, and I look forward to our relationship continuing in this new capacity. You again for understanding and for your support with love, Jennifer.

0:05:04 Thomas: Oof. Well, that didn't happen.

0:05:06 Lydia: No, that did not happen at all. It's interesting because when I was looking at the timeline, according to the lawsuit and a lot of like media related about this, it doesn't quite match with Jennifer Abel's timeline on her LinkedIn, which I think is kind of interesting. So Stephanie in Jones states that Jennifer Abel left August 21st. 2024 was her last day in that resignation letter. She said her last date was going to be August 23rd. Her LinkedIn says that she left in July 2024. So it's just kind of interesting. Jones also said that she let her go August 21th. And I guess two days before her designated resignation date.

0:05:42 Thomas: Just make sure, the 23rd was a Friday, so it's not like some weekend thing happening or anything. Okay. So, Wednesday instead of a Friday?

0:05:49 Lydia: But Yeah. So two days before Jennifer Abel said it was, you going to be her last day. Then for whatever reason on LinkedIn, she puts her end date, July 2024. Able also says that she made partner January 2022 on her LinkedIn. But I found a source that Stephanie Jones. A statement to, you industry magazines and stuff like that. And she made partner in 2023. So I was like, oh, maybe it's a timeline thing. But yeah, it specifically says on her LinkedIn January 2022.

0:06:17 Thomas: Whatever. It's like her LinkedIn could be haphazard at best. I don't know.

0:06:23 Lydia: So other interesting thing to note, though, with the LinkedIn date for Jennifer Abel, I know it's a mess. However, said in that Facebook statement that the social media strategy, that campaign was done while she was at Jones Works and overseen by Stephanie Jones, which would have been in August. But she is saying that she left in July 2024. So anyway, just, to potentially some untrustworthy recounting from her, but this is what Stephanie Jones had to say about her in 2023. are thrilled to name Jennifer Abel partner at Jones Work, said Jones. She has played such an integral role in our agency's incredible success and growth since joining our team. Jen is a respected leader, a force to be reckoned with, and is one of the most talented publicists I've ever had the pleasure of working with. So something seems to have changed significantly in

0:06:39 Thomas: Well, we know she didn't leave in July. That's sure. Yeah.

0:07:12 Lydia: The course of a year.

0:07:13 Thomas: I mean, let's also note that even non -PR people, often there's these diplomatic statements and letters and blah, blah, but like these are also the fakest people possibly alive. So I'm not going to take any of this stuff that's meant for public consumption or even stuff that'S meant for private consumption between two people who are obviously like, going to have that kind of diplomatic speak going on. I'm going to it does sound like they yeah, had some sort of good relationship. She made partner. It sounds like they were doing work together.

0:07:36 Lydia: Fair. Yeah. Yeah, they had a good working relationship. Say Jennifer Abel stayed at Jones Works, and I'm to get into this, far longer than a lot of other people have stayed at She worked there from July 2020 until, according to Jones, August 21st, 2024. on August 15th, a week before Jennifer Abel's last day, a Insider article came out titled Who's Afraid of Stephanie Jones? How Tom Brady's publicist became one of the most polarizing names in celebrity PR. Is written by Katie Warren and Jack Newsham. That Warren name in mind because I think that's going to come up again as we go through the lawsuit. Quotes from this. Former staff were called in office dressings down. That got so loud that Jones would ask her assistant to turn up the music to cover up the yelling. FaceTimed one employee who had called out sick and accused her of lying. Turns out Jones was right. Threats to journalists were not uncommon. Piss off Jones and she'd cut off all access to her biggest clients. Even her clients on Teams weren't spared. She once emailed an A -lister's business partner that he was sloppy and sent him a clown emoji. Quote, nearly every person interviewed, whether Jones's former employees or fellow publicists, would do so only under the condition of anonymity, many because they were utterly frightened of her.

0:08:56 Lydia: A early client who respected her Vincent Porpelia, he is the co -founder and former chief operating officer of Dreamwater. Said she's a very intense person in the best possible way. She gets into a room and gets everyone's attention, which is important as a publicist. We have an anecdote from one of her former. Executives that in early December 2023, she got her team kicked out of a bar in Brooklyn during the firm's annual holiday party. And this is because Jones approached the DJ there and her to play One Two Step by Ciara, who's married to Russell Wilson, and that's one of Stephanie Jones's clients. DJ said she would try to get to the song later, and then Jones started recording video of the DJ and berating her. And the executive said that Steph took out her phone and was like, oh, you're racist. You're racist because you won't play Sierra. Insider spoke to the DJ. This And is basically in line with what the DJ recalls as well.

0:09:51 Thomas: OK, this is some extensive reporting to, you know, get to this. Yeah.

0:09:55 Lydia: DJ, who is a woman of color, said she had never experienced such treatment in her career. Quote, it was very triggering. I was telling her to leave me alone and she wouldn't. Business Insider first reached out to the DJ, they reached out on Instagram and she thought it was a setup by Stephanie Jones. And she said, quote, I wouldn't put it past her if she hired you to try to get my number just so she can harass me even more.

0:10:17 Thomas: That's wow. OK? That doesn't sound good.

0:10:20 Lydia: Yeah, she's very intense to say the least. Right.

0:10:22 Thomas: One thing I won't notice often, it's like, OK, if this person's like Latina it's and, I think often they say, like, I'm a person of color, a person of color. And then it gives you the image of like walking up to like a black woman and be like, are you racist against black? Which is. You know, insane. So I wouldn't be surprised if, you this person is very obviously not African -American. But other than that, a damning that's story.

0:10:41 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. You know, just the year previous, they were named one of the top 50 PR agencies in America, like pretty big deal by 2022. But, you we have all these anecdotes of how horribly intense it was. There's early a client that also said that she switched publicists after being with Jones for a short period of time. She said that. The fees were exceptionally high. She was paying around $10 ,000 a month for PR services. Additionally, she couldn't handle the drama of working with Jones. Quote, she's effective, but she's a nightmare. She's yelling at me. She yelled at the people who worked for me. I felt like I was being abused by my PR person.

0:11:19 Thomas: Hell?

0:11:20 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, so that article came out. Two weeks later, this kind of online magazine, essentially, for the Hamptons community in New York, you know, like very ritzy area, vacation area that a lot of New Yorkers go to, the 30th, 2024, they issue a Q &A with her. And it's basically a puff piece, I'm guessing, to counteract what was happening with this Business Insider piece. One piece I want to share here. Asked, what are some of the unique lessons any of these notable clients have taught you along your journey? Do any of those stand out for things you learn through your work? Tom Brady is one of her clients. And she said, Tom Brady has taught me to embrace failure as a learning opportunity. Setbacks can provide invaluable lessons that contribute to future success. And the value of building strong relationships and teamwork that nothing great is achieved alone and collaboration is vital for success both on and off the field. This mindset has really shaped how I approach both business and life. Venus Williams' perseverance and resilience are a great reminder that hard work can overcome any challenge. V embodies empowerment and constantly inspires

0:12:21 Thomas: Right.

0:12:21 Lydia: Us to. Yeah, to believe in ourselves and pursue our dreams fearlessly. Her advocacy for gender equality serves as a powerful reminder to always fight for what's right. I love Jeff Bezos's philosophy on work -life harmony rather concept of work - life balance, which often suggests a strict trade -off. Views it as being interconnected, like a circle, which has encouraged me to think more holistically about my professional and personal life. It's inspired me to To integrate both seamlessly instead of one versus the other, which are definitely like talking points trying to counteract specifically what was called out in the business insider article.

0:12:21 Thomas: Blah, blah, blah. Is there anything interesting here?

0:12:50 Thomas: Yeah. So some of those platitudes were like geared toward. It's like when you do a job interview and you try to like say stuff about like specific. Requirements of the job. You know, you try to like tailor your stories to that. So it's like that. Otherwise I was wondering why you were even reading this boring, like plain nonsense.

0:13:10 Lydia: I know. I know because the Jeff Bezos one in particular, there were multiple folks who spoke to Business Insider and said that she like trusted what they would say. Like there was one person who called out sick. They were actually going to a job interview. And then Stephanie Jones like reached out and said, like, hey, are you feeling better? And the person was like, oh, yeah, I took a nap and I'm feeling better.

0:13:31 Lydia: Then, like, the employee wiped off their makeup really fast, answered the FaceTime, and Stephanie Jones was like, you're wearing mascara. You're a liar. And then, yeah, and then there was an employee who had a funeral that they were going to. And Stephanie Jones FaceTimed them because she didn't believe that they felt like they had to justify, you that they they were attending like a funeral for a family member, which counter to what she's saying about work life harmony.

0:13:59 Thomas: My God. Yeah.

0:13:59 Lydia: It's not a strict trade off, you

0:14:00 Thomas: So she's a she seems like a shit boss. A little interesting. Like, is this newsworthy? You know, like I am kind of wondering because we're in all this controversy. We're dealing with the idea of like planted stories. And did someone do it? It's like, this I is a lot of reporting. So I feel like someone cared about this more so than just like this. Isn't a story from Business Insider that said sources say she sucked. You know this is like They they. Followed up and got interviews with a random DJ from the year, whatever that was, 2020 something like that's interesting.

0:14:30 Lydia: And I will say that maybe like for the average person, this stuff isn't that newsworthy, but in the PR world, it very much is. It really seemed to start with at least kind of like in the online space, May 8th, 2024, when a website was launched. Stephanie Jones Leaks. And they also started a Pinterest account, a Facebook account, Reddit account, and a Twitter account. It was then taken down and rebranded. Now it's called stephaniejoneslies .com.

0:15:06 Thomas: Big is this firm? Like how many people? Yeah, that's wow.

0:15:10 Lydia: They've had a lot of turnover. And that's what I was saying. Like, Jennifer Abel was there for four years. And a lot of folks have said, like, most people maybe make it to their first year anniversary. Maybe. A lot of people don't. You see a lot turnover. The Glassdoor reviews are terrible.

0:15:27 Thomas: Which makes me wonder how much Abel might have participated in this culture then, you know, especially

0:15:31 Lydia: I think that's a totally fair point to make.

0:15:33 Thomas: If she made partner.

0:15:34 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So... think that's that's the bulk of the stuff I want to talk about regarding Stephanie Jones before we get into the lawsuit, with the exception of just one little side note that comes up a lot in the online space for this. Stephanie Jones, you know, just like going way, way back, she actually got her start doing data management at an advertising firm in New York in 2001. owner of that advertising firm is Donnie Deutsch, who is.

0:15:59 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, he. Used to have like a show on MSNBC. He had a show, on CNBC, I think. An advertising person, but also like a, you know, broadcast person. And she was with him starting in 2001 in New York, transitioned to public relations while she was that firm. And then she started JonesWorks in 2011, incorporating it in New Donnie Deutsch is one of her clients now, so he always speaks very highly of her. They go way, way back. So keep that in mind if you ever see any comments from Deutsch regarding who she is as a person. Additionally, her husband is named Hodes. Jason Hodes is a senior partner at WME, which we talked about last time. William Morrison Dever. He's been there for nearly 25 years. So very, very well connected in the talent agency space. Hodes is also listed as a manager for Jonesworks via Corporate. Yeah. So there's a lot of interest there.

0:15:58 Thomas: No, I know that name. Huh? I could imagine. I mean, I have no idea if this will happen, but I could also imagine that that that being interesting for discovery when normally it's like, well, privilege, you can't just get conversations between husband and wife or if there's anything, you an officer of this company or whatever, that might be a different story. No idea if that's going to matter, but just something I'm thinking of.

0:17:07 Lydia: And so they do have like aligned business interests to some respect, too. They also incorporated their condo that they own in L .A. real estate purposes. So I'm guessing it's a rental. They live out in New York.

0:17:17 Thomas: So did the Stephanie Jones leaks thing and all that? Did that have? Did

0:17:21 Lydia: Hasn't generated much at all, honestly. Now, it's like. Thing like, if you intend to do all of these things and it calls out like Donnie Deutsch and like the quotes regarding Business Insider. It sounds like the people who are involved with this website are very much involved with the profile in Business Insiter and feel like they. Know, kind of actually another parallel to the Andrew situation. People feel that they are victims of Stephanie Jones and they shared their story with Business Insider and didn't include a lot of the things that they spoke about,

0:17:55 Thomas: Could be like they Insider obviously is going to have their legal standards in terms of what they're comfortable publishing. And if something isn't perhaps well documented enough, they might be scared to publish it versus someone who is an accuser and might just be like, didn't you put this in there?

0:18:10 Lydia: From the website. Itself specifically. It says, but to be frank, the article was pretty disappointing to the 40 plus people who bravely shared their story and included current and former staff, current and clients, and in general, horrified bystanders and took the time to speak to the reporter. We don't blame Business Insider. They were in a tough spot. Unfortunately, due to the sheer terror of facing such an unhinged and litigious person, many were not able to speak on the record. This allowed Stephanie and her crisis PR person, because she hired a crisis PR

0:18:39 Thomas: Huh. But she would always have that ability. What? They're always going to take her statement, too, sort of like the New York Times got Baldoni's statement. Am I misunderstanding?

0:18:48 Lydia: I think that Business Insider had invited invited her for like an interview, like a more expansive interview, and she declined and instead had the PR person. Yeah, yeah. Which is her right.

0:18:56 Thomas: But that. OK, that all seems normal

0:18:59 Lydia: It's her right, yeah, but specifically like what stood out to me here was, you know, a lot of people speaking to Business Insiders and then feeling like a lot important parts of their story.

0:18:59 Thomas: To me. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's that's what I've been trying to suss out is basically from all you're seeing. How do you feel? Because like we're dealing in a larger controversy where we're not sure who to believe. We're not like all this stuff. You Is a lot more than just like sources say, like this, this is like they saw whoever that was. I mean, unless they have some personal connection or something, whoever that saw that is enough of a story to go to some pretty far lengths to report it. I mean this person kind of seems like a nightmare to me, to be honest.

0:19:43 Lydia: That's kind of where I'm landing, too. And something similar that I've been feeling throughout all of this coverage is that, like, you don't have to think a person is a good person to also believe that they have, you know, a meritorious legal claim. I

0:19:56 Thomas: Well, and especially we're publicist against publicist here. So it's going to take a lot to convince me that any of those people aren't psychopaths. That's my default. And Jones is necessarily wrong. On how you might evaluate evidence or something, but it doesn't could very well be that. Of them is in the right or in the wrong and they both suck like that could totally be true but it does seem pretty established that like she's a nightmare of a boss yeah

0:20:20 Lydia: Do try to keep it in mind while I'm like reading this stuff because like viscerally I'm oh my God, I would never work for this person. But then I'm keeping it in mine. This were a man, would it be an entire expose in Business Insider? Who knows? Do think there are elements of this where it wouldn't have been like it just would have been, you know, accepted as like, well, you

0:20:34 Thomas: Well who knows or exactly or like would have been enough I'm sure people people wouldn't love it this is pretty crappy behavior but it's like seen as more of something that you you just have to put up with rather than something to stand up against possibly who knows

0:20:53 Lydia: I think that is a challenging dichotomy, I guess, for folks that are, you know, in powerful positions in their industry. I want to be fair about that.

0:21:03 Thomas: It suffice to say pretty strong evidence that she sucks, but doesn't necessarily say anything about the legal dispute here. So are we getting to the complaint? Are you saying we're ready?

0:21:10 Lydia: We get to get to the complaint. We're ready.

0:21:20 Thomas: Right. Let's dig in. I think it's good to start with maybe the causes of action, not to go into depth, but to keep in mind what they are so that as we read the facts, we can have them in So first cause of action is breach of contract, ABLE employment agreement against Jennifer ABLE. So cause of action, tortious interference with contract, able employment agreement against defendants, Melissa, Nathan, Wayfair and Justin Baldoni. Okay, so that's interesting.

0:21:44 Thomas: One that looks to me like, it's you against the people who are helping her mess with a contract that she already, it was almost like, like, yeah, aiding and abetting.

0:21:50 Lydia: Conspiring. Yeah. Yeah.

0:21:52 Thomas: Yeah, like conspiring to help because that's not against Abel. It's against Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer and Justin Baldoni. Like I said, we'll go into more depth on the law on this later. This We're is just to keep them in mind. Is breach of contract Wayfarer. OK, that makes sense. So like they had their contract and Wayfarer and Baldoni is They're alleging to be in breach. Cause of action, tortious interference with contract, Wayfarer. Okay, so that's like kind of the split, the reverse. This is against Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, which I guess that makes sense. Yeah, okay. So we'll it's keep that in mind. Fifth cause of Action, Faithless Servant. Never heard of that one.

0:22:24 Lydia: Neither. I'm really excited to learn about that later.

0:22:26 Thomas: This is against just Jennifer Able. Looks like this has to do with like a duty of loyalty to your company. So Again, through we'll the law, but just keeping that in mind. So, that would be like, hey, you worked here and yet you were disloyal and you worked against the best interest of the company. Okay. Sixth cause of action, breach of fiduciary duty against Abel. That strikes me as kind of similar. See how that shakes out. It's interesting if she had a fiduciARY. Duty. I guess it would depend on her position there and kind of what that looks like.

0:22:55 Lydia: I mean, yeah. Partner. I. Yeah,

0:22:57 Thomas: Yeah, that's interesting. Although if you're, I in this instance, it mean ownership, right? Because then she's resigning, like that wouldn't really be, that must be a title that, yeah that just involves compensation and not like ownership of the company. So that'll be, interesting. Seventh cause of action, defamation against Abel. OK, eighth defamation. Defamation against John Doe's one through 10. that's like not knowing who of helped with that. And it's about the. Anonymous website. About the articles and that kind of thing. So those are our causes of action. Action. And one more time, we'll get into the depth of that later, but just keep in mind. And this was originally filed in New York state. It's been consolidated with federal court. Court. Going to see it in the pleadings. I mean, it might be that, federal. You is still likely going to apply apply New York law here, although there could be a battle over that. Specifically New York stuff that isn't always the same in another state. We've seen that before where one of the things someone's pleading in California doesn't necessarily work in New York because it's a different law. But right, so once again, as we always say, this is Stephanie Jones's complaint. So we're not taking this as fact, but this is her allegations. I think it'll be interesting to start with kind of the basics in terms of, you Abel was hired and all. Let's give you some of that, it's because going to be important in a breach of contract, of course. Like, what are the contracts? When were they signed?

0:24:12 Thomas: All that stuff. It says, in July 2020, Jonesworks hired Abel to work as a publicist with the title vice president. Wow, that's interesting. At vice president level?

0:24:12 Lydia: Right, right. Yeah well she was coming from another firm for for an extensive period of time. Yeah

0:24:23 Thomas: Seems, yeah. July 9th, Able and Jones Works executed contracts, an offer letter establishing Able's compensation and a non -disclosure and intellectual property rights and non -solicitation agreement. And call that the Able NDA going forward. This complaint. Agreed to keep confidential any and all of Jonesworks' proprietary information, including strategies, plans, and financial information, as well as information relating to Jonesworks clients. Argued that any work product she created was the property of JonesWorks. She also agreed that she would not prepare or assist in the preparation of any articles about Jonesworks without Jonesworks Express permission, would not disparage Jonesworks in any communications with any reporter or any Jonesworks client. And would not attempt to persuade any Jonesworks client to stop doing business with Jonesworks.

0:25:16 Lydia: Critical.

0:25:16 Thomas: Yeah, that all does seem highly relevant. And it's interesting. They don't have to, obviously. They be part of the discovery and all that stuff. But yeah, think we can take it. Pretty much for granted that if they're representing that that was in the contract, that's what's what's going to be in the Contract. I mean, that so that's not the kind of thing that you that I mean Maybe they could mischaracterize it slightly. But a yeah, lot of that stuff is pretty pretty standard especially for high -level you're bringing someone on as vice president, like, yeah, I mean, honestly, that's part of why you're hiring someone to pay them a lot is that they will be loyal to the company and they'll do those things. That seems pretty standard to me and pretty plausible. It says on November 22nd, 2021, Jonesworks and Able executed an employment agreement adjusting the terms of her employment. Essentially changed the title to vice president comma talent. Provided her with compensation tied to the company's performance, including a bonus based on distributions made by the company and a payment equal to one percent of any net proceeds in the event of a sale of Jones work. So that sounds like more like making partner in quotes, kind

0:25:18 Lydia: I wish they included the NDA as an process. Right. Yeah. Right? It gives her a little bit of a financial stake in the company itself.

0:26:18 Thomas: That's not giving her any ownership or anything. It's just like modeled after. Yeah, yeah. And so I think that might be important when it comes to like if I do share a duty or whatever, but who knows? We'll we'll talk to a lawyer about that. It reiterates this this updated employment agreement still have the, you know, not using Jonesworks proprietary information other than for benefiting the company. Of her work were sold property of Jones works. It also says there's a non -compete in this one that she would not directly or indirectly compete with Jones works for business during her employment or for a period of six months after her departure.

0:26:21 Lydia: Financial. Oh wow.

0:26:51 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah. She oh, that she would only notify clients of her departure from Jonesworks with Jones's approval. Here we go. Now that answers my questions. Abel also expressly agreed that she owed Jonesworks, quote, a fiduciary duty of loyalty, fidelity, allegiance to act at all times in the best interests of the company and to do no act which might injure the business interests or reputation of the we're going to talk to a lawyer. We we may be talking to a very experience in this. And one of the questions I will be thinking of is oftentimes you sign a contract and it doesn't always mean that everything in that contract is enforceable. So who knows if they're like often there there could be NDA provisions that are not actually enforceable because companies just maybe try to get. Whatever they can and don't realize that like, in California, or there's states who have kind of done stuff about that to them. So I'm not saying that's happening here by any means, but I'm just saying that is one thing the expertise of a lawyer brings is like, well, this wouldn't really be enforceable or this would, you know, so we'll cover all that later. But again, this is just the allegations in complaint. Includes New York as a choice of law provision and New York forum selection clause. That's interesting. Abel expressly agrees. So this is like how to handle disputes, which it's interesting. It doesn't say it doesn't arbitration, does it? Another thing I'm keeping an eye on is like the arbitration stuff, because I know I mentioned that before and I had seen arbitration connected with Jonesworks, but at as we are in this complaint right now with Abel, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing. Employment agreement included a New York choice of law provision and a New New York form selection clause. Abel expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court sitting in New York, New York for any disputes under the agreement. So not, that's not arbitration. I'm virtually certain. After executing the employment agreement, Jonesworks began referring to Abel as a quote partner, but Abel remained at all times an employee of Jonesworks and never held any partnership interest in the company. Okay. That's exactly what

0:28:45 Thomas: I said. A label, but it's not, you're not actually a partner.

0:28:45 Lydia: That a label specific to this industry, you Know, kind of thing. So being very clear about it. Mm

0:28:51 Thomas: It's going to talk about the agreements with Wayfarer and with Baldoni. It looks like Jonesworks took him on, Baldoni specifically, in 2017.

0:29:00 Lydia: They have a long standing relationship.

0:29:01 Thomas: No kidding. And Baldoni founded Wayfarers in 2019, as we've covered. Jonesworks also started representing that company. Now when it's talking about the Jonesworks -Wayfarer agreement, saying that's in May 2020.

0:29:14 Lydia: Ready for this price tag.

0:29:16 Thomas: Wayfarer agreement provided that Jonesworks would provide strategic communication services in a professional manner. In exchange for these services, Wayfarers agreed to pay Jonesworks $20 ,000 per month plus expenses, a 20 % commission for any speaking engagements Jonesworks procured. Okay. I mean, fair enough. I guess if they're bringing him business that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise, maybe that makes sense. And commission for That seems broad and that seems like a lot.

0:29:27 Lydia: Plus expenses. They're making bank. Yeah?

0:29:46 Thomas: It depends on what you mean by facilitated, but I feel like if they. That's a very... Look, I'm no expert in this industry, but just as someone who did go to business school and knows a little something about contracts, that seems like a really good contract for Jonesworks. I 10 % commission for any third -party agreements that they facilitate? So they facilitated any of the distribution or anything with that movie, I mean that could be when they have rights to 10 % of like millions of dollars? I don't know. I'm not sure how they, yeah, how they qualify that.

0:30:09 Lydia: Who knows? Yeah. Yeah her

0:30:11 Thomas: But that's, wow, that's a lot. Wayfarer Agreement provided that if Wayfarers requested additional services, the parties negotiate an additional fee for those services. In case that stuff wasn't enough. Jeez. Wayfair agreed not to solicit any Jonesworks employees or attempt to induce any Joneswork's employees to terminate her employment.

0:30:31 Lydia: Employment.

0:30:32 Thomas: Yeah, that's kind of.

0:30:33 Lydia: Instead of there.

0:30:34 Thomas: Yeah. OK, that'S kind of funny. I don't know if that's like a Freudian slip or intentional, but to terminade her. That is really funny. During the term of the Wayfarer Agreement, because it can't really apply to Jones, the way the sentence is going, right? Or attempt to induce any Jonesworks employees to terminate her employment. Yeah, there's no way. Okay. For one year thereafter. Interesting. Provided that either party could terminate it only if the other party materially breached its terms and failed to cure those material breaches within 10 days of receiving notice. That's very interesting.

0:30:51 Lydia: It's about Abel. Yep. Yeah.

0:31:10 Thomas: We'll see how that goes.

0:31:11 Lydia: Keep an eye on that timeline.

0:31:13 Thomas: Is where we have the arbitration clause. The Wayfair Agreement is governed by New York law. Any disputes under the Wayfairy Agreement were to be resolved through binding arbitration in New York, New York. Wayfaire, through counsel, subsequently repudiated this arbitration provision. That is fascinating.

0:31:29 Lydia: It doesn't have a date when they repudiated it. I don't know if they repudiated it at the time of signing. Subsequently repudiating, because that just means that they like they verbally disagree.

0:31:37 Thomas: You can't just do that, right?

0:31:39 Lydia: Right. They're like, yeah, we don't like that.

0:31:40 Thomas: Like we're not going to go into arbitration for some, and maybe they have like for that, but that seems weird. That's question one of the first questions I'll have for the lawyers we talked to. Contract had a one -year term that automatically renewed for additional one -years. Wow. I mean... seems pretty clear unless they're just making it up, which I highly doubt. These are way specific claims about a contract. And it also sounds pretty pretty basic contract stuff. So it's like at

0:32:18 Lydia: When you're talking about damages and stuff, if if you can prove that Wayfarer, did you not exit a contract legally like. They're potentially on the hook for paying that at least the $20 ,000 every single month for whatever elapsed. Yeah.

0:32:29 Thomas: Least. Yeah. The law around that is always weirder than I think, like often. Terms of what damages you'll get. So we'll talk to the lawyers about that, because I know there have been times when I've talked about contracts with lawyers and it's like, well, what happens if they break breach this? Nothing. I don't know. You know, or like and told us the there's a liquidated damages clause or whatever, but like sometimes it's weird because if you can't point to specifically like. Damages in dollars, then like sometimes breaches don't result in anything, but there could also be, sometimes there's like punitive damages and other stuff. So we'll, again, we'll clear all that up with lawyers. Also says in June 2020, they agreed to incorporate Baldoni into the Wayfarer agreement. So like rather than having two contracts, it seems like there they're now. It's like, OK, PR for Baldoni and Wayfarers, and they'll just do an additional five thousand per month. So now it's twenty five thousand a month. And it says until the dispute described in this complaint, Wayfair and Baldoni paid these invoices each month. OK. About how Abel was like the primary contact on that account, essentially, and was doing a good job. And so they kind of Abel worked closely with Jamie Heath and Baldoni accepted we're going to get to Melissa Nathan.

0:33:41 Lydia: And some interesting stuff in here. Nathan, talked you about her a bit in the lawsuit itself, calls her out as a longtime crisis manager who has previously worked at several public relations firms. Probably get into some more detail about Melissa Nathan. But this is kind of, you Know, just some some information to keep in mind as we go through the rest of the complaint. 2022, Nathan and Jonesworks engaged in negotiations regarding Nathan potentially joining Jonesworks.

0:34:06 Lydia: Yeah. The negotiations progressed significantly, including Jonesworks agreeing to hire and actually hiring two of Nathan's colleagues upon Nathan's insistence. However, negotiations with Nathan failed and she was not retained by Jonesworks.

0:34:19 Thomas: That is interesting.

0:34:20 Lydia: And then she started her own firm. Yeah.

0:34:22 Thomas: Oh. Oh she hadn't had her own firm before that.

0:34:25 Lydia: So she was leaving Matthew Hiltzik and his firm post Johnny Depp.

0:34:28 Thomas: And so it was like hey we'll I'll join you. These people are leaving to hire them.

0:34:33 Lydia: Then they hired them and then they couldn't agree on terms or something. And yeah. And Yeah. Then And the following year, it says that Jones witnessed Nathan's approach to handling clients' crises when they worked for a mutual client. Nathan's tactics went far over the line. Jones recommended that the client terminate its relationship with Nathan, which was separate and independent from Jones and Jonesworks. Jones herself further resolved that she would not collaborate with Nathan for clients in the future. Has seemed to harbor significant animus towards Jones and Jonasworks ever since. Yeah.

0:34:35 Thomas: Then they couldn't agree on anything. Huh? Interesting.

0:35:05 Lydia: Little rhetoric in there that they're going to throw in.

0:35:04 Thomas: Right. Yeah. OK, so I know who to trust in that. I could imagine that like Jones could have been pissed that they couldn't come to an agreement. Like maybe she was maybe pissed that that never came to Jonesworks. And so that that could have started this whole thing that I want to see more.

0:35:09 Lydia: Fair. Hmm.

0:35:20 Thomas: Documents on that to see who, like, if, if I have an opinion about who's in the right or who's the wrong, but like, eh, I don't think any of this really matters legally speaking. Cause it's like either they, they contracts or not. Like, I mean, do you have to prove animus? I, yeah, I Don't think for any of the, the, alleged, I think you have I think the intent would be a separate. It wouldn't be I'm hate this person. It would be I mean, I'm intending to take the business from them. And I don't think you need to prove whether or not you're doing that because you like them or hate them. I don'T think that matters. I think The intent is I'm I'M stealing your clients, essentially, or I'm facilitating facilitating in someone else breaking an agreement. I really DON'T think look, we 'LL talk to the lawyers. I DON'T THINK the animus matters much. This seems more like just kind of some writing to me.

0:35:38 Lydia: Tortious interference, you don't think it necessarily has intent? Hm. Yeah, right.

0:36:06 Thomas: I think important to say that's Jones's view of things like, oh, this person really I didn't like her because she was she goes too far, you know, with the clients. And that's why she doesn't like me. OK, we'll see. We'll see how I'll keep an eye on like the evidence and how that bears out. Nathan launched the agency group, which we've heard of January 2024. OK. That's that's very new. Next heading is Abel and Nathan's scheme to use Baldoni's crisis to attack Jones's reputation and steal Jones's business. Right. Already, I'm going to go ahead and say the framing sounds a little narcissistic there. Very skeptical of, like, oh, hey, this is great. There's a crisis. We can use this to attack Jones's reputation. No. OK. Who knows? We'll see. Just kind of restates a lot of Blake Lively's claims in fewer words. Important to read most of this narrative, but if anything is like important corroboration that's out, kind we'll let you know. But for most part, it is reiterating in general what the dispute is from Lively perspective. I do want to say in 50 here, I want to see proof of this, but this is important here. Jones has the ability to corroborate this, it strikes me as really important to the Blake Lively claims. It says, as the August 2024 release neared, Baldoni began to fear that the increased attention being paid to him and the film would cause reports of allegations about his onset misbehavior to come out. Abel and Nathan, with encouragement from Heath and without Jones's knowledge or approval, began to formulate a no holds barred strategy to discredit and suppress any potential revelations about Baldoni's onset behavior. So what I have in mind there is. Our reading Blake Lively's complaint, as of the information we have now, it strikes me as very compelling that there's a campaign. That means, you any of these efforts with the motivation being we've got to. Blake Lively or take her down, discredit her because of what she did. And the main defense is going to be, oh no, we're just putting out PR for other reasons. We're not doing it out of retaliation. That seems pretty critical. And so this paragraph, we'll have to see if this is... out with evidence, but it does cast it as they're doing this because of the allegations coming out. It doesn't specifically yet say they want to take down Blake, but if you're doing a no holds barred strategy of discrediting and suppressing any potential revelations, we can assume that means Blake. So we'll keep an eye on that. That could be important for Blake Lively's case. Next, she says, like, well, I kind of trusted, you Jones kind of entrusted Abel to working independently on this and that anything she was doing would reflect the company's integrity and ethos. Unfortunately, the opposite turned out to be true. Yeah, I don't know. But I don'T well ,I don'T know what their integrity and Ethos is, but find I it plausible that this was kind of behind Jones's back. But we'll see. I think Discovery will reveal a lot about that. Does lend credence to that when it says Abel went around Jones to arrange for Baldonian Wayfarer to retain Nathan. That actually does, now that I think about it, if Jones hates Nathan and Nathan hates Jones, which I think is pretty well established. We don't know who's in the right or who's wrong or whatever. Maybe they both suck. But if they hate each other, it does seem like pretty powerful evidence that Abel would have likely gone around Jones in order to retain her services, retain Nathan's services.

0:39:23 Lydia: Mean, if things were all above board, you would think that Jonesworks would retain Nathan on behalf of Baldonian Wayfarer. It specifically is that Baldonian wayfarer retained Melissa Nathan. Think so.

0:39:34 Thomas: Is that... The say the only thing is perhaps for any sort of liability, Jonesworks would rather have that be a direct relationship and they're just coordinating rather than like Jonesworks being liable for anything you're doing or a third party is doing. Think it's possible that actually it would work out this way either way.

0:40:02 Lydia: Guess it would also be interesting because, you know, she had stated previously in the lawsuit that they had a mutual client. So I guess the nature of that contracting relationship would shed some light here if this is normal or not. The client contracted with Melissa Nathan separately.

0:40:17 Thomas: Yeah. In that instance, it's said she asked client to get rid of Nathan. I think that's normally how it's done. Now it says on information and belief, Nathan took advantage of this opportunity to encourage Abel to leave Jonesworks and to conspire with Abel, to steal Baldoni and Wayfarer as clients from Jonesworks, and to smear Jones and Jonesworks in the press. Information and belief, Nathan did so because she believed, among other things, that Abel would encourage Nathan's own burgeoning relationship with these and other Jonesworks clients, while Jones would not. Scheme This ultimately inflicted serious damage on Jones and Jonesworks. Interesting. And remember, she has a lot of texts from Abel, so we'll see how this is substantiated. And just like everything we've talked about before, you don't have to put text messages in your complaint. There are some in this and we'll see when they start popping up here. Yeah.

0:41:08 Lydia: Popping up.

0:41:16 Thomas: Next heading is Abel and Nathan devise a smear campaign against Lively to benefit Baldoni and Wayfarer. So that's I mean, that's pretty direct there. Yeah, I'm gonna keep reading. This is interesting stuff. And Abel's strategy for Baldoni was set forth in part in a four page memorandum sent to Baldoni, but kept secret from Jones that outlined, quote, several potential scenarios at play here, which we should be prepared for should Blake Lively and her team make her grievances public. And this is this scenario planning we've already talked about. It's interesting to say kept secret would be pretty easily disproved by any CCs or any emails with her on it. And so I'm imagining that's true. It'd be a very dumb thing to claim otherwise. It also might make sense if like, look, we know that Abel left and we know she took Wayfarer and Baldoni. We know all that happened. So this could have been part of that process. It sounds like Jones might have been in the dark here, but we'll see.

0:42:08 Lydia: Especially if this is a document that originates from Melissa Nathan and she's contracted with Baldonian Wayfarer immediately. Melissa Nathan has no reason to send it to Jones. Jennifer Abel would. But if she didn't, you

0:42:18 Thomas: I think it's worth reiterating this memo because it seems pretty important to me. And, she you put it in this complaint. So I think I'm going to read the key parts here. There are several potential scenarios at play here, we should be prepared for should BL and her team make her grievances public via blatant story or a subtle leak. She was made to compromise with the premier, we feel she will move forward with doing so. Then later it says JB has before the Me Too movement even began, referencing his TED Talk. Pieces will likely come out following any potential hit piece and or coverage from the premiere. Our recommended approach would be to provide reporters who reach out for comment, should it be obvious she's referring to you, with the appropriate background information listed in scenario one to ensure these stories are well balanced and the speculation can be turned to another one of the many people she's had issues working with. And it lists Leighton Meester, Anna Kendrick, and Ben Affleck. Part of this, our team can also explore planting stories, interesting, about the weaponization of feminism and how people in Blake Lively's circle, like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to bully into getting what they want. Then it repeats the stuff we already saw in Lively where, Baldoni you replies and says, not in love with this document, not sure, you

0:43:39 Lydia: We can't put this stuff in writing.

0:43:40 Thomas: Nathan to Abel, hey, we can't send documents that say we'll do all this. So it's reiterating those. Mind you, this came out before, it's not before the CRD complaint, but it is before Blake Lively's actual complaint on 1231, I think it was.

0:43:56 Lydia: 1231.

0:43:57 Thomas: So, yeah, you know, we can bury anyone, but I can't write that to him. I will. I'll be very tough kind of thing. OK. And we get the Haley Bieber thing. So a lot of this is repeated. Says Nathan Nables behind the scenes efforts for Baldoni and Heath also included frantically working to squash emerging media reports about certain human resources complaints that had been filed against Baldoni in connection with the film. This pretty this important to Lively's case. Here's what's interesting. Now they think about it. I don't know how relevant this stuff is to Stephanie Jones's case, Why you does this matter? Like if Stephanie Jones's case is they stole the business, you know, it's breach it's of contract. She stole my client. These people helped facilitate that. There's defamation. But for Jones, not for Blake Lively, obviously, I don't totally see why this is entirely relevant, you I'm not saying whether this is valid or not, but I'm just trying to think because, like, again, I think it's I my point is right about like this isn't legally speaking, particularly relevant to the breach of contract claims, I don't think that I'm missing something. Do think if Stephanie Jones is someone who thinks she's been smeared or whatever. Perhaps trying to make the case that these people are smear artists who are you know

0:45:09 Thomas: Have a history of smearing someone else maybe that in Joan's mind helps make the that like oh I guess the stuff against her wasn't true kind of thing so that could be why she's including this

0:45:19 Lydia: This is like the Hamptons' response to the Business Insider expose. Like that Hamptoms magazine that she did, that Q &A.

0:45:23 Thomas: So Information and Belief, Nathan and Abel also use their industry connections to plant negative stories about Lively in press outlets, including the Daily Mail and the New York Post's Page Six, and leverage their teams to create and perpetuate negative content about Lively on social media platforms, such as TikTok. There's a footnote that references the is Blake Lively set to be canceled article, which is interesting because that's the one where there's all kinds of dispute over whether or not that was actually planted, which we'll get to later. So, hmm, interesting. Does say, for example, Abel closely coordinated with Page Six reporter Sarah Nathan, Melissa Nathan's sister, to publish an article hostile toward Lively's role in the production of the film. I got a question. I wonder why Sarah Nathan isn't named in this and not this one, but in Blake Lively. I don't if that would make any sense.

0:46:13 Lydia: Maybe. It's like a like a journalist sort of privilege or whatever. Mm not gonna go there.

0:46:18 Thomas: Maybe like First Amendment stuff, but know. Coordinating with your PR crisis PR sister. Yeah, that's interesting.

0:46:25 Lydia: You know, I actually have something I was going to say, but I'm just going to tell you about it now while we're talking about Melissa Nathan and Sarah Nathan. So one Melissa Nathan's clients is Jason Sudeikis. You remember how I said at the very beginning of the series, we talked about Don't Worry Darling and how it had so much drama.

0:46:40 Lydia: And one piece of the drama was when Olivia Wilde got served while she was speaking at event. Jason Sudeikis said he was, quote, horrified in a statement to the press. Guess who covered it? Nathan. Yeah.

0:46:52 Thomas: Interesting, yeah.

0:46:53 Lydia: So as I've been reading all of this stuff, I would not be surprised if Melissa Nathan coordinated with, like, process server to specifically serve Olivia Wilde in that way. Interesting. Don't trust anybody. Yeah, back to the complaint.

0:47:09 Thomas: I know, yeah, for sure. So she reiterates that you know Nathan and Abel are doing this and it's the strategy that Baldoni and Heath wanted and they hid it from Jones. She does say that it's an order to ingratiate themselves with Baldonian Heath and drive a wedge between Baldonian Jones and ultimately to steal Baldonian Wayfarer from Jonesworks as clients. Talks about how Jones, she says, oh, she was kept in the dark and, you know, not aware of this like campaign they're doing. But objected to Wayfarers hiring of Nathan and advocated a positive press strategy instead. Wayfarer's president immediately reported Jones comments to Abel. And we have that text here.

0:47:46 Lydia: We do, from Tara Hanks.

0:47:49 Thomas: Tara Hanks?

0:47:50 Lydia: Of Wayfarer Studios. Whoops.

0:47:51 Thomas: I thought Heath was the.

0:47:52 Lydia: 21st, 2024. Jamie Heath moved to CEO at that point in time. So when Jamie Heath like signed the item list, right, like he was president at that time. Then he moved to role the early 2024 and Tara Hanks stepped into this job. So we is dated August 14th. 2024, Tara Hanks reached out to Jennifer Abel and said, text from Stephanie about the HR article and us hiring Melissa for crisis. This wasn't planted by Leslie. This is playbook by Melissa. There was no New York Post story she kept at bay. Melissa's sister works at Page Six. We need to flood zones with positive press and push back on claims. There is no counter to claims in story. His complimentary sound bites of Blake need to be covered on high SEO sites. So this is, you know, demonstrating her push that they needed more positive stories regarding Justin Baldoni rather than. To focus on the negative Blake Lively stuff.

0:48:46 Thomas: I'm finding it a little weird. For one, there's no reason that Jones couldn't have included her own actual text. Like, kind of interesting. She didn't. She just included the ones that seems like she got from Mabel's phone. Again, I do not think Jones is probably a great person. So who knows what's in her text? We'll probably find out. But for another, I'm having trouble understanding. It says, from Tara Hanks, implying that Stephanie Jones is messaging with Hanks the president of Wayfarer about this. Interested in how that's happening, because like if Jones is saying she was handling this and was keeping it from her. I don't.

0:48:53 Lydia: That's a good point. She was uninvolved. Yeah, it's

0:49:23 Thomas: I don'T. It's kind of weird, but I DON'T know if maybe like the conflict had arisen at this point, maybe. And they're starting to like Stephanie Jones was starting to peel back. You know, who knows? Maybe Stephanie Jones became aware of what was going on by this point. Was trying to, like, win the trust of the client back, possibly. Who knows? But interesting that she's saying this wasn't planted by Leslie, which central allegation from Baldoni is going to be, and we'll get to it, that Leslie Sloan. Lively's publicist was planting stories. And that seems pretty important because if you can point to that as your justification, that's that's a complaint.

0:49:24 Lydia: Interesting.

0:49:57 Thomas: But anyway, Stephanie Jones is saying this wasn't planted by Leslie. This is playbook by Melissa. There was no New York Post story she kept at bay. Melissa's sister works at Page Six. That's interesting. So Jones is alleging that Melissa is kind of making this shit up to, know, like she's telling the client, hey, there's a story. I'm keeping it at bay, you Know, and sort of misrepresenting what they're doing. It says, excluding Jones from the conversation, he flatly rejected any pivot to a positive strategy in the text to Abel. Suggesting that Jones should be shut out for undermining their strategy, he called Jones' influence on the situation poison. This text is from Heath to Abel. I don't like the idea that there is continued cannibalization from within the same side, meaning Jonesworks, I .e. Stephanie and the crisis team. I only want us to be communicating with people who are working together and not with ones who are undermining others within our team. Stephanie is casting doubt and that can have an effect and have an affect like poison. I'm going to bed a first for me and forever. Let's chat more tomorrow about this. That's that's interesting. Reaction to that could have been, holy shit, the people I'm paying to help us might be lying about negative stories and kind of using that to gin up our fear and et cetera, et cetera. The response from Heath is more, well, this person's full of it and I don't want to talk to her anymore.

0:51:19 Thomas: Which, honestly, he could be right. But that, text, who knows how many others there are, though. But, that test does make a strong case that, like, she is being shut out. And, they quotes, Jones works, I .e. Stephanie. Because, like Jennifer works for Jones works.

0:51:34 Lydia: They're still talking to Jennifer.

0:51:36 Thomas: This is dated 8 -14. So, that's strong evidence for Stephanie Jones. And again, Stephanie Jones might suck, but you're alleging breach here and client is like, hey, I don't want to hear from this Jonesworks bullshit. Like, well,

0:51:51 Lydia: Especially, yeah, if you have a provision in your contract saying that the no solicitation agreement regarding clients, right? Like, it's supposed to be like six months.

0:51:59 Thomas: Also this is not, mind you, this isn't Melissa Nathan either. This is Heath talking to Abel who works at Jonesworks and saying, hey I don' want to here from this jonesworks place. Like enough of that. Like that's, I'm not the lawyer. That seems pretty strongly. Of contract and well I'm time in terms of one episode. So this is going to spread to the next episode. But this is very interesting. I'm excited to go through more of this complaint. And of course, as we did last time, we'll bring on at least one attorney, if not more. We'll see in order to talk about the legal components. But we're going continue to take a look at the allegations in the next

0:52:05 Lydia: Current employee of Jonesworks. Yeah mm mm -hmm Okay.

0:52:56 Thomas: Uh, yeah.

0:52:58 Lydia: I'm fine.

0:53:05 Thomas: And you? And you. Yeah.