Lively v. Baldoni 23 - Her Disarming Southern Twang

Transcript

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

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise to face the jury and harken to its verdicts.

0:00:26 Thomas: It's Gavel Gavel. I'm just trying to do something different, you know?

0:00:28 Lydia: Every time, are you going to do something different?

0:00:31 Thomas: No, I don't know about every time. I just want to land. I just want it to be different than the other shows. Hi, I'm Thomas.

0:00:37 Lydia: Gavel over here. Gavel over there.

0:00:39 Thomas: That over there is Lydia. How you doing?

0:00:42 Lydia: Hi. I'm doing pretty well. Yeah.

0:00:45 Thomas: So, when last we spoke, we had talked about the famous subpoena that had been solved with MJ, of course. We talked about the Van Zandt subpoena. Really interesting stuff. And that was sort of a jump on the timeline. And here's the thing. We're still in that timeline. We're doing another jump in the time. Well, let's see.

0:01:04 Lydia: It's not jumping a timeline.

0:01:05 Thomas: We are in the alternate universe of Jones v. Abel. And we'll tell you why. Because we're going to be interviewing Stephanie Jones's lawyers. They want to come on the show. They wantto tell us stuff. Andwe thought, yep, that's a good idea. Going to take advantage of that opportunity. And so we're thinking like, how do we do that? And they also, you know, they're coming on theshow not to be heard in like our chunk system time of like next year. Year.

0:01:29 Lydia: It's not going to work for them.

0:01:29 Thomas: They're coming on because they would like to be heard sometime this year. And so we're thinking about it and we're like, well, the Jones v. Abel thing, we've already flagged when we read that one that that was very interesting. It seemed, in my opinion, I'm not the lawyer. In my opinion. I don't know how Abel is getting out of that. We were very curious to see what's going on. And it is sort of a separate world. It is literally a different docket. It's related, but different. And so, we were thinking, if we're going to be talking to Stephanie Jones' lawyers, why don't we just do Jones v. Abel, that docket, it's sort of a parallel track. There's no reason that really needs to be in time with the other stuff, really, unless there's major spoilers, like unless it says like Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father and somewhere and we have to be like, ah, they didn't know that from the other docket yet or something.

0:02:13 Lydia: Even Judge Lyman has agreed that though there is overlap in parties and certain events, that there is enough difference in the facts that, you know, he intends on this being an entirely separate trial if it goes that far.

0:02:28 Thomas: Yeah, it makes sense. It is very different what's happening here. Very different. It's mainly, you know, contract stuff. It seems to me that the The Blake Lively stuff turns on, A, was she sexually harassed? And B, was there a retaliation campaign?

0:02:42 Lydia: Right.

0:02:43 Thomas: And this feels like it really doesn't turn on either of those. Like regardless of the answer of those, this is a whole different. So it makes sense. So what we're doing is we're staying in this parallel universe, but for a very good reason that we're going to be able to actually speak to Stephanie Jones's lawyers. Really excited about that.

0:02:57 Thomas: So let's get everyone caught up. Let's get ourselves caught up on this docket. And fortunately, there's not like too much. So I think we can get through it and get to where we need to be before that interview. So this episode, we're going to start. You know how we've been wondering, like, what is Abel going to say about this? Like, how is she going to get out of this one? Well, we'll start with her reply.

0:03:16 Lydia: Tune in.

0:03:16 Thomas: The next thing that's of any significance on that docket beyond, you know, administrative stuff, it doesn't not going to go through all that.

0:03:38 Thomas: The we already went through in an early episode. So I'm excited to dig into this and see what she has to say. Who knows? Because we always talk about like, hey, when you read someone's complaint, if the lawyers are good, you should feel like after you read that complaint, like, oh, okay, yeah, good points. You know, like lawyers are really good at that. So we'll find out what her defenses are after this break. We'll get into it. So if you'd like to support the show, go to patreon.com/gavelpod. That's where you can lose the ads, support the Show, get occasional bonus stuff. And most importantly, be a part of our family. Literally be adopted. Or you adopt us. I don't even know. I guess whoever's older. Yeah. A cross adoption. It's like counter complaints.

0:03:43 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. Congrats. Yeah or both. I don't know. We're not lawyers.

0:04:19 Thomas: So patreon.com/gavelpod. Thanks to all our supporters. And after this either ad or not ad, Schrodinger's ad break, we'll get into Jen Abel's counter complaint.

0:04:36 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:04:36 Thomas: All right. Dig in. This is PDF -wise, 79 pages. Oh, and I guess document -wise it's 79 pages, that's cool. Usually those don't agree, I don't know why.

0:04:44 Lydia: Usually there's like all those cover pages and stuff where it doesn't they don't get counted in the page numbers.

0:04:47 Thomas: And the good news is we can skip through a lot of the beginning, right?

0:04:53 Lydia: We can.

0:04:53 Thomas: Because it's sort of this, yeah, yeah.

0:04:54 Lydia: Yeah so the first I would say nearly 40 percent of the document is Jennifer Abel responding to the allegations paragraph by paragraph from Stephanie Jones's complaint.

0:05:07 Thomas: Now, we could kind of summarize where we were, but I think it would be better, if you don't remember, you might want to just speed through the, what is it, two episodes, then plus one with MJ, I think, I want to say. And they were great, I actually re -listened to them, it's really fun. You might want to just speed through those rather than us having to bog everything down by going through it all again. We'll remind you of stuff that's significant, but that's probably the best way if you're not remembering the key claims.

0:05:17 Lydia: Point yeah I think that's right yeah it's actually four episodes

0:05:32 Thomas: Oh, four. Okay.

0:05:32 Lydia: Yeah yeah so it'd be episode seven eight and then nine and ten with mj

0:05:37 Thomas: Oh that's right. Cause we did two with MJ. I feel like mine was technically true. So yeah, broadly speaking, we've got Abel stealing the client while working for Jonesworks, plotting against her, doing all that stuff. It was really interesting. And by my memory, there were just four actual claims or counts or whatever at the end. But it does do the thing, as you're saying, where they first have to go through paragraph by paragraph. I'm sure if we went through this with a fine tooth comb, maybe we would find something interesting. But Defendant admits that Jones Works is an LLC where it's like all that kind of stuff.

0:06:09 Lydia: Right for example for paragraph two it says defendant admits that jones is engaged in the field of public relations and that jone's works has represented justin baldoni and wayfair studios as to all remaining allegations defendant lacks knowledge, etc., etc. And paragraph two in the Jones lawsuit is Stephanie Jones is a highly respected public relations expert who focuses on corporate and personal publicity.

0:06:33 Lydia: So this is basically being like Jennifer Abel saying, yes, Stephanie Jones as a publicist.

0:06:38 Thomas: That's very dry lawyer humor, I feel like.

0:06:41 Lydia: Yeah, I think so too. Yeah. Admits the allegation that she resides in Beverly Hills, California.

0:06:46 Thomas: Got her. It's a lot of just admitting the base. It'S just they have to do it this way, apparently. I mean, Now, maybe they could do it a different way, but we can't get them to. And so we can skip through all this. I don't think there's anything because it's really just going to be like, yes, we admit this text exists. We disagree with the interpretation, essentially. Like it's pretty much all that. And they're not really required to explain. So it's not going to anything we can really do anything with. I was thinking like, are there any disputed texts? Like if they were if admitting the text was to certain people or from certain people would matter. But I think in this one I can't think of anything and it doesn't seem like we scan through it doesn' t seem like there's anything there So we're going to skip those and then we get these defenses 30

0:07:30 Lydia: Yeah, affirmative and other defenses. And there's 30. 31. Yep.

0:07:34 Thomas: Defenses Wow, one is like a karate chop. The other one is a shin kick This is the 15th defense just to pick one at random the damages and injuries if any suffered by plaintiffs were directly Improximately caused solely by the reckless negligent and wrongful conduct of individuals or entities other than defendant as a consequence thereof of plaintiffs are barred from recovery here.

0:07:55 Thomas: And it's a bunch of that stuff, which I think it's more just, you know, boilerplate, what you kind of have to do.

0:07:55 Lydia: There are some interesting things here, though, because, like, the 29th defense says the complaint and each and every cause of action alleged therein is barred in whole or in part by California Labor Code Section 925. And we know that Stephanie Jones is asserting that New New York law applies to this. And Jennifer Abel lives in Beverly Hills. And as we're going to get into this complaint, continues to assert that she is a California resident and has been for a long, long time, conducts business there. So that's going to be a big battle.

0:08:25 Thomas: Where, where was this job? Where did she work?

0:08:28 Lydia: L .A., California.

0:08:29 Thomas: Yeah. So, I mean, I feel like maybe I'd come out on Jen Abel's side of that. Like I feel in general, if you're employed and you're working somewhere, I don't know, I feel I would want the law of where you're walking to apply, but we'll see.

0:08:40 Lydia: Yeah. And so I think that's a reasonable thing to argue about. And we're gonna see that play out for sure in this one.

0:08:45 Thomas: Yeah, so point is we've already skipped through virtually half of this, so that's good. All right. And we get get to skip a little more in the basic stuff you say at the beginning, the parties and the jurisdiction -y stuff. We'll talk about that later if it's an argument about which law is going to apply. But finally, on page 33, we're at the general allegations. And this is the counter complaint now. So this is no longer Abel responding or denying or defenses or whatever. This is Abel saying, and this is what you do. Actually, I'm suing you. Here's what you did. Yeah, yeah.

0:09:00 Lydia: Yeah, 33. Here's my story. Yeah? Yeah. So in Section A, Abel joins means Jones works. There are some notable things here from Abel's telling of the story.

0:09:21 Thomas: First off, can I read paragraph 11, which I find funny. Long known within the public relations industry industry for her disarming Southern twang, brass knuckle tactics, and high turnover of clients and employees, Stephanie Jones has had a successful career in the entertainment industry. Her firm, Jones Works, has represented at various times Dwayne the Rock Johnson, Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez, Venus Williams, Tom Brady, and Chris Hemsworth. I just think that's funny.

0:09:46 Lydia: Skipping a little bit here in paragraph 13, when Jones poached Jennifer Abel, this language here.

0:09:52 Thomas: That's how it starts. And again, this is Jen Abel's countersuit when Jones poached Jennifer Abel.

0:09:59 Lydia: Right. And, you know, this is Friedman and company. They're representing Jennifer Able in this as well.

0:10:02 Thomas: Oh, that was important to say. Yeah. This is also Friedman. Thank you.

0:10:04 Lydia: Yeah, I didn't want to poison the well. I was debating.

0:10:06 Thomas: Well, no, but it is important because we have wondered, and I'll still wonder, if Jen Abel would ever split off from the other defendants, because frankly, it seems like she should. It seems like their interests might be different. Yeah, it seemed like, but for now, for this complaint anyway, this counter complaint, this is still Friedman, that firm. So yeah, sorry, go ahead.

0:10:19 Lydia: But yeah, they are misaligned. Yeah, yeah. When Jones poached Jennifer Abel, Abel was an up -and -coming star publicist at RNCPMK, a storied 70 -year -old public relations arm of Interpublic Group, a 53 ,000 -employee, publicly traded multinational marketing behemoth.

0:10:42 Thomas: So it's emphasizing that she was poached from this amazing place.

0:10:45 Lydia: Amazing company. Huge, huge company.

0:10:47 Thomas: She had worked there for nearly 12 years, but she's still calling herself up and coming that's a long am I crazy that's kind of a long time

0:10:52 Lydia: Yeah. And at the time of her departure, she had worked there for nearly 12 years and held the title of vice president. So then it continues, paragraph 14, in or around late spring 2020, at the height of the COVID -19 pandemic, which I don't know why we care. We all know we were there. Jones, through a recruiter, reached out to Abel via LinkedIn about joining JonesWorks.

0:11:12 Lydia: Although Abel was content, not actively looking for a new job, Jones offered her a higher salary and critically the opportunity to lead her own team. Now, listen to this piece. When Abel announced her intention to join JonesWorks, she was met with a parade of concern from across her professional network. An array of well-respected public relations professionals from across the entertainment industry reached out to Abel to caution her against working for Stephanie Jones. Jones, they warned, had a well-deserved reputation for treating people horribly. Jones had recently become embroiled in a dispute with another public relations firm for stealing its clients using deceptive and unscrupulous means.

0:11:51 Thomas: Yeah I mean that's I get it I get what they're trying to do but that's this all seems neither here nor there and if anything yeah you know normally we go through the causes of action first but actually I'm going to try to maybe we can try to guess what in the hell they are based on this because this if anything this is like she seems to have been pre -warned about it you know it almost would would be better. I don't know if it matters legally, but like in terms of her sympathy and her, you know, it's one thing to be like, I had no idea. I just thought I was going to work for this amazing person who was, you Know, offering me a high salary.

0:12:05 Lydia: Yeah, that's a good idea. Yeah.

0:12:25 Thomas: Turns out she was Hitler. But if it's like, yeah, I was warned by a lot of people that she sucked. I dunno. It feels like, well, you're kind of warned. You sort of made the decision. Yeah.

0:12:31 Lydia: Yeah. That the person who reached out to me on LinkedIn was representing Hitler. Yeah.

0:12:38 Thomas: It seems like you made a conscious decision. Again, I don'T think it'll matter legally, But it's just funny. Cause I I do feel like so much of this is already just posturing rhetorically.

0:12:45 Lydia: Oh, I think so. And I think like the moral high ground, right? Like I think trying to demonstrate like good versus evil.

0:12:48 Thomas: Yeah. And yeah, Jones had recently become embroiled in a dispute. Was it a legal dispute? Was it? That just has nothing. It's also, you know, neither here nor there. Like, was that illegal? Does it have some bearing on what you're doing? I don't understand. Okay. Why are you even bringing it up? Just sounds like poisoning the well. To take more money.

0:13:04 Lydia: Right right oh yeah definitely but yeah as you said abel decided to take the job more money and to be able to lead a team and so she was in charge of growing its burgeoning la office and at the time when she was brought on it only had four employees um and then we will learn about how that That has grown since she came on.

0:13:27 Thomas: So now section B is the employment agreement. And I'm remembering from the Jones side of things that she presented us with kind of a few, at least iterations of things. And the important things I remember were like a fiduciary duty, some amount of not ownership, but financial stake in the company in terms of like bonuses that are related to growth and performance kind of thing. And so that's what, right. Oh yeah, that's important. Yeah.

0:13:55 Lydia: Elements of, like, non -compete. Yeah.

0:13:58 Thomas: The non -competing stuff that was pretty much like, hey, don't ever, you know, steal Justin Baldoni and Wayfair from me. Like stuff that got eerily like, wow, I can't believe this was in the thing. So let's see. I mean, I imagine this is going to be pretty important. Abel's version of that for her counterclaims. Why don't you start reading section B until we decide you should stop? So -called? So that's already them saying, yes, in the title of what the agreement is, I already lost my case.

0:14:19 Lydia: All right. The 2020 employment agreement. In connection with and as a condition of her employment, Abel signed a so -called non-disclosure and intellectual property rights and non-solicitation agreement. Yeah, so - called.

0:14:38 Thomas: However, if it's only so -called the I already lost mycase agreement in name only. Yeah, so - called. Okay. So - called nondisclosure and intellectual property rights and non -solicitation agreement. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, if that was what it was, I would also want to call it so -called because that seems devastating to your case.

0:14:43 Lydia: Maybe Judge Lyman doesn't agree that, yeah. Yeah. Abel was not represented by counsel in connection with the negotiation or execution of the 2020 employment agreement.

0:14:59 Thomas: And then sure feels like your problem, man. I don't know. I guess.

0:15:08 Lydia: Yeah. I mean, any job that you have, if you're signing contracts like that's your decision, whether or not you're going to have counsel, I guess. I don't think it's very normal to have council with you as you're assigning it, depending on the job. Yeah. Yeah.

0:15:22 Thomas: It could be. I mean, it Could be for like high powered. Yeah, but I think the and you also might not have counsel, you know, with you, but you might run the potential contract by a lawyer. I'm sure people of all kinds of jobs do that. Even folks that aren't like also with specifically like non -competes. Those are a big thing.

0:15:31 Lydia: You might send it to them.

0:15:38 Thomas: I'm sure it would have been more prudent for her to perhaps run this by a lawyer. I would be sympathetic if we were talking about a low wage employee who got screwed out of something because they were forced to sign a contract that they didn't understand or couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, but like, I don't know, you're vice president and you're getting recruited into a higher paying vice presidency thing. Yeah. It's like, oh, really don't have a ton of sympathy for this.

0:15:57 Lydia: And you come from a huge firm, a huge firm with 12 years of experience. Like, this is not fresh out of college. Yeah. Right.

0:16:07 Thomas: We will talk to some lawyer that's not Stephanie Jones's lawyer about this because we don't want to just get that one side. I would be curious if this even could be a defense to anything. I mean, I could imagine if you want to say, hey, I was dumb. I didn't have a lawyer. I wonder if you could ever argue like, I thought I was signing something different. So my mindset would have been different. You know, like I thought maybe that's something she could say. But in terms of trying to be sympathetic, like this was on you, like you should have done this.

0:16:34 Lydia: Yeah, I think it would largely, again, not a lawyer, but I think It would largely depend on the language of the thing that she was signing itself. Like if it's pretty clear, like, I don't think that would be going anywhere.

0:16:40 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like that's kind of on her. All right. Let's see. Oh, I guess read paragraph 20 maybe.

0:16:50 Lydia: Yeah The 2020 employment agreement provided that Abel was an at-will employee whose employment was exclusive, quote, exclusive to JonesWorks during the period of her employment. The 2020 employment agreement contained a confidentiality clause pursuant to which Abel was required to maintain the confidentiality of and not disclose, quote confidential information as the term is parenthetically expansively defined therein. And it is long. I'll give them that. That's expansive.

0:17:13 Thomas: Expansive. Hmm. Yeah. Should we try to pick out?

0:17:20 Lydia: Yeah.

0:17:20 Thomas: Yeah, there's a lot there. Yeah, I don't have much of a basis for comparison and any basis for a comparison I have is just other really long contracts. Like they're always super long.

0:17:30 Lydia: And I would think also when you're in the space of public public relations for celebrities or other high -powered individuals, you know, like public figures, I would think that this would be expansive. Like, this is really important to the client base.

0:17:45 Thomas: I agree. Just for fun, I don'T intend this as like, here's your rock solid legal analysis, but just for the sake of time. I'm going to plug this into chat GPT just to see, just to give us a little bit, little bit of context until we talk to an actual expert. I just said, I'm looking at an employment agreement that defines confidential information. What do you think? That's all I said. And it says overall evaluation, legally enforceable in most jurisdictions, especially if reasonable in scope and the business justifies it. Well -drafted from the employer's perspective, broad, inclusive, and protective. Could be softened slightly for fairness, particularly if you're a lower or mid -level employee, not regularly handling trade secrets.

0:18:23 Thomas: I mean, that seems pretty normal. Okay, so let's see. And again, that's just for some context. Let's see why they're doing this. Let's keep going. 22 is the 2020 employment agreement also contained provisions purporting to restrict Abel's ability to speak about Jones or Jones works.

0:18:42 Lydia: Right, and we talked about this a little bit where specifically she signed an agreement that if she was going to do any media pieces involving Jones or Jonesworks, because it would have had to be cleared by stephanie jones personally in advance and there's also a non-disparagement item here as well that's quoted

0:19:00 Thomas: Yeah. All right. I can't help it. I'm just going to see what ChatGPT thinks about this too. So I just tried to ask how standard this is. And for section four, which was the interviews, speeches or writings, et cetera, et cetera, it said very standard and PR standard. But this is this one is moderately aggressive in scope. It said for section five, non -disparagement, it actually said more aggressive than standard for a general employment agreement, especially without exceptions or mutuality common in severance or settlement, not usually an offer letters or onboarding contracts.

0:19:33 Thomas: And again, I've given it almost nothing. It's interesting. It adds contextual note. Note, if this agreement is from a larger PR slash marketing agency, especially one serving major clients, the overall tone makes sense. They're protecting client confidentiality and reputation. But if it's a small or midsize company, these terms may feel overreaching.

0:19:42 Lydia: That's fair

0:19:51 Thomas: So it seems pretty, pretty normal so far.

0:19:49 Lydia: Yeah yeah I think if tom brady and jeff bezos are on your client list and then you have an employee talking shit about the public relations firm that represents them that's not

0:19:57 Thomas: Yeah, I agree. All right. Well, I don't want to turn this into ChatGPT, the podcast. So why don't we kind of skip over the next thing? And I think I think what we should do is wait until they're actually doing something with this. And then we can pick which parts we care about because 23 is the 2020 employment agreement also required able to submit to a host of restrictive covenants, comma, non-solicitation restrictive covenants. Okay.

0:20:06 Lydia: Great yeah yep

0:20:24 Thomas: And so then we get a huge chunk of the contract and I don't know what they're doing with this yet. So maybe we'll skip to the part where they're actually doing something with it and then we Can go back and we'll tell the folks what they need to know. Oh, this could be interesting. 24 is the next paragraph. Section 13 of the 2020 Employment Agreement provides that quote, it has been made and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of California without regard to conflicts of law principles.

0:20:23 Lydia: Yeah I don't

0:20:49 Thomas: That's interesting. Maybe that's a strong argument for California law. And by the way, I think right now, I agree with the California law thing. I don't know if it'll matter, but that's one where I would be on Abel's side of that because that's where she worked, just as a reasonable person thing, not as a lawyer.

0:20:48 Lydia: Know right exactly Exactly. I think I think if you're looking at like any employment situation, like what is fair and that seems fair to me. Yeah.

0:21:11 Thomas: So then why don't you go through this number two section here because it's another agreement.

0:21:17 Lydia: So we get the 2021 employment agreement. And this says that on or about November 22nd, 2021, Jonesworks required Abel to enter into a modified employment agreement, changing her employment from at will to a contractual term, adjusting her title and compensation, and subjecting her to a variety of novel restrictions intended to deter her from leaving Jones Works and inhibiting her ability to remain in her chosen field if she were to do so. Again, Abel was not represented by counsel in connection with the negotiation or execution.

0:21:49 Thomas: Why not? It seems like maybe she should have been.

0:21:51 Lydia: Yeah, if she had concerns from the first go -round, I think she probably should have done it for the second go -around.

0:21:56 Thomas: I've talked about how much the legal system screws you and it's so expensive you wouldn't even believe it. But like having a lawyer go over a contract? That's not, I mean, especially if you're a high -paid employee, you know?

0:22:04 Lydia: And I think also if like the restrictions are are so egregious too. I would think that you would, yeah, flag that for yourself and say, I don't know if I want to sign away those rights.

0:22:09 Thomas: Yeah, this is really on her. In fairness, like she might have just signed it, not even looking at it. And now she's saying it was restrictive.

0:22:18 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, oh, I definitely think that's what it is. And so in the 2021 employment agreement, it brings up the confidentiality provision and says that it contains an expansively drafted confidentiality revision. I guess they're saying it's even more expansive than the previous one because they also called the previous confidentiality provision expansive

0:22:40 Thomas: We're looking through this. It does include the non -compete. And we did talk about with MJ, I think that like in California, those aren't legal. However, this was written before that, and it is a six -month non-compete, which is like, honestly, not very long. And it's still enforceable in New York, but this doesn't seem to me at all unreasonable. This was written three years before California outlawed non -competes, and its a six month non - Compete?

0:23:03 Thomas: Like, what? They were not made illegal until 2024, which I guess could color how this goes just because that was like in the middle. I don't know if they grandfathered any in or anything.

0:23:02 Lydia: Right yeah and it is complicated too because it's you know not a california-based company you know it's headquartered in new york the llc is filed in

0:23:22 Thomas: I looked it up. They didn't grandfather in any non -Compete. So all non -competes are legally void. That's cool. I actually really like that.

0:23:24 Lydia: Delaware yeah I like that too

0:23:30 Thomas: So, you know, that might have some implications here. But importantly to me, I'm reading through this. We'll talk to experts. This doesn't look dastardly. This looks standard. Not only that, Jones is in New York, right?

0:23:40 Lydia: Yeah I mean john's works is in new York

0:23:42 Thomas: Where is she? Okay. Jones is not in California. And this contract was written before these were outlined. Like this seems completely reasonable from her side. I mean, any contract an employer hands you is going to be friendly to the employer. Like that's just going to Behow it is. Is this doesn't seem like unreasonable in that context at all to me. So I guess we'll keep going. They're going to keep throwing parts of the contract at us. They still haven't said why they're doing this.

0:23:46 Lydia: Connecticut right yeah

0:24:08 Thomas: I still don't know like what they think this proves. Maybe they will, but I don't know how to analyze this yet until we get to that, I guess. OK, now what's interesting is in paragraph 29, it's saying the 2021 unemployment agreement. So this is like volume two that we're on here. It's saying, quote, this agreement and the performance of the party's obligations hereunder will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of New York without giving effect to any choice of law principles.

0:24:08 Lydia: Yeah yeah I I wonder why the change between 2020 2021

0:24:36 Thomas: I don't know. Yeah, I'm not sure.

0:24:37 Lydia: Like a product of covid and remote work or something.

0:24:42 Thomas: Who in the world knows? But it also, if you read this, it seems like on the whole, this second iteration is way, it seems more lawyered. It seems more thought out. I don' t know if this was some Jones Works hired, you know, counsel or something, and they're going through their contracts and who knows? I don''t know. Or specifically because of the year of this relationship. Until then, maybe they were like, let's iron things out a little more. Like before it was like some boilerplate thing. And now it's like, let's write out. Who knows?

0:25:09 Thomas: But it does definitely seem more considered. Like it seems more like intentional, this one. And maybe it's because she's, was this when she gave her like kind of a promotion and stuff or is this? Yeah.

0:25:08 Lydia: Yeah,

0:25:19 Thomas: So maybe that's why.

0:25:19 Lydia: This is when she got the promotion, the enhanced compensation,

0:25:24 Thomas: Yeah, that makes sense to me. It could be like, all right, if I'm taking this person, you know, if you're Stephanie Jones and you're like, well, I'm giving this person more pay, more power, you know, more of a role, I's going to scrutinize the contract more. Makes sense. So it seems like that's probably what she did. Now, I don't know if you can just say, hey, this is the laws of the state of New York. I don' t know if that works. I have absolutely no idea. We can talk to lawyers. I mean, I feel like there' s an argument for it if the company' s in New York, but I still, in fairness, in my mind, fairness principles, I fee l like I would always side with the employee and stuff. I just, that' s pretty much how it' s going to be for me. If the employee is working in California, I fe l like that should be California law, but that' S just my fairness feeling. It' s not a legal opinion. So now I guess we're getting to why we're doing all this with Section C.

0:25:33 Lydia: More autonomy. Yeah I agree. Yeah some of the reasoning behind why we're talking about all this stuff.

0:26:13 Thomas: Yeah. Why don't you read that that heading and all that stuff?

0:26:16 Lydia: Able's employment agreements are laden with unlawful terms. Yeah so this part one California Labor Code Section 925. California has a strong public policy that disputes between California employees and employers be decided under the laws of California in a forum located in California. As a legislative expression of this fundamental public policy, the California legislature enacted California Labor code section 925 yada, yada yada. Okay.

0:26:18 Thomas: Laden. Okay. Yeah, so this is about California's strong labor laws. And I like that. And this I just checked this was enacted in 2017. So it's after this thing. So that's fair to able, you know, to point this out. I'm just looking at the the actual labor code and they quote part of it. An employer cannot require an employee who primarily resides in and works in California to agree as a condition of employment to a choice of law provision that applies in other states' laws. Well, there you go. That seems pretty clear. Or two, a forum selection clause that requires the employee to resolve disputes outside of California. All right. Yeah, that's the side I would be on. So as far as I'm concerned, I feel like ABLE has every right to apply California law here. I found something interesting, actually. This section 925 that we just talked about does not apply if the employee is represented by legal counsel when negotiating the contract.

0:27:27 Lydia: Interesting. Yeah.

0:27:28 Thomas: That now makes sense. I think I will revise my opinion and say, hey, while I do think she should have just found a lawyer, that's why she's mentioning that. That makes sense now. So had she been represented by legal council, I suppose she would have, now for one, they probably would have just had her not signed that and said, hey you actually don't have to sign this.

0:27:44 Thomas: You can tell her it has to be California law. But B, if she had had counsel and signed this, from what I'm seeing, she could have signed away her protections under under 925 here.

0:27:53 Lydia: Yeah, that makes sense.

0:27:53 Thomas: So that makes sense why she's saying that now. So I retract kind of a lot of what I was saying before.

0:27:58 Lydia: OK, so now we get into the meat of the work that she was doing in California and why California should apply and

0:28:04 Thomas: Yeah, I think we can skip some of this because I already agree that California law should apply. And maybe a lawyer will talk me out of that. But until such time, I'm going to go ahead and agree with this part of the complaint. It talks about where she was working. She was in LA. She had some infrequent business travel to New York, but not anything regular. So yeah, I'm like, I'll go with her on that. I'll grant her like, yeah, California law, that should apply." And so that would, I mean, I imagine that takes out the non -compete.

0:28:27 Lydia: The forum. Yeah.

0:28:28 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah.

0:28:36 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:28:36 Thomas: Now we can get to stuff that I think maybe we can start digesting, which is section D, Abel's tumultuous and traumatic tenure. Wow. They're going tumultous and traumatic, totally tumultuous and traumatic. And you're at Jones works. This is getting to some narrative that we can really jump into. So why don't you read for a bit?

0:28:48 Lydia: All right. Starting from the top. Within a few weeks of Abel's onboarding, JonesWorks faced a mass exodus of employees in its New York office. While Abel was understandably concerned, Jones assured her that all of the departing employees were, quote, horrible at their jobs and were going to be fired regardless. OK, somehow doubt. That's exactly right. Little did Abel then know that turnover of that magnitude was typical at Jones Works, which routinely faced large scale departures by disgruntled and demoralized employees. What Abel did quickly realize is that morale amongst Jonesworks employees was outright abysmal, that such departures were invariably acrimonious, and that departing employees and current employees alike were extremely tight -lipped and fearful of engaging in any sort of discussion about their experience at Jonesworks.

0:29:43 Thomas: Sounds like a horror movie.

0:29:44 Lydia: And also, side note, it's kind of counter to what she said previously when she shared with other folks in the PR industry that she was thinking about going to Jones Works. Somehow all those people knew that that's not a place that you'd want to be at. But now all of a sudden, the employees that are leaving don't talk about that it's a horrible place to be.

0:29:57 Thomas: Feels a little exaggerated. And I don't know, again, I don'T know what this is getting at. I anticipated from the very beginning that is this going to be some sort of abusive workplace, place something claims and I I guess that's getting toward that but so far it's just like oh this is like other people didn't like it when I got there and I stayed there for a while so I don't know yet but let's see

0:30:21 Lydia: Abel observed that morale among JonesWorks employees was inversely correlated with physical proximity to Jones. Thus, the Los Angeles office was generally a more positive environment than the New York office. At no point during Abel's first few years was there a proper human resources representative. Instead, Jones relied on business affairs personnel and her various chiefs of staff to handle human resources matters. In part due to the lack of a human resources department or grievance reporting structure and fear of backlash from Jones, JonesWorks had a toxic workplace culture in which employees lacking an outlet or meaningful recourse constantly gossiped and complained amongst themselves and leaned on senior employees

0:31:05 Thomas: Despite

0:31:05 Lydia: For solutions to workplace issues.

0:31:08 Thomas: All that abel's the leader of the california operation

0:31:11 Lydia: Yeah, I mentioned at, you know, when she joined that team, it was four employees. She grew it to 12. And I have to read paragraph 45, which is it's just two sentences, but I have to read it because the language here is really remarkable. By Abel's second year, Jones appeared to be deteriorating.

0:31:28 Thomas: She's like she's joe biden

0:31:30 Lydia: Abel began to harbor increasing concerns about her her mental stability, and ability to manage client and employee relations.

0:31:37 Thomas: Okay I mean toxic workplace could be

0:31:40 Lydia: Yeah, and some of these claims, I do remember, came up in the Business Insider article. So this is reiterating a lot of that same stuff. At around this time, Jones started making FaceTime calls to Abel and other employees at notably odd hours. Jones' communications frequently tracked through the night and into the next morning, suggesting that she had not been sleeping at all. All. Concurrently, and likely relatedly, Jones became noticeably paranoid and irascible, often accusing Abel and others of plotting against her. It became more difficult to communicate with Jones, settle her nerves, or even track her train of thought.

0:32:13 Thomas: Wow she must be dead by now

0:32:15 Lydia: We should continue here. Due to extremely draconian NDAs, Jones's threats and the climate of fear pervading past and present JonesWorks employees and clients alike.

0:32:24 Thomas: Boy they love their alliteration on this one

0:32:27 Lydia: Yeah, and parenthetical statements. Jones's Puck's worst excesses were largely hidden from view until in or around May 2024, when Puck reported that Sanchez had

0:32:36 Thomas: Puck report? What's that? The reporter or something? Oh, that's crazy to just say, yeah, yeah. You know, Puck. When Puck reported, what is Puck? Okay. What the Puck is? Yeah. No footnote, no anything. I find that confusing. Okay. Well, glad Lydia knows since she studies so hard, but come on.

0:32:50 Lydia: Dropped

0:32:58 Thomas: Sanchez and Johnson, they just give last name. Okay, ooh.

0:33:04 Lydia: Jones as their publicist. While these were among the most prominent and publicly reported departures, a cascade of JonesWorks clients began to cut ties with Jones, especially after word had spread that Business Insider was contacting Jones's former and current clients and employees concerning a forthcoming article about her sordid behavior.

0:33:22 Thomas: I don't know about saying that because that's tying the article to causing bad things happening. Yeah, potentially. Exponentially that feels like possibly something I wouldn't I mean who knows maybe they're thinking in their minds if she had nothing to do with business insider which seems insane I because we've seen the text and stuff but

0:33:28 Lydia: Behavior loss of business yeah yeah yeah I mean we've seen like big thank yous from the journalist to jennifer abel specifically thanking her for helping line up so much of it so I don't really know what they're getting at here feels risky

0:33:49 Thomas: Yeah but I wouldn'T yeah I guess I yeah I would have not risked that saying like yeah especially after that business insider article that I definitely had a lot to do With that caused a lot of

0:34:01 Lydia: Damages yeah and then we get into the website that we've talked about as well may 8th 2024 a website called stephanie jones leaks went live along with an X.com account also known as Twitter a Facebook page a Reddit account and a Pinterest page. These platforms disclosed a litany of highly disturbing allegations about Jones' behavior and business practices. And then in line 49, Abel had no involvement of any kind in Stephanie Jones leaks.

0:34:24 Thomas: Damages okay I mean I don't know we don't we haven't seen any proof of that so we did see proof of the what seems like pretty solid proof that she was involved in the article for sure, but nothing that we've seen ties her to the Stephanie Jones leaks, right?

0:34:42 Lydia: Yeah. Nothing that we have seen. Unknown. Now I'm going to skip 50 because it's really just citing the Business Insider article and going to 51 here because she really asserts no involvement OF ANY KIND in the website. And here she says Abel was not responsible for the the Business Insider piece, and learned of it for the first time from Jones herself in or around early July 2024.

0:34:44 Thomas: So unknown, but it seems tough.

0:35:06 Lydia: I don't know about that. I do not know about it. I am not sure. And perhaps our perspective is clouded because we have seen the texts between Jen Abel, specifically Jen Able and Katie Warren, one of the journalists working on this Business Insiter article. And maybe Katie reached out to other people and thanked them for their involvement, too and we just don't see that you know we don't see the germination I guess of the article either I don't think but from what we have seen it certainly feels like Jen Abel was a little bit of a ringleader here but again it's from what information we do have and maybe there's more that helps exonerate her a bit from what we've seen August

0:35:40 Thomas: When did the article actually come out?

0:35:48 Lydia: 15th 2024 is what it's dated on the article itself

0:35:51 Thomas: So learned of it from Jones in early July.

0:35:55 Lydia: Yeah so I'm guessing that you know the journalist reaching out to some of her clients former or probably current and And maybe they notified Jones, hey, I'm getting calls from Business Insider, thought you'd want to know. And Jennifer Abel is saying that from there, then Jones told her. And that was the first time that Jen Abel knew that Business Insider was writing it.

0:36:14 Thomas: Yeah it just seems hard to believe.

0:36:17 Lydia: I agree.

0:36:19 Thomas: Okay so if we look to Jones's complaint. What we have is in parallel with their efforts in the Daily Mail and on information and belief, Abel and Nathan contrived to have Business Insider publish a hostile article about Jones, which was intended to encourage Wayfair and Baldoni and other Jonesworks clients to want to end their relationship with Jonesworks and to weaken Jonesworks business. Indeed, as early as July 29th, 2024, Abel and Nathan were coordinating their outreach to Katie Warren, the Business Insiders reporter who eventually published the article attacking Jones. So I suppose it's possible. Okay, so I guess it's possible if she's saying early July, then she would be alleging that Jones knew about it before Nathan even did.

0:36:59 Thomas: But then that's a little bit of an interesting sleight of hand to be like, she learned of it for the first time from Jones herself in early July. Meanwhile, the texts that kind of show her coordinating with the reporter are from late July. So it's like even if she learned about it from Jones herself, if that's true, but then she later was like, oh, article, huh? And then like got a hold of that reporter and was like, I've got some stuff for you. You know, that's kind of a it's a bit of a misdirection there to say like she learned of it for the first time from jones herself and

0:37:27 Lydia: And that seems like something that is going to be easily proven one way or the other. I feel like figuring out who planted the idea of writing this article in the first place is something that they're going to be able to figure out. I mean, all you have to do is ask Katie Warren, I would think.

0:37:38 Thomas: You know one of the weirdest things from that was that remember that letter in addition on August 9th Abel suggested and asked for heath's approval to try to get Business Insider to remove reference to a letter of support for Jones that Baldoni had previously written I still don't know what that would have been doesn't make sense

0:37:58 Lydia: That also feels really calculated, I guess. Like this claim here that she was not responsible for the Business Insider piece. But if she's actively involved in what's being included or excluded, yeah, yeah exactly. You're not a journalist, Jennifer Abel, we're aware.

0:38:09 Thomas: Yeah responsible like she didn't write it that feels like carefully kind of writing around it a little bit So, because we have these texts, I mean, she's definitely, I think, that's giving a misleading impression

0:38:17 Lydia: Yeah, I do think so. Yeah. Honestly, the way the text read to me is at the very least, she's the inside person confirming, affirming denying client roster information like she seems like the go-to person on the inside that's still affiliated with the company the next few paragraphs really go into some of the claims that were part of the Business Insider article like at the office Jones would regularly turn on deafening music so that she could berate her employees free from scrutiny and about her facetiming people to confirm that they're actually sick if they're calling out sick the example of the employee who took the day to attend a funeral and received a FaceTime call from Jones during the ceremony. Those various anecdotes that I think when we read, we were, I think we were fair. We were like, wow, that's terrible.

0:38:58 Thomas: There yeah yeah Yeah, no, I think she I am of the opinion that if someone writes a whole ass article who's not doesn't seem to be involved doesn't seem to be somebody like used to work there or used you know like I am of the opinion likely there's some there there she probably probably had a toxic work environment, to say the least. So I don't have any hesitance to say I would imagine that's probably true. But one thing I said when we first were talking about this is, for all we know, Jen Abel participated in that. We don't know. It could be. First off, I don't think that justifies anything Jen Abel did, at least in terms of the information I have right now. Secondly, for all we knew, she was part of that culture. She was high up in the company. I don't know. But maybe not. I mean, maybe she's out at the California office and Jones is in New York. But again, it's also weird to be like, yeah, it was such a toxic work environment over in New York while I was here doing great in California. You know, I mean, I don't know. I don't know how she's going to use that to justify it, especially if she's in a completely across the country managing her own little thing, kind of.

0:40:08 Thomas: So we'll see. But then it goes back to now, April 2023, talking about when Dwayne, the Rock Johnson, now they say Dwayne, The Rock Johnson before it was just Johnson.

0:40:15 Lydia: Just Johnson.

0:40:16 Thomas: It's kind of weird, but I don't know why we've gone back in time now.

0:40:19 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. I think it's because they want a chance to list the people that have left Jonesworks over that time that Dwayne the Rock Brock Johnson. Yeah.

0:40:27 Thomas: But curiously, I like this paragraph 57. Through it all, Abel remained loyal to Jones, sticking with her through thick and thin, despite growing doubts about Jones's ability to function professionally. So yeah, I mean, that could also be complicity. And sure, I was still there and participating, but I didn't like it. But I don't know. I mean it's just hard to know what to believe without seeing a bunch more discovery and stuff.

0:40:47 Lydia: And then here's this assertion that by the year 2024, Stephanie Jones was starting to become more hostile towards Jennifer Abel. It says Jones frequently criticized Abel's management, manifested extreme paranoia about Abel's close relationships with clients and partners, and went out of her way to reprimand, demean and embarrass Abel in front of junior employees she oversaw.

0:41:11 Thomas: So, I mean, we get a lot of allegations. Once again, still don't see how this would justify things. But like not that you have to, but like couldn't you throw an email in here or something? Like if there really is this crazy stuff couldn't you quote something or give me some proof I don't

0:41:21 Lydia: Yeah, I mean, to that point, later in paragraph 60, in one instance, Jones announced to Abel's subordinates that she had learned through psychic readings that Abel was an alcoholic and a gambling addict. Even if these statements were true, Jones's public announcement would be, at best, highly inappropriate. Here, however, the accusations are not remotely true! They have literally no basis in reality, and the employees to whom Jones made her pronouncement were well aware of that. While Jones presumably intended to undermine Abel's credibility, she had actually significantly undermined her own and raised alarm about whether Jones was in the midst of a mental breakdown. On a different occasion, Jones announced again, per her psychic, that Abel would soon be pregnant with twins, humiliating and infuriating Abel, who Jones knew had struggled with fertility issues.

0:41:32 Thomas: Know

0:42:10 Lydia: It is, but it's also really salacious.

0:42:12 Thomas: I I mean, this is pretty specific so yeah so I don't know it's pretty specific who knows what this is based on let's see where we get to the like and therefore you know because you can describe someone being a bad boss or whatever and sure and therefore what and therefore I'm allowed to steal clients kind of thing I'm still seeing how we get there I will say yeah abel here's one Abel also witnessed Jones working with journalists to plant and contribute to negative stories about former Jonesworks clients who had fired Jonesworks slash Jones. So yeah, a little seed in there about her planting stories, you know, kind of thing.

0:42:28 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, we're not there yet. Yeah. Also, I mean, not just that. Prior to that sentence, Abel was also disgusted by Jones's pattern and practice of creating fake social media accounts to troll former employees and journalists. I think, again, planting that seed of if there was a smear campaign and it wasn't just organic, like this is definitely within Stephanie Jones's wheelhouse. And, you know, here's an indication that she's done something like this before.

0:43:08 Thomas: 63 is interesting.

0:43:12 Lydia: Already pushed to the brink, So this is involving Matthew Mitchell, who, just to sneak peek into the future a little bit since we're talking about Jones v. Abel, he is a party that is of interest to Lively's lawsuit, and they've been unable to serve him.

0:43:43 Thomas: Oh, this guy.

0:43:43 Lydia: He has been hiding.

0:43:45 Thomas: Interesting.

0:43:45 Lydia: And so they actually were able just a little sneak peek again. They were able to get approval from the court to serve him in very nontraditional ways. So there is an amazing exhibit attached to his subpoena documentation on the docket. That's a message on LinkedIn to his account. Out.

0:44:06 Thomas: Served via LinkedIn.

0:44:08 Lydia: Yeah. They've left him voicemails now. So trying to consider that served because every other process has been a dud. He's been hiding.

0:44:15 Thomas: Wow. Very interesting. All right. Now we're getting to the stuff. Here we we go e abel resigns from jones works and jones ambushes abel steals her personal data tries to ruin her life it's a funny heading all right

0:44:28 Lydia: It is a funny heading. All right. On or about July 10th, 2024, Abel notified Jones of her departure from Jones Works. Abel later confirmed her decision on July 26th, 2024, and communicated her intention to start her own business. Abel offered a six -week transition period with an end date of August 23rd, 2024. Predictably, Jones took the news poorly, to say the least. Consistent with her increasingly erratic behavior, Jones swung from extreme to extreme, one minute desperately attempting to convince Abel to stay, then next berating her and cutting her out. And here we get, I think, our first text messages in this one. Very small. So this is from Stephanie Jones to Jennifer Abel. You just quit on a Zoom with your employee, Jen, then blasted our entire senior team your resignation. Grow up. Jennifer Jennifer Abel responds, I've been nothing but a good partner and helped grow L .A. from four people to 13, and I'm proud of that. I don't want this to be hostile. Stephanie Jones, I'm not the one creating hostility or drama. You have and continue to do so. No one senior behaves like this. It's reactionary, dramatic, and immature. Sad. And I've done equally good to you. No one else would do for you what I have done. You'll see. Your behavior is appalling. You'll See. And Jennifer Able responds, and I thank you for everything you have done and the many opportunities.

0:45:43 Thomas: She thumb stuffed it

0:45:44 Lydia: And yeah. Yeah. I will say like some of the speech pattern from Stephanie Jones feels like Trumpian to me. It's just kind of this like there's something there. It's just that pattern of speech, you know, that you'll see sad, et cetera, et cetera.

0:45:57 Thomas: Yeah a little bit yeah

0:45:59 Lydia: And then we get a text message from Stephanie's husband, who's a partner at WME, you know big talent agency that notably Justin Baldoni was let go from for his representation. So her husband's a partner there and he texted Jen's fiance after Jen resigned saying, Well, first, Jen's fiance says, go Niners. It says July 23rd.

0:46:18 Thomas: Well as you always point out we don't know when that was from no the go niners

0:46:23 Lydia: Oh, yes. We don't know. That wouldn't have been football season.

0:46:24 Thomas: Especially because there isn't football thank you there you go so that go ninERS could have been that go Lego Niners could have been from the great Joe Montana days. A text in the late 80s.

0:46:28 Lydia: Hey. Maybe there was some news. Spring training. Yeah. Yeah, totally. Steve Young.

0:46:42 Thomas: It could have Been Whenever, but I love the idea that that's still in the view. And then the next message is Tuesday, July 23rd.

0:46:48 Lydia: We can't let another great duo break up. Shohei and Trout was one thing, but our girls are better together.

0:46:54 Thomas: So this is who texting who again?

0:46:56 Lydia: So this is Stephanie Jones's husband texting Jennifer Abel's fiance.

0:47:00 Thomas: Oh, yeah, that's weird. Okay.

0:47:01 Lydia: Yeah, so they were close. I mean, close enough to have each other's numbers.

0:47:05 Thomas: That is very interesting. So that's Stephanie's. You're saying Stephanie's partner texting. Huh?

0:47:11 Lydia: Jennifer Abels' fiance.

0:47:13 Thomas: It's interesting. I guess there's a lot of variables there. I don't know what either relationship is like, but it could be consistent with Stephanie genuinely being hurt by Jen and not wanting her to go. But either the husband, you know, kind of sensing that and doing it on his own or her putting him up to it. Either way, it feels like it feels weird. I don'T just that's a weird thing to get involved in.

0:47:23 Lydia: Not wanting to lose Jen, yeah. Yeah. Right. It also and it also has like no basis in any of this stuff like her. There's not really a clear connection that I feel like is being drawn here unless it's just that, yes, we used to be close. But I don't know what that does to combat Stephanie Jones's allegations in anything or Jennifer Abel's counterclaims here. I don' know.

0:47:55 Thomas: That's interesting. So now we get to the email that I think we read.

0:47:59 Lydia: We did read this. Yeah. This was basically Jennifer Able reiterating that she's moving forward with the resignation and that she She thanks Stephanie Jones for all the opportunities. This is Friday, July 26, 2024. And I think this was a really well done email. It seemed kind professional trying not to burn any bridges. It didn't work out, but yeah.

0:48:18 Thomas: Yeah possibly with the only caveat that like if she has a non -compete and all that it was kind of weird and also you know in jones's complaint she's allegedly and with text to back it up stealing documents and doing other stuff at this time so it could be incredibly two -faced so I don't know I'm not I don't want to think about

0:48:44 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:48:44 Thomas: That all right well that's where we're gonna leave it for part one of this yeah sorry I thought you were with me on this we had a plan to do an outro here. Now you're going back. Are you breaching our contract? Is this promissory fraud right now?

0:48:57 Lydia: You know, this feels like I am being.

0:49:00 Thomas: Am I being detained?

0:49:01 Lydia: Yeah, I feel like I there's a security guard standing outside this door.

0:49:04 Thomas: That is spoilers and teasers for part two because part two is going to start to get into the human trafficking crimes and the other stuff that was allegedly committed against Jen Abel. So we're going to come clean with you. We're now in the future.

0:49:16 Lydia: Hello from the future, everybody.

0:49:21 Thomas: As we said in the intro, this plan did kind of come together because we are going to interview Stephanie Jones's lawyers, and we really wanted to get caught up in the docket before then. And we have, we've recorded hours and hours on that.

0:49:35 Lydia: We've made a lot of progress.

0:49:36 Thomas: And so it did mess up our schedule a bit. And by that, I mean, we're just, we'RE catching up, but we're a little behind on editing. If you're listening to this, like right when I posted it, you're going to have two more episodes tonight. Tonight! I can go out and get you two episodes tonight!

0:49:50 Lydia: Three total. Three total.

0:49:52 Thomas: Yeah, three total, nearly three hours of Jen Abel, Stephanie Jones content. And then we have about about 11 teen hours to edit still. Uh, we're a little bit through it, but we're going to be rattling those off because we still, again, you can trust me on this because we are going to get that Steph Jones lawyers episode out ASAP. We're not going to like leave that to the end of next month. So we're Going to rattle off a bunch of episodes in a row here. And it's a little slower than we want because we kind of zigzagged. We actually have another whole episode in the other timeline recorded. That's hours long that that was what we were going to do.

0:50:23 Lydia: And it's going to be so great when we get to do it.

0:50:24 Thomas: It is really good. Yeah. It is really good, but that was kind of the zigzag. This Stephanie Jones's lawyers thing came up kind of like super randomly abruptly.

0:50:31 Lydia: And we pivoted.

0:50:32 Thomas: So yeah, we pivoted. So that's why things were a little later. I know we're always the chunk system, but this was like a little bit delayed chunkage. This was more delayed chunkitude than we wanted, but we're rattling these off. It's never not be funny though. It's funny every time. I keep wanting to say like, you think you know chunks, you

0:50:41 Lydia: It'll It'll never not be gross. It'll Never Not Be Gross. Yeah.

0:50:50 Thomas: Think You've met the chunk chunk system, we've got a whole new iteration of chunk for you because there's going to be just episode after episode rattled off in a row here. The best way to get those right on time.

0:50:57 Lydia: You can't handle the chunk.

0:51:07 Thomas: The best Way to get Those right on Time is of course to go on patreon .com slash gavel pod support the show. You'll get them right away early for everyone else. They'll be regular.

0:51:09 Lydia: You'll get them when you get them. Yeah.

0:51:18 Thomas: No, they'll be Regular, just not quite as fast. We'll space them out a tiny bit more, But that's the benefit of being a patron and supporting the show. There's some really fun stuff coming up. Really fun stuff. Oh, and I do want to emphasize, we did get MJ. So we talked to MJ, especially as we get to part three of this one. You'll see that the law definitely gets a bit above our heads. We took a stab at a few things, but we were like, hey, let's talk to an expert.

0:51:40 Lydia: Let's tap out for the rest of it. Yeah.

0:51:41 Thomas: So rest assured, MJ's coming back. And it's so fun. I love MJ. So that's like part, what, four of this, I guess. And then we have another whole thing. It's really fun. Fun. I had an absolute blast recording the many hours that we have. All of that before the interview with Steph Jones's lawyers. So I realized I keep calling her Steph Jones. Does anyone call her that?

0:52:01 Lydia: All of her friends do.

0:52:01 Thomas: Or did I just get tired of saying the full name? Okay. Thank God. Oh, like it was that a joke or with, did I see that in texts? Oh, thank God. Cause I realized as I was editing 19 hours, well, I'm just, we say a lot of things, you know, and eventually if we cancel out some some things that, yeah,

0:52:06 Lydia: No, all of her friends call her Steph. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't know you guys were close. I know. Some syllables. Yeah.

0:52:18 Thomas: If we like, like it's like division, you can like X out the things.

0:52:21 Lydia: You went from three to one syllable.

0:52:23 Thomas: Exactly. You know how much time that saved us over the course of the chunk system? That's like, that's like 10 hours. Okay. Yeah. I just, well, I got afraid that like, did I just make up a nickname for somebody? Cause I can't do that.

0:52:26 Lydia: This is such a you thing right now, too. No. No, you didn't. No, you didn' n't. Yeah.

0:52:38 Thomas: That's okay. Few, you know? Cause if I'm like, oh, Steph Curry, I'm not worried about like, oh no, I need to call him. Yeah, exactly. It's like but if no one else called him Steph Curry and I just decided to say that, it would be like... Yeah.

0:52:44 Lydia: That's what he goes by. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know it's, it's you and Stephanie Jones's husband and a

0:52:53 Thomas: You know, just the people she's closest with. I also texted Jen Abel's husband or whatever, his fiance. It's like, hey, talking about Steph here.

0:52:59 Lydia: Fiance. Yes. Yeah.

0:53:03 Thomas: Hey, so my friend Steph. Anyway, point is lots of great stuff coming. Can't wait. Patreon .com slash Galapagos is the way to get it right away, but it's okay if you can't, you'll still get it relatively right away. So in part two, we're going to get to, as I alluded to, we're gonna get to the crimes against humanity, The kidnapping, all that stuff. Her version of that story gets a little out there. Can't wait to tell you about it.

0:53:19 Lydia: Some might say dramatic I

0:53:27 Thomas: That's in part two. See you then. Today's episode. I asked you the number and I didn't even say it.

0:53:51 Lydia: Think it's 22 let me confirm

0:53:52 Thomas: No, it's funny. I just didn't. It doesn't matter. I thought you said 23, but I could. Behemoth? Behemeth.

0:53:55 Lydia: Oh yeah this is 23 yeah behemoth behemot well can't you say both no all right a 53 000 employee publicly traded multinational marketing what did you say a 53,000 employee publicly traded multinational marketing behemoth.

0:54:02 Thomas: I've never heard behemoth. Behemoth. Am I crazy? What now? Here we go. How to pronounce. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it says behemoth is what it is.

0:54:21 Lydia: What did I say?

0:54:22 Thomas: The emphasis is on the he.

0:54:24 Lydia: What did I say.

0:54:25 Thomas: You said behemoth.

0:54:27 Lydia: Oh OK. Behemoth at the time of her departure from RNC PMK.

0:54:31 Thomas: I heard nothing else that you said. So catch me up. What? What's happening?

0:54:36 Lydia: Oh my God.

0:54:39 Thomas: You know how much time that saved us over the course of the chunk system?