The whole point of defamation is knowingly spreading false information and it cant be opinion. And you need proof of how they defamed you publicly without it being false and them not expressing their own opinion
@@zoe9190 that's exactly my point! most videos that are made about these influencers who mess up are just that: OPINIONS based on the alleged facts that are presented
Blair has become the type of person she's criticed for years: a rich person with too much money and power thinking they can use that to hurt people who can't defend themselves.
The thing is, she never actually believed in any of those things, she spent years decrying MLM's, and shady companies that commit unethical business practices, but she's been proven to have done similar things. I never fully agreed with all of her points because she seemed very left leaning/liberal, and I'm...not to say the least, but I just chalked that up to difference of opinion, except, it wasn't her real opinion. I think it was Tommy C that said that "Blair doesn't believe in right, or left, she just believes in You tube" I think this is true, she doesn't hold the "opinions" she does because she actually believes them, she holds them because they're mainstream, and popular, and benefit, or at least, benefited her, by getting her a ton of views. We know that Blair is obsessively competitive, and wanted no one else in the anti MLM space to be bigger then her, to the point she went as far as to accuse other popular youtubers in whatever creator space she was in, first Reddit, and then anti MLM of things such as view botting, because she couldn't stand the though of anyone being bigger than her. She only cares about herself, and her You Tube career, nothing else matters to her.
It’s almost as if she was making and using all of those videos for inspiration in my opinion, rather than to make any meaningful change. I subscribe to other creators that talk about scams and similar things to what she does, and not only do they go a lot deeper on the topics, they also take action sometimes. .
As a former fan, it was Blair's own "iilluminaughtii exposed" video that made it very clear to me that she is the opposite of everything I thought she was. She is in denial on such a level that she somehow thought she could win a case like this with allegations that are so easily proven false.
Yep, that video was my first taste on the drama that was happening and just listening to her explanation. I just can't. Seeing how deep this goes is just incredibly sad and frustrating. I hope all this court drama gets closed cleanly and the frivolous cases get dropped.
She like that one pompous rich kid who has never faced any difficulties in life and now is facing difficulty and instead of accepting it and moving on, she is trying super hard to keep thar pompous life she had back.
It was the same for me. I watched it until she started badmouthing the click. I'd been a fan of the click for a while, so it left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. That's when I took a step back from her channel.
No way she takes the guy's car for a payment being 13 days late, fires someone for not finishing their work before their deadline AND submits HER amendment late to a judge😂😂😂
Fun fact about US law people keep forgetting: It's not defamation if it's true. And the person claiming defamation needs to provide proof that it's not true.
Also that it was known to be untrue by the person saying it, if you whole heartedly believe it and have evidence that it could be true, it's really hard to get defamation
Blair: I found proof that Wonder was going to relocate to Texas permanently. Court: So what? Blair: I said he was not allowed to move out of Colorado! Court: You have no right to do that.
Actually if he moved to other state before end od contract, it would be breach of that contract. However intend to move is not the same as action of moving. Ergo: if she actually found proof that Wonder was going to move, it doesn't give her right to take car away. He would have to do the action of moving to other state, to give her right to forcefully reposes car. It still would be shity, but would be legal.
@lilik7323 It’s especially egregious because we have proof that Wonder was attempting to return the car, meaning that in an instance of him moving away from the state he wasn’t planning on taking the car with him. If we are going to argue about future plans m, which wouldn’t be legal grounds for repossession of the car regardless.
I think it's kinda schadenfreude funny that she's even raising this argument tbh. On one hand it's sad to all involved, but on the other hand it's the most backwards logic you could ever want, that doesn't even need any reframing to make it a self-own. But with a reframe, it's just blatant spoiled child logic. "But your honor, he was breaking contract, I have proof! When I repossessed the car in the middle of the night I confiscated and read personal legal papers from him (which were never returned despite his requests to) that confirmed his intent to move out of the state in the future. Him acting on those plans would break this contract that we were already discussing on how to end." It's also laughable that this was offered as an addendum to resolve the glaring "she needs to provide direct quotes with sources for defamation" issue.
@@DyslecticAttackFrom some time I have a feeling, that she understood 'reside' as 'the car cannot leave the state' not as 'the owner needs to be reside in this state'. All that talk of 'he planned' for me sounds like she covers her tracks because of that misunderstanding. And if I'm right, it could be a way to cut somoene from their support network.
Regarding the r-slur and The Click…that IS out of context. For anyone who doesn’t know, The Click is Swedish, so English isn’t his first language. As a teen, he learned the r-slur from English-language gaming lobbies. Until the Sad Milk people told him, he had no idea it was a slur and not just trash talk. He stopped using it after learning it was offensive. So yes, he used the word. But when Blair talked about it in her video, she did not give it context: that he wasn’t a native speaker and didn’t know it was an offensive word. You know, that thing Blair says that everyone else did to her when they didn’t.
Also, as many people pointed it out, she was very fond of that particular slur before she rebranded herself as a commentary youtuber. Of course, she deleted her previous videos, but enough clips survive to be obvious that she has no problem calling people slurs. That and the poop anecdote.
She also tried to paint The Click as someone who lets pedophiles run around in his discord because there was a problematic dude in it for like... not even 5 minutes? His mods kicked the dude out, and it was like 1-2 on the morning where he lives when it all happened, so of course he didn't respond to it. He was asleep! She just tried to make it that he ignored it and didn't see it as a problem.
Hey, paralegal specialist in the military here, I just wanted to give a tiny bit of information on one thing. I'm not entirely sure if it is the same on the civilian side, but when we are writing up charges for individuals, we write "On or about..." for the reason of liability. If we have a specific date like June 5th and we write that, but there was something saying that it was June 6th at midnight or something like that, the whole thing can be thrown out. It gives a bit of leeway for it to still be considered accurate enough to charge. I hope that helps, or at least was interesting to know.
@PriyaPans It can, but I was taught that it is generally good practice not to. It's also the same with amounts of anything. We would get points taken off if we were too specific, even if we know the exact amount something costs.
@PriyaPans There's not really a point to give exact figures when the exact figures don't matter. It can only hurt your case, it can't help. For example a photo: pretty much every camera since the late 90's stamps a photo with the date and time it was taken, often down to the millisecond. So let's say you present this photo as evidence and state "this photo was taken March 20th at 6:15pm" blah blah blah. So then the opposition gets up and suddenly presents evidence that the photo pretty much COULDN'T have been taken at 6:15pm on March 20th! Dun dun DUN! OK so it turns out your camera wasn't taking into account daylight savings time, and the time is mostly accurate but it's off by an hour. No big deal right? Except now you have to argue that's what happened, your photo looks less trustworthy and you look like a bit of a doofus. And the cherry on top is the exact time doesn't matter, just "on the evening of March 20th" was plenty accurate for the needs of the case. But you've weakened your case by using an exact time that was actually slightly incorrect.
@@jeffwells641 that's an interesting way to look at it, thank you. Although that makes some parts of law seem more about whataboutisms and trickery than looking for the truth.
1:40:02 I'm a lawyer. The judge is safeguarding against appeal by giving her the opportunity to file a second amending complaint. The more chances someone is given to correct errors in their case, the more appeal resistant the judgment is. On a social/professional level too, judges are terrified of being appealed. I see this all the time.
@@aliceh4534 when judges are appealed, it is like saying they made a mistake. Either a mistake in the procedure, in the law that the judge applied, or in the way the judge applied the law. So they try to avoid appeals because it can make them look less good at their jobs essentially.
Also terms "on or about" and "including but not limited to" are standard legal language to cover for technicalities and what may or may not be admitted or found as evidence during a case.
Those DMs with Felix ooooooooooh my god. "Hey are you still unable to afford your bills? Yeah? Ok I have a job for you :)))" MLM predatory behaviour she used to call out full circle type shit.
Exactly! Narcs, Abusers, Traffickers & Scammers often pull this. Its called enticement. They lure the victim in with a something they know that person needs desperately. it's literally a control tactic that many abusers use.
This lawyer's work reeks of a "family friend" or "personal favor" type behavior. She sounds like a complete nightmare of a client. I cannot imagine a paid lawyer putting up with this shit without some extra incentive.
It’s not a bad lawyer, it’s a corrupt one. They’re getting paid handsomely for dragging this out for as long as possible, while trying to maintain plausible deniability regarding missing details. America is famous for this exact strategy.
It's highly likely considering we hear that she tried to do this before, but we know most, if not all, of the lawyers told her NO.😅 So either this lawyer is really cheap and crooked. Or they have some sort of relationship.
Not Blaire shaming Wonder for the apparent "unnacceptable" state of his car when she made Oz's place look like the "damn bitch you live like this" meme
19:32 Fraser, there’s an important nuance here. The issue isn’t lack of evidence, it’s failure to state facts. At this point she doesn’t have to prove anything with evidence, she just has to list facts and the court has to presume they’re true for the moment. But she hasn’t even done that, so it’s fair to think she might be deliberately trying to mislead the court 👀
Of course that's what she's doing. She knows she can't win, so she's dragging it out in order to bleed Oz dry. She's hoping his crowdfunding money runs out before hers does.
The American system is a mess but I doubt they're going to be happy over shit that's this easily disproven. She doesn't just have no leg to stand on, she's got nothing, not even teeth to grip on. She's going to be more fucked for lying like this
@@havenprice We're talking about _within the case._ Her lawsuit states "he breached contract on or around [month, year]" but doesn't say what he did to breach contract. Or "[someone else, not a defendant] posted a slanderous video called [title]" but doesn't say what specifically was said in it that's slander and how so, nor a link to the video, not even how that's relevant to any defendant! (For example, the video by Cruel World Happy Mind, which I've seen and has no slander, and which is totally unrelated to any of the people she's suing. None are in it, nor were otherwise involved at all.) And there's many times her suit states that something was harmful cos of "slander and other such things", which uh, literally THAT'S the place to specify WHICH "such things". But there are none, is why, and she's been allowed to revise & resubmit the suit THREE TIMES (and months late for at least one of those). You should see MadCatster's videos on this (there's a few as the case very slowly progresses). He's a lawyer and can obtain copies of things like this (lawsuit filings) and indeed does, and then shows & explains specifically what the problems are.
As someone who has filed and has an active lawsuit for defamation, I can say it is very difficult to prove defamation. In my case, the defamation was very blatant with lots of evidence and it links in with discrimination based on sexual orientation. When I went to an attorney after making the decision to file suit it was very rough and there needed to be a lot of details and things needed to be very specific. I remember the first hurdle I had to clear was the prima facia burden. I don't think Blair has met even the basic requirements for her claims.
The burden of proof is nuts, but you don't need to prove your case to scare the shit out of someone. I'd bet a pretty penny that they have no intention of actually going to court. Suing someone, then offering to withdraw the suit if they sign a document agreeing to specified terms is legal blackmail.
good luck with your case! I've heard defamation is one of the hardest civil cases to prove and it looks like Blair has an uphill battle while she's pushing a rock.
Oh god, the whole "their actions caused me to lose followers" thing just reminds me of Bob Loblaw - "why should you go to jail because of a crime someone else noticed?"
Doesn't it also mainly apply to a company's trade secrets as well? I might be wrong though. I just always thought it was centered around information regarding a company's sop/anything that falls under how they operate and their financial position and that it doesn't cover petty workplace drama.
@@redchimera7518It's common with celebrities and their employees, too, that you cannot discuss things seen or heard while in their employ. Unless it is something illegal. But that doesn't stop people from using them to scare people they know cannot afford to defend themselves.
@@redchimera7518 Not necessarily. You can make a contract about anything. NDAs included. But they're not legally binding if they're used to withhold or promote illegal actions. The applies to every contract (except MAYBE government ones, but I'm not sure about that).
@@nicolec.6232 I think you can make them for any duration you wish, but, it's outside the usual. But people seem to think it covers ANYTHING, but it doesn't.
She’s been reduced to trumping her former victims Legal sass is so great tbh. It acknowledges the framework it’s being forced to operate under is bullshit. “We recommend throwing this case out because she just... rambles about weird unsubstantiated shit she refuses to elaborate on for like 30 pages. This is very stupid go away”
I can’t edit the main comment bc it got a bean like thank u😭 So all I’ll say is, I have a lot of memory issues, some linked to personality disorders, some linked to complex trauma- and my favorite thing about that in relation to legal and medical documents is, *_I_* don’t need to remember shit, technically, because the documents remember for me. The people that made them, fortunately, didn’t make afaik the clerical errors and/or any malice in their documentation (being trans & disabled in American medicine ain’t great but my experiences have been on the painless side.) I don’t need to remember the exact date I paid my electric bill bc the company I pay it through has that information all the time. I don’t need to remember the last time I got a physical, my doctor can look that up and tell me. Like my therapist has a better concept of how long I’ve been seeing them than I do 😂 Unfortunately I’ve blacked out about ~5 consecutive years of my life (and one non consecutive that became weird it was missing in hindsight.) idk if I’ll ever recover memories from that time bc like idk. That’s not how recovering memories works. Recovering memories of things I repressed is possible and has happened-sort of? It’s less remembering the tangible memories and more remembering the context that was true then, like how a lifelong relationship that was fraught as long as I can remember would have been fraught when I was a really little kid as well :/ and that’s like, heartbreaking. There’s a lot of context and recovery a person can get without remembering literally everything. If you have memory issues and you’ve lived this long, you’d kind of have to develop coping mechanisms- and I’m still trying to live independently, Blair’s a multimillionaire: when she broke up with her boyfriend she *_simply BOUGHT ANOTHER HOUSE????_* like YOU WOT M8 Also how tf does an serially unreliable narrator expect people to believe everyone in her life treated her like or worse than she treated others including the people caring for her.
“He said he was going to move to TX when he _specifically pwomise he wON’T LEAVE ME-“_ Ma’am you broke up with this person who you were actively abusing. Really reads like “you KNEW better than to try to leave me, how dare you try to escape my control?!” “A much younger adult who’s no longer connected to me deserves to be scolded like a child by me for daring to ever disobey me or attempt to leave me. Court, shame this man!” is what that reads as. I am very familiar with trying and failing to leave controlling financial relationships. It’s so hard. I’m so happy Oz and co. were able to sever as many ties as they were! Blair really sounds like “justice system make my victims come back and force them to be my victims again which is their natural deserved state” and it’s like You... Blair... it’s against even your twisted best interests to say that in so many words. You don’t deserve to have victims. You don’t deserve to be built a hundred golden thrones a day by an army of servants. I can’t hire a cleaning service bc apart from the shame of my basement having no business looking like this (pls that meme is so good,) I can’t afford that. Blair lives like I do at my lowest and she just. I don’t like living like this ma’am I’m unwell Why is she going so hard to broadcast how unwell she is without being aware of it. She’s like putting up a Batman sigil over how genuinely untreated and unhinged she is. Jesus just get help for your shit. Go stay in an ultra luxe mental health program most of us living with that shit can’t afford. She has the funds to financially argue she’s more worth saving (🤮) so get that saving you tungsten dense buffoon-
$10K a month Blair a luxurious month for me is when I have over 1K at any time. When I can afford to buy groceries, pay bills, buy myself art/special interest garbo, shop at my friends’ cafes and stores, and send whatever I can spare to 🇵🇸🇸🇩🇨🇩. That is the height of luxury for me and that levels out to a little over $300 a week. The fuck are rich people even doing
"your honor, if these people didn't uncover my plagiarism after i falsely accused a lawyer of plagiarism, i wouldn't have lost all these viewers and money." [proceeds to wipe tears with $10K]
I was a fan of Illuminatii years ago, I remember the video that made me unsub. It was the one where she started ranting about people not buying her candles and giving her advice on raising her dog. It was like "give me your money and shut up"
It's going to sound weird but I started having a bad feeling when she made a second channel (or was it just a serie of videos? Can't remember) solely dedicated to her dog playing around. Kinda felt like she was using her dog's cuteness for views.
she already ticked me off a few years ago, i unsubbed even before she started her MLM Mondays. I couldnt really explain why, but one of her videos was covering a reseller-type company, and equating them to the usual MLM's, when they explicitly payed a salary and other things, like a real job (the reselling profit was more of a commission bonus, iirc). it felt like she just had to paint a picture, because that was the point of the channel (80% anti mlm channel at the time), like she couldnt just admit it wasnt like that. it just felt super performative, instead of informative
One thing I noticed is she’s specifically targeting her friends who aren’t financially well. One topic and the click would probably (probably I’m not saying would) be able to afford the costs of a legal battles.
@@AaayeeeeBexactly what I was thinking. The logistics and costs would impact her too. It's not a one and done silence tactic if it takes ages to even go into court.
I agree that she seems to have targeted vulnerable people. But being Swedish myself, she would have had to go through so much troble to file against Click. You can't just file a suit here.
Ex fan of hers, I am here for the content, hoping that eventually, she is going to suffer consequences. I followed her from her reddit change and had faith she believed what she preached. Had hopes she treated her people well, finding out she was another flavor of abusive and toxic traits.
Same here, I only heard about this situation when she posted her apology video and I was definitely on her side. For about a day. Until I saw everything else lol
I actually tripped into all this cuz I’m subscribed to The Click. I wasn’t a fan per say, but I appreciated her work. That until the honey hit the fan. Yikes. Having been in an abusive relationship with someone like her while all this was going down, I got really hooked. Left that person, but yeah. I hope both Illuminaughtii and my….. “””friend””” face consequences. I doubt it though.
Another ex fan here. Used to watch every one of her videos within hours of posting. I also didn't know about this until she posted her illuminati exposed video and ironically, how she did that video itself immediately told me I was not on her side. Then I watched for the responses and I've been watching her downfall ever since and supporting Wonder, Oz, OT, and the Click in the meantime
I too came from her Reddit days and initially really liked the shift to video essays. Over time I ended up drifting off from her though. After the RSlash stuff rubbed me the wrong way.
I think your point about being here for the content is an important one. It's been pretty clear based on general history that if a content creator is big enough, they can weather most scandals by waiting it out. This is the internet, after all - short attention spans abound. That is, unfortunately, usually pretty effective. Any creator with over a million subs probably earns enough from ad revenue to make up for whatever hit their channel takes. That is precisely why we need to keep up the pressure on Blair - she is hoping she can either bury this problem or moderate her content enough to control blowback. Best way to make sure this doesn't happen is to watch the content other creators are making about *her.* Keep reminding viewers (old and new alike) about what she's done and what she continues to do and strengthen our resolve to help her victims find justice. She needs to see that she has driven away her core audience right into the arms of her biggest and most credible critics.
RE: Legal matters. (Not a lawyer.) That isn't Oz and his team being "nice" to Blair to ask her team to present a good case; it's documenting Blair's refusal to improve her case, and to show that Oz's team is doing its due diligence and cooperating. This is because a common way to drag a case on is to present a shoddy case, claim the civil equivalent of a mistrial, and then force the defendants into a new case, ad infinitum until they get the result they want, the relevant judge throws it out immediately, or the defendant caves due to financial strain. Documenting from the jump that the defendant's team is doing everything in its power to answer the case in good faith and that the plaintiff is refusing to cooperate makes it much more likely that any subsequent attempts to retry the case will be thrown out. I do think Oz seems like a nice person, but this isn't angelic levels of grace-- it's just sensible legal practice. Edit: Same deal with the judge's response. This is standard-practice grace, issued in case the plaintiff has been misled or otherwise failed by their legal counsel, etc etc. The general idea is that it's fucked up to stomp out someone's opportunity for legal recourse on the basis of a mistake, misinformation, or poor work by their counsel, so you have to inform them of the issues and provide the opportunity to correct them before you can discard the case. Legal cases aren't like primary-school homework; you aren't expected to put forth perfect work else suffer a failure. Naturally, bad actors in the system will abuse this as much as possible, but most judges are aware of that and VERY ANNOYED when they catch someone doing it.
Not a lawyer either, so more of a question: Isn't there also a possibility for sanctions against her, if she keeps this up? It seems like she is trying to drag this on as long as possible.
@@littlefrog5606 it's possible. Colorado has an anti-SLAPP ("strategic lawsuit against public participation") law. This allows someone to file a motion to dismiss when a claim is brought merely to stifle freedom of speech, and also allows for sanctions against the party bringing the claim. The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 also allows a party's attorney to be sanctioned for bringing factually or legally frivolous claims.
My question would be: “What pain killer was she taking that caused such memory issues?” Because it sounds like that was a Schedule 2 drug, to which a small non-refillable prescription was issued for. Yet it sounds like she was on this drug for months at a time. And if the drug ends up being a strong dosage of Tylenol or Motrin. Does that imply that anyone else on such dosages cannot legally sign a contract otherwise it could be viewed as Bad Faith Contract, because the person who signed it was not in their right mind and could not be held liable for signing the contract. Such a decision could upend contract law.
This is so blatantly a SLAPP suit and I don’t know how this lawsuit hasn’t just been thrown out already. Blair has no case and all these amendments are clearly just designed to draw this out as long as possible to financially and emotionally harm Oz, Wonder, and Felix. Also, I’m pretty sure the reason Oz and the judge gave her an opportunity to actually present a decent case is so that they’d have it in writing that she was asked to correct the issues in those documents and failed to do so, and so now she can’t later try to claim a mistrial.
As I understand it (IANAL, just have done a lot of googling while chasing down questions like this), the anti-SLAPP laws are a defense that can be claimed in a lawsuit. Right now, the defendants have not submitted a defense to Blair’s claims, but are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. With no claim, they don’t need to submit a defense, which means they don’t need to apply the anti-SLAPP defense. IF the judge accepts her claim, that’s when they would do that, and probably supply their defense to the claims in case the judge rules that the anti-SLAPP law doesn’t apply.
What's even funnier about Blair's initial/amended complaint is that she didn't even have to provide evidence of harm to her reputation or that the statement was 100% defamatory. She literally just had to tell the court that oz made ANY statement that harmed her reputation. She just had to point to him lying even once, and couldn't even do that.
@@renehill3351That's his niche to make money plus the situation is interesting. If you don't care it's more silly to be here than him making a video. Plus without people talking about subjects like this, the villain can more easily manipulate the situation and hurt people more.
"My income went from $30,000 per month to just $5,000 per month." Mr. Krabs: "Oh, boo-hoo, that's so sad. Here, let me play a _sad_ song for you on the world's smallest violin."
Meanwhile, our family of four is considered well-off with 3.5k € netto. Germany, so that includes childcare benefits (250 € each). 5k would be pretty sweet, though.🧐
For real, why does Blair frame herself as a victim for having been asked by her bf struggling with money and being the person financing their living situation, to have to contribute a little when she easily had hundreds of thousands to even a million dollars to her name? Did she really expect that Oz was just going to let her hoard her small fortune all to herself, AND let her just stay at his place for free, AND expect him to take care of her on top of it??? What level of entitlement do you have to have to even believe that is a f*cking acceptable thing??? Does Blair actually believe that she is a billionaire princess who simply has to have everything provided to her? Absolutely outrageous.😑
I’m guessing because she’s controlling and a bit narcissistic. My ex friend was like this and they wanted me to manage their feelings. Anything they did was my fault because I wasn’t psychic. Therefore, they’re always the victim. I sprained my ankle? I somehow victimized them by being late. They were also a millionaire.
Ironically, she is trying to pretend she is the victim, when she is the employer being in a relationship with an employee, who is 10 years her junior, financially unstable AND the person woth 0 power in the relationship. She is what people mean when they talk about abusers trying to pretend they are the victim. DARVO in the wild, if you will. It is so perfect an example, its a bit ridiculous.
@jborrego2406 for sure. That's why when Blair stayed at Oz's house for three months he had a right to ask her to pay some rent money. And then later she made him pay her back all of it, now claiming he was manipulative in asking for funds to provide her food, shelter, and care after a procdure and staying for months. She should have been paying her keep. Smh
@@dundeecake I don’t know if that’s the only reason why, but yeah he isn’t getting sued because he lives in Sweden I believe. One Topic lives in Canada and isn’t getting sued either. However, I think part of the reason they’re not getting sued is because Neither of them actually worked for Blair. Oz, Wonder, and Felix The KitKat all worked for Blair at some point. So she probably thinks that she can get away with suing them because of contracts that they signed well working for her.
the most sinister thing that I noticed is it looks like Blair didn't even care about making a case efficiently so it could go to court asap, this feels like she deliberately targeted the people who couldn't afford to stay in a legal battle for a prolonged time, these courts documents have shown us that this case is just getting more and more ridiculous as time went by. i personally think that is what Blair and her legal team wanted, to drag this back and forth for so long the other side will run out of funds for the legal fees.
@@catherinemccormick3184 They do things like reschedule, demand an inventory of assets, bring in other arguments, say that they want certain items (like real estate property) and then say they don't want it just to cause stress to the other person. It's not illegal as long as you're doing things like arguing over childcare payment amounts, etc. You just act like you want something, but it's just to dry the other person out (or so I've learned from studying transcripts in court reporting studies)
Hearing that the Confidentiality Agreement was 25 years made me viscerally angry. She took advantage of people who considered her a friend because they were in a bad spot, and KNEW she was going to manipulate them from the beginning. They trusted her enough and/or were in a bad enough spot to sign a 25 year silencing. Disgusting.
You can't prevent people from reporting crimes with confidentiality agreement. Any contract that hinders prosecution of illegal activity is _itself_ a crime.
This feels like a SLAPP, and Colorado does appear to have anti-SLAPP laws on the books. For those unfamiliar, SLAPPs are lawsuits meant to silence people -- the person filing the suit often doesn't even expect to win, just expects the other party to drown in legal fees. Since Blair knows the financial situations of those she is suing, and is dragging things out by amending again and again (poorly each time), one could argue that this is a SLAPP suit she is intentionally elongating in order to intimidate or bankrupt the defendants into silence. Linking the wikipedia article for this in case people want to look further into SLAPP suits: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation (also iNabber may talk about SLAPP in this video I'm only halfway through okay) EDIT: Okay I finished the video and he did not mention this! Also with the additional details from the interviews I am now convinced this is a SLAPP suit. Great video!
I'm still surprised that from my understanding in the US legal system it's not normal for the losing party to be forced to pay all legal costs of the winning party for every lawsuit, as it would be in many other counties.
If Cruel World Happy Mind's video is mentioned as defamatory, why doesn't Blair sue Madison (CWHM) instead? Could it be because then Madison could countersue Blair for making equally defamatory comments about her, trying to bully her (a much smaller creator) off the platform, all while Madison was pregnant? Might not be a good look for Blair, huh?
If Oz and Wonder do wind up having to argue their defense (like with evidence) this will be extremely relevant. Blair would have to prove that *their* statements caused her financial harm. Madison’s video about her own separate experience could easily have contributed, and it’s ultimately impossible to say which videos caused what amount of financial damage. And she’s basically acknowledging it in the complaint 🤦🏻♀️😂
I wonder if she could see her anyway. Blair is claiming her video contains defamatory content which could itself be defamatory if not true and can be shown to have actual malice.
@@coreymichelle408 Madison likely has the financial ability to countersue. Blair is going after people she personally knows not only to be cruel and petty, but also because she knows they have less financial power. Of course she couldn't predict her former fans and the Internet in general to despise her so much they happily donated to help these people.
There is a beautifully cyclical nature to Blair/ iilluminattii's downfall and the current coverage that Madcatster is doing. The thing that kickstarted the backlash against her bad behavior was Blair lashing out against a (pretty famous) lawyer who called her out for her selfish nature, and now it is a (growing )lawyer who is truly raising the tides in the TH-cam harbor by sharing the information he has gathered to anyone just willing to ask. Truly a great man, even before you consider that Madcatster is also passionate about fostering/ adopting older and handicapped cats. The dude literally just asks that IF you want to support him, you do so by helping his cats. What a guy.
@@eneyavorodecky oh, 100%. His "The rising tide raises all ships" was one of the nicest ways anyone could have told Blaire she needed to stop being weirdly defensive over a nothing issue (literally, since the thing she tried to call out was not related to what LE's editor was even asking about).
The most absurd part of this is that Blair thought that the state of the car Wonder was driving was unacceptable. Yeah it's untidy but that is a car that he was, at the very least, driving daily and was using as a personal, unshared vehicle. He's not required to keep it 100% spotless all of the time so I'm baffled by the idea that some trash, clothing items, dirt is some horrible condition. A broken glove box handle and a cracked windshield can all be fixed on his own time really quickly. Bring it up as if its some trump card is ridiculous.
He also had proof of appointments to fix those! If she hadn't snatched it back in the dead of night, he was going to fix that on his own time and money.
It wasn't just something he drove every day, he was LIVING out of his car at the time as well. Besides, with how her room looked, she has no room to speak on the car being messy.
Certainly have some rather different meanings but with everything she's doing I can't help but feel like both apply in their own way💀 I know I'd feel pretty damn defiled if I were a judge or jury member someone brought this into the courtroom in front of me.
@@FirstLast-po8ozI get the annoyance, but mispronouncing words isn't a big deal. Also, hasn't Fraser said he's dyslexic? Or am I confusing him with another creator?
you’re one of my fav commentary channels 🩷 thank you for making long form content!!! ik it must be hard & strenuous, but i appreciate your dedication & time!! if you don’t have a fan, that means i’m dead 🥹🩷
Blair likes to throw out a lot of lawsuits to milk money out of her victims because she is a deeply, deeply evil woman who gets joy from having complete control over people. It doesnt matter if her suits dont make sense. That was never the point. And thats exactly why i so badly want her to lose her suits. I want her to find out the hard way that she /cant/ control people. And i want the people shes hurt to finally be free.
@@michaelcorcoran8768 That's only a problem for her, so I don't care. Well, I do, but only in the way you'd care about something funny that makes you crack a sadistic smile every now and again
“In or about (date)” is standard lawsuit language. Also, they don’t have to wait until after this lawsuit to counter sue and there’s less than a 10% chance this will make it to a jury.
"I was drugged beyond the ability to make decisions for myself when I agreed to give him money... So when I was off the meds and fully cognizant, I agreed to it again." Ok binch good for you. Like what did she think she'd accomplish by admitting that?
Not to mention, I’ve had medicine that cause anterograde amnesia and, yeah you cannot make decisions under that. The catch: that medication was used to put me under for an invasive surgery. I have no idea what she was taking?? But surely you’re not supposed to take it regularly??
She would be opening herself up to a psychological assessment by this, and several other of her claims. I imagine that would not go her way. This surgery is going to turn out to be lasix or something 🙂. Girl, stop watching SATC
She is so full of it. Narcotics don't really work that way if you are not abusing your medications. Yeah they can make you a bit loopy, but it takes A LOT before memory can be anywhere near impaired. If you get to that point, you are almost to the point of OD, or you are a very old person or already have cognitive issues. If you take these meds long enough, you don't get loopy anymore but they still work to decrease pain. I've been on Dilaudid 4x a day since 2015 and don't even feel "high" anymore but it does help manage my pain and allows me to have quality of life. What she is doing is basically admitting to something without meaning to admit to it AGAIN!. Saying she had memory issues is pretty much saying she was abusing her medications. Plus, given how much or a porker she is, it would take more for her to reach that point than a thin person. And I thought I was kind of a slob, at least I have good hygiene where she, IIRC, is known to be a rather disgusting person. I mean who TF uses their hand to pick up their shit from the toilet in order to throw it in the trash because her turds are so massive it would not flush? I may leave my stuff laying around, she is NASTY. She also, according to OZ, spends a couple hundred dollars A DAY ON FOOD. So yeah, she is a PIG.
@@Shadow1Yazthey don't give you those kind of anesthetics to TAKE HOME, people literally go to school for a decade to administer them, what in the actual hell does she think she's talking about? Edit to add your pfp is adorable! ❤
If last year she had literally just said "my bad, I'll try to be a better person in future" that would've been the end of it after maybe 2-4 weeks at most. She wouldn't have even had to bother becoming an actual better person either.
The incredible thing is that SHE brought all of this to herself! It all started because SHE blamed a lawyer youtuber of plagiarism over an insignificant highlight effect on a video 😑😑😑
Guess she doesn't know it's a very stupid idea to bring up "legalities" and "plagiarism" to someone who literally studies the law. xDDD To think she'd probably be living her life just fine if she hadn't let her ego try to strap up against someone with a bigger gun.
The incredible thing is that anyone would spend this much time making a video about this or that anyone would actually spend three hours of their lives watching this crap.
22:42 bold of Blair to claim that she works just as hard as a corporation and needs that agreement while she just copy pasted texts and steals other peoples articles and documentaries💀💀💀💀 (Idc if she really claims that or not, but I believe that doesn’t matter to understand the double standard irony)
I think the timetable for Oz and Blair's relationship is _suspicious,_ because going by Oz's video it almost seems like the time in which she was living in his house he regarded her as his romantic partner - however - the court documents make it sound as if they were living together _as friends._ Sure she could be faking the memory loss to drive sympathy, but more it seems like a cover in case someone in the future asks her to give a definitive point in time where the relationship ended. Seems like she had moved on a while prior but continued to use Oz as a temporary free-landlord.
I broke my vertebrae in 2011 been taking opioids every day since.. the whole memory loss thing is utter bull shit. I'm on a pretty high dose I can still drive I can remember things.. unless she was taking like surgical grade anesthesia.. there's no way in hell pain medicine would make her forget.
Oz did mention that when they were together in the house their relationship was rocky and they broke up but they said Blair promised them they'd be back together or him helping with her finance could save their relationship but Blair had already moved on. So Blair would defo try to push the "just friends" narrative or admit she manipulated him.
"In or about" is a legal shorthand for "yeah dude we're 98% sure it was THIS date, but if we're wrong about that small detail we know you could throw out the rest of this argument "
I've had two windshields replaced and used to have a car with low profile tires and that was a NIGHTMARE. I also had a bend in my rim before my first oil change and everyone told me I must have hit something and I swore on my life I didn't. Two years later I get a letter about a class action lawsuit because of wheels malforming under normal driving conditions. I got a payout and proved I wasn't lying. The point is, sometimes things happen with cars, even new cars, that are beyond your control.
In my family, we always say don't get too attached to a new car because something Always happens. My aunt got her sports car repainted. The very next day one of her son's friends rested his bike against the car and it slid down scratching the door. Years later she bought a car for her son and within a month the engine set itself on fire while they were in the drive thru of a Wendy's. She got him a new car with the insurance money and 2 months later he was T boned in an intersection… maybe she just has bad luck with cars. 😂
2:09:00 Here she's trying to justify the repossession of the vehicle. So, per the terms he was supposed to live in Colorado ubtil the car was paid off. I don't know why she decided to reposses the car before evn the first payment was due (an illegal act in most states) but then after the repossession she's claiming she found proof (not provided) that she was correct in doing the repossession. That's not how anything works. You can't reposses something and then find a reason for it afterwards. This isn't the minority report.
Not to mention, it's not legal in the US to create a legal agreement requiring a signature holder to not leave a state for XYZ reason. ONLY the government can legally hold a person from traveling with in the US boundaries under penalty.
I think that’s what she thinks that means but the car residing in Colorado just means it’s registered in Colorado and has a Colorado address for where it usually is, not that it cannot leave the state lol
Probably is about the same experience as arbitrating squabbling neighbors and malicious divorcies. Maybe just a bit different in the evidence, since a lot is more online, so more receipts, but also more indirect and non-physical receipts.
"Climbing" to that level is a funny way of saying it. Judges are not noble, or really anything of the sorts.. They are bias, spiteful, and just narcissistic all around..
Before Frasier said it I was thinking “she’s obviously only suing Felix because she REALLY wants to sue The Click but can’t” Also it’s WILDLY DISGUSTING that she decided she HAD to mention Wonder’s mentioning that he was considering ending his own life AGAIN here.
Yeah it really seems like it. I think another poster already said something along the lines of "she may think it's The Click's fault it blew up so much because his tweets/video were kind of the catalyst that made the other three come forward as well." Even though she was the one that brought it to youtube in the first place. I'm inclined to agree with that. Also the situation with wonder makes the whole thing just so so bad. I'm so happy for him, he got out from under her before it could become even worse. I really hope the three of them come out as unscathed as possible from all this.
I am an attorney it is completely normal for lawsuits to use the phrase “on or about” and not give exact dates. Now saying on or about July is a little shady, it should say a date or a range of dates not an entire month. On or about just avoids any nitpicking. Blair’s attorneys may be very good lawyers, but at the end of the day the lawyer is only as good as the facts of the case they are arguing.
Is it common to base much of the arguments on personal interactions/details of the relationship or no? just wondering if these things are included for legal reasons?
I'm NAL but watching this video is VERY frustrating, honestly. If someone is going to try and give a definitive summary of events including a legal case, they NEED to have a basic understanding of legal norms and policies. Eyeballing it with a layman's understanding and speaking confidently from that incorrect framework will do nothing but mislead. I wish iNabber had consulted with... absolutely anyone with an understanding of the American legal system for this video. Things like "on or about", or any of the "kindnesses" shown by Oz's team and the judge... it's all nonsense based on a faulty understanding of legal procedure, and isn't helping ANYONE understand this case or what's happening.
@@spnxmchee it’s hard to say what’s “common” with regards to specific facts in a complaint, that’s more case specific. My personal opinion on this, is Blair filed a lawsuit to harass these individuals because she did not think they would be able to afford lawyers to defend them. The lawyers drafted the Complaint to the best of their abilities based off of the factual information available to them. Blair probably assumed that Oz, wonder, and Felix would just default because they wouldn’t have lawyers, and at that point it doesn’t matter how paper thin the allegations in the Complaint are. Now since they all do have attorneys they are trying to salvage their weak case with an Amended argument. There are no facts for her to allege that would rise to defamation and the only recourse her and her attorneys are left with, is to just throw out a bunch of factual allegations and details. The judge will probably see through it.
@@JayEyedWolfthank you. I was cringing too and I’m a high speed court reporting student, not even a lawyer. I mean, that probably puts me closer to legal jargon in a purely written form but some of this was just hard to sit through. They could have emailed Mad Catster with questions (❤
I used to be a Iluminaughtii fan, well... watcher? I enjoyed her content. Yet I never felt great after watching it. I felt the same way for a lot of 'Tea' Channels and 'Expose' Channels. So I decided to unsubscribe. I know a lot of people say "I got a bad feeling about her", but I can understand if people say they felt caught off guard. I mean... I wasn't overall shocked. But I was intrigued that she acted like the one's who she had been criticizing about for YEARS. She's the girl I learned what an MLM even was. Yet at the same time, it kind felt like she was doing her own little MLM scheme. Manipulating people into supporting her or enduring her abuse... All support to her victims. Oz Media, The Click, Felix, WonderStruck, all of them. A quote I love to use from one of my favourite TH-camrs. Don't send hate to Blair. Send love to her victims.
There is a theory that the judge hasn't thrown the case out because he trying to see if Blair file this with prejudice in mind, so that way she doesn't have the abilty to file this lawsuit again if it gets dimiss. But that is just a theory. Honsetly after she filed the current ammendent really late, the judge should have thrown it out by now because she is wasting the judge and court time. Also, beanz.
@Shadow1Yaz I think the judge is being super lenient in part, to ensure that if it does get thrown out, there's also no possibility of her getting an appeal through in a higher court circuit. The last thing we'd want is for her to drag this out for years because she got an appeal through on a technicality.
Something hilarious about Blair’s insistance on including pyramid inc, she might be piercing her own corporate veil. Something a lot of richer people do to try and avoid paying stuff like taxes and penalties is to make a company and do everything through their company so it technically is not their own personal money, even though it is. Piercing the corporate veil is when during a lawsuit you prove that this company is essentially the same as the individual, allowing you to claim company assets as their personal assets for purposes of paying taxes, penalties, and debts. If she is insisting that Pyramid Inc is being damaged when it’s only her being damaged, this could be used as an argument to treat them as the same entity. And let’s not forget, Blair is currently being sued by debt collectors and the IRS, who would probably *love* to use any evidence to pierce that corporate veil so they can take the money from there too
@@chloskyskies4399 oh yeah, she is currently being sued by the IRS and Debt Collectors. Why do you think she feels the need to get younger men to sign their names on everything? Her credit must be abysmal
At this stage, evidence isn’t relevant. The court will presume truth of claims in order to decide if the case is worthy of hearing (as in, if we assume the claims are true, is there standing for the legal claims being made?) And she can’t even state what her claims are beyond “that hurt my feelings :( “ What I mean is…what she is lacking here isn’t evidence. It is actual claims she is failing to make. We have freedom of speech, so they all have the right to say what they want. She has to make a claim that can be substantiated such that a “reasonable person” would assume that there is “actual malice” (meaning, the videos and statements were made with the intent of causing her harm and have no relation to reality) At best, we have interpersonal drama in a workplace. That is not grounds for defamation. Maybe violating an NDA, if that is legally valid (and airing information about the internal workings of a company is general grounds for that) but Blair waved any ability to claim that by SHE HERSELF talking about those topics publicly. She could have stayed silent and sent the lawsuit, but she had to open her stupid mouth. Blair is getting scammed by her lawyers. They are getting paid either way, even if the case is never even heard. Also…you should do NDAs…it isn’t just for big companies. It is the most basic form of legal coverage and it isn’t just for your video ideas and editing software. It is also for things like…your finances, how you negotiate ad spots, the companies that contact you for ad deals, etc. Blair is a moron flapping around trying to save her company and lifestyle, but that isn’t a good reason to not do a well structured NDA.
I shouldn't be surprised Blair is treating a courtroom like a twitter cancellation. Like she can just say a bunch of stuff someone supposedly did and have everyone pity her.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that "on or about [date]" is a standard cover-your-ass way of phrasing a complaint. I also hate it when that is used for statements about messages etc. with specific dates and times you can see on screenshots. Also, filing a motion for summary judgment (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) doesn't necessarily mean that there is zero evidence of proof of a claim, it is merely the defendants' attorneys being diligent and doing their job to attempt to get the case dismissed early on. In this case there does appear to be no real defamation claim, but summary judgment orders are both granted and denied frequently.
As a licensed attorney myself, “in or about / on or about” are very common attorney verbiage to use, just fyi. It doesn’t denote laziness or lack of specificity as this is a complaint and exact dates can’t be verified by the court record at this time. Not defending her or her terrible attorneys, just making a statement.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it does seem like they're over using it right? Like "on or about 2022" a whole year under that is shady from my understanding?
It seems strange to use "on or about the end of April 2022" when referencing supposed defamatory tweets, I would think saying "on or about" and using the dates of the tweets themselves and then linking to them or providing them in the filing would make it seem less strange. The refusal to give any specificity to what should have a date stamp on it is what makes it seem like nobody knows when any of these things happened.
It's definitely strange to use in this context and is even more so given the specificity requested by the judge. It is a phrase that is more often seen in far less serious circumstances and I don't think it belongs in this sort of document either. Maybe in a cease and desist letter, but not in your second or third amended complaint. @@vb8801
She thinks she lost thousands of followers due to the responses from the others? I left when I watched HER video where she "exposed," "apologized to" and then wished she'd never met a ton of them one after another. Because ick, and because everyone she called out were creators I quite liked and it didn't add up.
Yeah. I watched the “exposed video” after I saw Click’s video and I just about died when she showed WanderGuy’s private note. Like, I looked away. Then she *read it aloud* so even visually impaired people could hear his very sensitive message. It was disgusting. My soul would have filed for divorce and left me with the kids if a message like that from me was made THAT public. Holy carp!
Me too. I found out about the allegations from Blair’s video, and that was the last of her content I ever watched. I didn’t even know of anyone else involved at that point. I was a huge fan, I’ve seen every video, most multiple times until then. Her video didn’t sit well with me, especially after showing Wonder’s s note / talking about his mental health, so I went to Twitter and she went downhill from there. For someone who talks about shady people/businesses having a lot to hide, she’s embodying irl
I unsubscribed bc of the hypocrisy: You can't make countless videos about bad business practices, scams and abusive people whilst you are doing all those things yourself behind the scene.
Ditto. I don't to twitter so I thought the exposed video was a self correction. The gaslighting was so obvious, I don't know how anyone missed it. It was like a train wreck, I couldn't look away from the hole she was digging herself. Then she got to Click and I had heard that story from him on a stream a few months prior and knew it sounded off. She made it sound like it took a week but I knew he said the perv was banned before he even woke up. He brought it up in the context of having good and appreciating mods
I’m at about minute 65, and honestly there should be a gofundme to pay legal fees in order for these guys to counter sue Blair until she’s making payments to their grandchildren when she’s an old woman on her deathbed
All three set up GFMs, they raised about $75,000 between them. Oz said on stream that his legal fees range between $2,000 and $6,000 a month right now.
Something people might not know, is she has a second channel for her dog, Cloud. And it turned out she bought him from a puppy farm. When that video came out, I honestly just… stopped watching her. She had spoken at length about how much research she had done because she needed a hypoallergenic dog. It’s a small thing, but it immediately made me distrust her. The reason she needed a hypoallergenic dog was just a bit stupid, and the fact that she claimed to do so much research but then it turned out just to be almost a lie, it always rubbed me the wrong way Edit: The dogs name was Casper, but the channel name was "Casper the Cloud" iirc, which is where my mix-up was. Thank you for the correction!
Oftentimes puppy mills will pose as reputable breeders, and while I absolutely hate Blair, I want to imagine that she didn't intend to purchase Cloud from a puppy mill. But knowing her, I know that she probably didn't truly care.
@@perytonpred2356 Dude, stop. She doesn't care about the welfare of the dogs, but she clearly cared enough about her reputation to claim she didn't buy from a mill. If some internet rando could figure out it's a mill, she easily could have.
@@WobblesandBean I haven't seen anything from Blair herself since this started- I didn't want to inadvertently support her bs by viewing them. I just want to try to be somewhat optimistic and look at this fairly. I want to believe there's at least some shred of good, even if there isn't. Not everyone knows all the signs to spot the difference or the techniques. You're right though. She probably didn't care about Cloud's welfare.
Influencers throw around the word "defamation" but do not know what it means. It's not defamation just because you don't like that someone else calls you out on your awful behaviour towards them. Defamation have to be lies. You being offended by their words doesn't mean they lied about you and doesn't mean it's defamation, lmao.
Exactly. If one is enraged at the statement “the earth is round” that’s not an attack against them. If she’s offended at “Blair punts puppies. I seen it!” That’s defamation.
Of anything, Blair's the one who's committed defamation, since she keeps lying about what happened with her former friends, employees, and partner to frame herself as a victim of their actions and not the other way around
But that’s the thing with entitled narcissists: they think being called out for their awful behavior *_is_* defamation- even if it is *_true._* Maybe even *_especially_* if it’s true.
To think this whole thing came about from Blair's overzealous plagiarism accusations backfiring and spiraling completely beyond her control. If she'd just kept her mouth shut that ONE time, she may still be one of TH-cam's most respected commentary creators. All over an open source plugin that overhauls a highlighting format that news and drama channels like Clevver and the like had been using since before Blair even manifested in this hellish ecosystem of views and engagement.
Boy just imagine how that one Legal Eagle editor must feel watching all of this explode in real-time. Poor editor's going "I JUST WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT A PLUG IN EFFECT!" while the dominos fall
@@Kyman102 I'm pretty sure he's, in some way, glad this all happened - because it's going to help the boys out in the long term. Blair's abuse of her employees and friends would never have come out otherwise.
@@beanybabyrabie it's looking pretty obvious that once anyone close to her found out how awful she was, she already had enough "ammunition" amassed on them to torture them at will to keep quiet. The only stench of your aforementioned "sickness" is coming from Blair.
Definitely not. Blair's videos have already been exposed for plagiarism and being just factually incorrect so I think it would only take one person who doesn't like her in order to expose her lazy content if she didn't already expose herself
Felix and his parting words gave me a good chuckle. It really is Blair just shooting herself in the foot over and over again and letting these no name, shit posting nerds from Twitter(no shade i love me some nerds) take down her entire multimillion-dollar business because she couldn't get over herself. It's glorious. The internet never forgets, Blair. Never.
Im not a lawyer but it makes no sense that "confidentiality agreements" dont protect employers from accountability for breaking laws or abusing employees worker rights. Confidentiality is for protecting maybe IPs or not spoiling things if you're in an entertainment industry working on a show/movie/or video game.
Not a lawyer either, but I’ve heard neither “Confidentiality Agreements” or “Nondisclosure Agreements” (NDAs) cannot be used to conceal criminal activity. The other parties can legally go to the authorities or such if a crime has been committed.
Oh they definetely dont. I have to deal with them a lot and its about not disclosing work strategies or content, whatever is valuable to the company. It could be not leaking confidential research to the public, or maybe a new workflow that gives a company an edge. It can be used maliciously by covering shitty business practices but illegal stuff? Nah, honey, bullying and perjury isnt covered by an nda
People have already let you know that illegal activity (including violation of worker's rights) can't be covered or protected by confidentiality agreements, but if you're curious to learn more about your rights (something everyone should know) the specific phrase you're looking for is "whistleblower protection".
as an old fan of Blair's, i'm actually shocked at how easy it was to just stop watching her content. Her actions are reprehensible at best and everything revealed in the last year is shockingly horrible. I'm amazed that she can think in any way that she could salvage her reputation. Between her own actions, her history with her ex-friends and Hbomberguys video, it is so sullied that i dont know if anything could save it at this point.
I used to watch her videos daily and with how easy it was to stop watching her content I realized she didn’t really do anything unique that couldn’t be found elsewhere
I stopped watching when she stared in on a couple of topics I have a bit of background in. Made it obvious fast that the "research" in question was a cursory google search with no regard for the source quality or accuracy.
Well half the country is stupid enough to be in a cult and vote for an accused sexual predator con man while simultaneously believing he was sent here from God so…Im guessing she still has a chance. 🤷🏻♀️
The same. I used to be a huge fan of hers circa 2019-ish. Now there are so many other creators doing just as good if not better work than her that aren't absolute twat waffles. I can't in good conscience support someone like that. And looking at her decimated view counts, it seems I'm not the only one...
Yep. I watched the hbomberguy doc and the unprofessional plagiarism was enough to unsub. But I didn’t dislike her as a PERSON at that point, I was just disillusioned with her as a news source. but then I found out about all the other crappy behaviour and was like “wow, I wish I could unsubscribe again” and can honestly say that as a PERSON, I find her utterly contemptible. And SHE DID THAT. The original plagiarism stuff made me dislike the channel. The personal stuff made me dislike BLAIR.
I wonder what Blair thought would happen at the end of the 25 years, if everyone who signed an NDA hadn't just gone "fuck that, I say what I want." Did she think she wouldn't piss off someone enough that would wait it out and come for her neck? Maybe she'd have made a crap ton of money at that point, but it's pretty obvious that nothing will be enough for Blaire, and being taken down after decades of having an amazing reputation would be especially embarrassing. That's not even counting all the people who didn't sign anything, like Cruel World Happy Mind or The Click who can easily take her down right now.
Honestly. Like yeah 25 years is a long time, but if everything went her way? I don't know about you, but I can hold a grudge for 25 years and I'd have a TH-cam video out the day after that shit expired 🤷♀️ whats done in the darkness always comes to the light
I kept wondering throughout this whole case "why is she persisting what is obviously a losing battle" and it felt like the answer came when Oz said his life every day was fearing he was going to get bad news from his lawyer. That's why she keeps this case going even though she doesn't really have anything. Her entire history shows her to be just that petty...
@@odwrksboxedtrash3730 Holy shit I forgot Blair was doing that under videos about her lol. (Although even if they aren't an alt account- no promises she isn't also paying people to defame the people she hurt)
I had never heard of MadCatster but somehow, when the clip of him came up, he was everything his name made me want him to be: Hawaiian shirt, hat, and petting a cat in front of a microphone.
It's a slap suit. Plain and simple. This is the exact reason we need laws against them. 1 person has money to burn that wants people who don't to not speak anymore. Blair's hypocrisy is ridiculous and the fact she doesn't see it is insane.
Yeah, there's no way her lawyer is behind the scenes telling her that anything will come of this. She just wants to drag out this process until they are drained of money and in total anguish from being stressed/silenced for so long.
If it's in the USA and they caught her doing something illegal, they can still speak out against her, even if they signed that. That piece of paper only protects so much of the boss.
I'd love it if, after the dust settles, people/companies she's made vids about to sue her for defamation. If she can put forward BS SLAPP suits, then she's fair game to everyone she's said negative things about (which is essentially the nature of her complaints). Also, with the issue of the "he didn't take care of me" thing, everyone has said "why didn't her sister and friend take care of her" which is 100% but something else I thought of, why tf was Oz the one they left in charge of her if he truly did swoop in on the opportunity when she was, 1. Recovering from surgery and 2. On pain meds and allegedly in an altered state of mind, in order to extort her.. and they were there, and they saw that, and then subsequently they leave him alone with her as her sole carer? I mean, the claim is legally hearsay anyway coming from her but if I watched someone try to extort one of my loved ones while they were out of it, I'd insist on them staying with me instead. It's clearly a very dangerous situation, so I just have to ask, is blair a liar, or is everyone in her life as dumb as she seems to be...?
Blair wasn't prepared to issue an actual lawsuit, She thought the threat of one would work how it did in the past! When it didn't keep people as silent as she wanted THEN she wanted to try to sue. She screwed herself, yes with the Legal Eagle issue but the "apology" where she decided to go after Wonder and everyone. In that video she sealed her fate when she brought up Wonder's Mental health (ie the S. Note)! That's when I began to see people go "Ok, it's official she's a B***h we're done with her"!! Of course this is all my own opinion, but she's like any other bully I've ever known not able to understand people get tired of threats and being afraid.
I agree. I used to be a fan of Blair's and had no idea of the drama on Twitter until her video about it was posted. I was completely biased on her favor when starting the video but it was so bad that stopped watching her content.
I literally started watching her before that big drama and I was so happy to have something to listen to while drawing BUT OF COURSE it was a matter of time 😭😭
The “in and about/around” is legalize speak to cover your ass in case you wrote the wrong day. Say it happened on the 3rd, but you wrote the 4th. The Prosecutors will use that as their “glove doesn’t fit, must acquit.” golden ticket.
Okay just to explain this as best as possible (I'm a European law student so maybe not 100% accurate), when Oz's lawyers mention the outdated documents in their response to iilluminaughtii's response to the motion of dismissal, they're not saying the law itself is outdated. The law is just the law. Their statement pertains to how the law should be interpreted. When deciding how to rule in a case, a judge won't just look at the law on its own. They'll also look at similar cases, especially ones from the supreme court, and see what was decided in those arrests. Lawyers will bring up such cases when it benefits their case. What I believe happened is that Blair's team brought up one such arrest, but Oz's team (correctly) fired back by stating that it's irrelevant as the standard set by that arrest was overruled by the supreme court later, such as what happened with Roe v Wade. A standard was set, and later the supreme court decided to change that standard.
I know you're not a lawyer and not American, but I'm an American attorney and here's a couple nitpicks: 19:32 It's not "lack of evidence." It's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." You don't present evidence this early in a lawsuit. You only make allegations. If the court assumes your allegations true, and you STILL wouldn't win if those allegations *were* true, that is "failure to state a claim." This same principle applies when allegations are mere "conclusions" (e.g. "the defendant breached the contract" instead of "the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform the services when he was supposed to under the contract.") Also, "on or about" is just common legal jargon. It's just to make it clear that it's *around* that time, to give the plaintiff wiggle room in case they typed the wrong date. A complaint is not called a "lawsuit," it is called a complaint. The complaint is one small part of the entire lawsuit. The document is titled "Amended Complaint" but you keep saying "amended document" or "amended lawsuit." You will say anything other than complaint. I promise people know what a complaint is lol You don't "defile" a court's order, you "defy" it. The judge didn't do anything wrong by giving Blair another chance. Judges don't like to dismiss lawsuits on procedural issues, and would rather the case be decided on its merits, to give little room for appeal.
@@MsBean02 yeah, it's hard to blame him though. He's not American and law is complicated in general. Some of this stuff you can only learn through studying for a long time and practicing law for an even longer time.
In terms of the vagueness rampant throughout the Complaint, the FAC and the SAC, this is a common defence tactic known as "spaghetti". When a case has weak merits, one potential avenue is to use every allegation in the book as a way to try and find any wriggle room.
At this point, I genuinely wonder if Blair's filings are intentionally subpar in order to draw this out hoping that Oz, Wonder, and Felix stop run out of money to keep paying their lawyers to fight this. Essentially just a nuisance lawsuit designed to further financially punish them, with the potential side benefit of something she can spin into a win if they have to settle or something. Also: Beans for the algorithm.
Re: the alleged memory issues: Blair is saying her medication caused anterograde amnesia. In that type of amnesia the process of forming memories is disturbed. You've possibly experienced or witnessed it yourself, because the memory loss from drinking alcohol is anterograde. One retains their short time memory so they remember the last minute or so, but can't remember what was done or said just five minutes ago. Taking medication with similar effects is like getting blackout drunk every day; when you quit the substance, your ability to form memories returns. You can't live normal life with anterograde amnesia. It's like having Alzheimer's. If Oz really did take care of Blair in such a state, what he deserves is praise and compensation.
56:33 before listening to your part on Felix, I have a theory. The Click was really the first of sad milk to speak up. He did a good job at explaining and validating his own story BUT I think Felix sealed the credibility of the Click’s video. Since the Click is not in the US, it complicates suing him, so rather than going after the Click, Blair is lashing out at Felix. But that’s just my guess 🤷♀️.
For sure for sure, I was honestly surprised that Click wasn’t one of the people in the lawsuit because I was fully expecting him to be. But him not living in America certainly is likely a big factor that she can’t, so her getting mad enough about that to go after Felix does make sense.
@@DeanDraxon8752 yeah the Click and One Topic are somewhat safe in the fact it would come down to which country has jurisdiction and I don’t think she wants to risk either of their countries running the show. Well that and One Topic would be even less of a case than Felix. He was clear everything he says is his recollection or his opinion and stated so quite often.
I'm not sure that's the reason but I could be wrong. It's really not that hard to sue someone internationally. The Hague Convention (1965) lays out exactly how it's done. Also, the court in Colorado would likely have jurisdiction over a defamation claim, even if the defendant was international, because of the ruling in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
Blair will not stop, I was a regular watcher of her channel and since all this blew up I am truly disenchanted. I feel that she has buried herself so deep that the chances of her recovery and rebuild will take a very very VERY long time. As with all youtubers this to shall pass and she will accumulate new subscribers (hopefully real) who never heard of this lawsuit.
really quick - "in or about *date*" is actually really commonly used legal jargon in US court filings. It's not necessarily them not being specific - it's just what is considered proper form
“On or about” is also used on the off-chance that there are things done prior or after the actual known/established date(s) in question if additional evidence surfaces during discovery or the trial itself. This way, there’s a chance for both the defendant(s) and the plaintiff/prosecutor to use that new information to their advantage.
That phrase is typical, but it was a red flag for me just how many times “upon information and belief” was used. Not necessarily facts listed, just supposition upon belief.
@@lindseystein9676 actually that phrase is also common legal jargon in the US and is also proper form to use in that context. Again, it's not necessarily them not being specific (although in this case it may actually be) - it's just proper form
As someone who have seen corrupt court cases in my own country, Blair is not "lazy" or "forget things". This is deliberate because the actual evidence would make her look bad and silly. Instead, she's opting to be as incompetent and insufferable as possible to exhaust the court, and coz they can't dismiss someone for "being annoying", they'll end up ruling in her favor to make her stop, or the defendant ultimately got tired of it or run out of money that they'll settle to get her to shut up. She's ready to drag this for years if needed to be, as long as she can get just one win. She knows she's suing people with less money, and when this is over they won't counter sue her for damages because they will not have any funds anymore.
There's an actual name for that: S.L.A.P.P. suits. With the intent on dragging these cases out for as long as possible to run the defendant out of money. And luckily, they are thrown out now more often than not (also thanks to a certain talkshow host).
Cruel World Happy Mind was targeted by Blair ages ago because Blair ripped off her video on an MLM and Blair kept doing Mean Girl BS to her, so I am not surprised that she also put CWHM in the lawsuit.
I can almost predict what's going to happen, if this actually comes before the court --- Blair referenced the fact that Felix gave screenshots of her comments to "...a 'youtuber'..." specifically, the Click, to be used in his video. Well, she's introduced it now. That means Felix's lawyer has grounds to show the Click's entire video, in court. And that essentially gives him full access to all the things Click, and probably One Topic, as well, have said, to confirm the claims made by Oz and Wonder.
I’m hoping that the judge is allowing the amendments late because he’s knows it’s crap, but is letting it take its course so she basically loses it in spectacular fashion and can’t resubmit it
I am not even physically adjacent to a lawyer and even my humanities-studying brain could write a more compelling, provable legal argument. (No shade to the lawyers- I imagine they are doing the best with what they’ve been given.) I think my favorite bit is trying to claim that people not liking you after a messy public meltdown is someone else’s financial responsibility. Beans, sir.
can u pls comment beans, like spam the comments bc we need those interactions
Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Green beans
Don't translate...
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु……..
WITHIN A MINUTE CLUB LET'S GOOO
53 SECONDS!!!
BEANZZ
I hate it when influencers get the nerve to start sending people lawsuits for defamation over the stuff that THEY all did to THEMSELVES
The whole point of defamation is knowingly spreading false information and it cant be opinion. And you need proof of how they defamed you publicly without it being false and them not expressing their own opinion
@@zoe9190 that's exactly my point! most videos that are made about these influencers who mess up are just that: OPINIONS based on the alleged facts that are presented
I love it but only because it's so desperate and I love that for them.
That's just how it is
On the positive of this. I do love when influencers get their comeuppance. It's about time they started facing consequences to their shitty actions
Blair has become the type of person she's criticed for years: a rich person with too much money and power thinking they can use that to hurt people who can't defend themselves.
The thing is, she never actually believed in any of those things, she spent years decrying MLM's, and shady companies that commit unethical business practices, but she's been proven to have done similar things. I never fully agreed with all of her points because she seemed very left leaning/liberal, and I'm...not to say the least, but I just chalked that up to difference of opinion, except, it wasn't her real opinion. I think it was Tommy C that said that "Blair doesn't believe in right, or left, she just believes in You tube" I think this is true, she doesn't hold the "opinions" she does because she actually believes them, she holds them because they're mainstream, and popular, and benefit, or at least, benefited her, by getting her a ton of views. We know that Blair is obsessively competitive, and wanted no one else in the anti MLM space to be bigger then her, to the point she went as far as to accuse other popular youtubers in whatever creator space she was in, first Reddit, and then anti MLM of things such as view botting, because she couldn't stand the though of anyone being bigger than her. She only cares about herself, and her You Tube career, nothing else matters to her.
It’s almost as if she was making and using all of those videos for inspiration in my opinion, rather than to make any meaningful change. I subscribe to other creators that talk about scams and similar things to what she does, and not only do they go a lot deeper on the topics, they also take action sometimes. .
This is the very reason why her fans turned against her so quickly. They were educated to go again the very things she was doing
Clearly she isn't rich any more though, "poor thing" ONLY got $10.000 some months 🤣🤣
@beckstheimpatient4135 man if that makes you poor, tf am i?
As a former fan, it was Blair's own "iilluminaughtii exposed" video that made it very clear to me that she is the opposite of everything I thought she was. She is in denial on such a level that she somehow thought she could win a case like this with allegations that are so easily proven false.
Yep, that video was my first taste on the drama that was happening and just listening to her explanation. I just can't. Seeing how deep this goes is just incredibly sad and frustrating. I hope all this court drama gets closed cleanly and the frivolous cases get dropped.
She like that one pompous rich kid who has never faced any difficulties in life and now is facing difficulty and instead of accepting it and moving on, she is trying super hard to keep thar pompous life she had back.
It was the same for me. I watched it until she started badmouthing the click. I'd been a fan of the click for a while, so it left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. That's when I took a step back from her channel.
Same I didn't even know any of this was going on till that video.
Exactly! It's very sad what has become of her. I doubt she will learn anything from this, but let's hope so.
No way she takes the guy's car for a payment being 13 days late, fires someone for not finishing their work before their deadline AND submits HER amendment late to a judge😂😂😂
LMAOOOOOOO hadn’t even caught that 💀💀💀💀
Maybe her amendment was late because the person she tasked to work on it didnt finish it before the deadline 😂
The lion, the witch and the audacity of that bi...
@@lagggoat7170 LMAOOOO 😂🤣💀
✨ hypocrisy✨
Fun fact about US law people keep forgetting: It's not defamation if it's true. And the person claiming defamation needs to provide proof that it's not true.
Also that it was known to be untrue by the person saying it, if you whole heartedly believe it and have evidence that it could be true, it's really hard to get defamation
I think that's why she threw breach of contract in there so that one of them would stick. Jokes on her lol
Exactly. I was unaware some people don’t know that.
There would never be any news.😅
She learnt nothing from a certain turd an she gonnaget caught in her lies just the same
If it was Japan then it's a whole other meal (defamation charges can be anything that tarnishes someone's image true or false)
Blair: I found proof that Wonder was going to relocate to Texas permanently.
Court: So what?
Blair: I said he was not allowed to move out of Colorado!
Court: You have no right to do that.
Actually if he moved to other state before end od contract, it would be breach of that contract.
However intend to move is not the same as action of moving. Ergo: if she actually found proof that Wonder was going to move, it doesn't give her right to take car away. He would have to do the action of moving to other state, to give her right to forcefully reposes car. It still would be shity, but would be legal.
@lilik7323 It’s especially egregious because we have proof that Wonder was attempting to return the car, meaning that in an instance of him moving away from the state he wasn’t planning on taking the car with him. If we are going to argue about future plans m, which wouldn’t be legal grounds for repossession of the car regardless.
I think it's kinda schadenfreude funny that she's even raising this argument tbh. On one hand it's sad to all involved, but on the other hand it's the most backwards logic you could ever want, that doesn't even need any reframing to make it a self-own. But with a reframe, it's just blatant spoiled child logic.
"But your honor, he was breaking contract, I have proof! When I repossessed the car in the middle of the night I confiscated and read personal legal papers from him (which were never returned despite his requests to) that confirmed his intent to move out of the state in the future. Him acting on those plans would break this contract that we were already discussing on how to end."
It's also laughable that this was offered as an addendum to resolve the glaring "she needs to provide direct quotes with sources for defamation" issue.
@@DyslecticAttackFrom some time I have a feeling, that she understood 'reside' as 'the car cannot leave the state' not as 'the owner needs to be reside in this state'. All that talk of 'he planned' for me sounds like she covers her tracks because of that misunderstanding.
And if I'm right, it could be a way to cut somoene from their support network.
Given her testimony she should not remember there is a difference between Texas and Colorado... or Texas and Vodka for that matter.
Regarding the r-slur and The Click…that IS out of context.
For anyone who doesn’t know, The Click is Swedish, so English isn’t his first language. As a teen, he learned the r-slur from English-language gaming lobbies.
Until the Sad Milk people told him, he had no idea it was a slur and not just trash talk. He stopped using it after learning it was offensive.
So yes, he used the word. But when Blair talked about it in her video, she did not give it context: that he wasn’t a native speaker and didn’t know it was an offensive word.
You know, that thing Blair says that everyone else did to her when they didn’t.
Exactly!!!
also isnt he neurodivergent anyways LOL, it already wasnt a big deal but even less so with that information
Also, as many people pointed it out, she was very fond of that particular slur before she rebranded herself as a commentary youtuber. Of course, she deleted her previous videos, but enough clips survive to be obvious that she has no problem calling people slurs.
That and the poop anecdote.
She also tried to paint The Click as someone who lets pedophiles run around in his discord because there was a problematic dude in it for like... not even 5 minutes? His mods kicked the dude out, and it was like 1-2 on the morning where he lives when it all happened, so of course he didn't respond to it. He was asleep! She just tried to make it that he ignored it and didn't see it as a problem.
And yet for some people, that's not an excuse
Hey, paralegal specialist in the military here, I just wanted to give a tiny bit of information on one thing. I'm not entirely sure if it is the same on the civilian side, but when we are writing up charges for individuals, we write "On or about..." for the reason of liability. If we have a specific date like June 5th and we write that, but there was something saying that it was June 6th at midnight or something like that, the whole thing can be thrown out. It gives a bit of leeway for it to still be considered accurate enough to charge. I hope that helps, or at least was interesting to know.
Thanks for the info! The clarification is helpful!
That makes some sense, but when staying the date a video or picture was taken... Sure that can be given exactly?
@PriyaPans It can, but I was taught that it is generally good practice not to. It's also the same with amounts of anything. We would get points taken off if we were too specific, even if we know the exact amount something costs.
@PriyaPans There's not really a point to give exact figures when the exact figures don't matter. It can only hurt your case, it can't help.
For example a photo: pretty much every camera since the late 90's stamps a photo with the date and time it was taken, often down to the millisecond. So let's say you present this photo as evidence and state "this photo was taken March 20th at 6:15pm" blah blah blah.
So then the opposition gets up and suddenly presents evidence that the photo pretty much COULDN'T have been taken at 6:15pm on March 20th! Dun dun DUN!
OK so it turns out your camera wasn't taking into account daylight savings time, and the time is mostly accurate but it's off by an hour. No big deal right? Except now you have to argue that's what happened, your photo looks less trustworthy and you look like a bit of a doofus.
And the cherry on top is the exact time doesn't matter, just "on the evening of March 20th" was plenty accurate for the needs of the case. But you've weakened your case by using an exact time that was actually slightly incorrect.
@@jeffwells641 that's an interesting way to look at it, thank you. Although that makes some parts of law seem more about whataboutisms and trickery than looking for the truth.
1:40:02 I'm a lawyer. The judge is safeguarding against appeal by giving her the opportunity to file a second amending complaint. The more chances someone is given to correct errors in their case, the more appeal resistant the judgment is. On a social/professional level too, judges are terrified of being appealed. I see this all the time.
Nub question, why are judges terrified of being appealed?
@@aliceh4534 when judges are appealed, it is like saying they made a mistake. Either a mistake in the procedure, in the law that the judge applied, or in the way the judge applied the law. So they try to avoid appeals because it can make them look less good at their jobs essentially.
Also terms "on or about" and "including but not limited to" are standard legal language to cover for technicalities and what may or may not be admitted or found as evidence during a case.
@@tammylt5004 yes absolutely! I use that language drafting pleadings all the time
"Are you _sure_ you want to do that?"
Fraser please, Blair has defied the judge, not defiled him 😭😭😭 sir
I don't know, just being near her would feel like her defiling me.
I'm convinced he does this shit for the interactions 😂 god-tier strats on the dystopian algorithm
Ok I thought I was going crazy!!!! Lol I even Googled the definition to make sure I wasn't losing it 😂😂😂
Came to the comments literally just for this. I also think he said “betrayed” instead of “portrayed”
Yes, but it's fun to hear him say defile 😂😂
Those DMs with Felix ooooooooooh my god. "Hey are you still unable to afford your bills? Yeah? Ok I have a job for you :)))" MLM predatory behaviour she used to call out full circle type shit.
Exactly! Narcs, Abusers, Traffickers & Scammers often pull this. Its called enticement. They lure the victim in with a something they know that person needs desperately. it's literally a control tactic that many abusers use.
Beans
@@floofygod Put em in ma chili 🍲
No wonder she talks about them. Instead of calling them out, they were her learning from them.
This lawyer's work reeks of a "family friend" or "personal favor" type behavior. She sounds like a complete nightmare of a client. I cannot imagine a paid lawyer putting up with this shit without some extra incentive.
Right? It feels like she got her lawyer from a bargain bin, or a dollar store
@@SaleenSundriaOr from the dumpster behind the dollar store. 😂
It’s not a bad lawyer, it’s a corrupt one. They’re getting paid handsomely for dragging this out for as long as possible, while trying to maintain plausible deniability regarding missing details.
America is famous for this exact strategy.
It's highly likely considering we hear that she tried to do this before, but we know most, if not all, of the lawyers told her NO.😅
So either this lawyer is really cheap and crooked. Or they have some sort of relationship.
I had the same thought. This reeks of "I know a guy" quality
Not Blaire shaming Wonder for the apparent "unnacceptable" state of his car when she made Oz's place look like the "damn bitch you live like this" meme
19:32 Fraser, there’s an important nuance here. The issue isn’t lack of evidence, it’s failure to state facts. At this point she doesn’t have to prove anything with evidence, she just has to list facts and the court has to presume they’re true for the moment. But she hasn’t even done that, so it’s fair to think she might be deliberately trying to mislead the court 👀
Of course that's what she's doing. She knows she can't win, so she's dragging it out in order to bleed Oz dry. She's hoping his crowdfunding money runs out before hers does.
The American system is a mess but I doubt they're going to be happy over shit that's this easily disproven. She doesn't just have no leg to stand on, she's got nothing, not even teeth to grip on. She's going to be more fucked for lying like this
+1 bump/beans
She probably has a lot of things she wants to say, but is being advised not to lie by her lawyers cause well, perjury
@@havenprice We're talking about _within the case._ Her lawsuit states "he breached contract on or around [month, year]" but doesn't say what he did to breach contract. Or "[someone else, not a defendant] posted a slanderous video called [title]" but doesn't say what specifically was said in it that's slander and how so, nor a link to the video, not even how that's relevant to any defendant! (For example, the video by Cruel World Happy Mind, which I've seen and has no slander, and which is totally unrelated to any of the people she's suing. None are in it, nor were otherwise involved at all.) And there's many times her suit states that something was harmful cos of "slander and other such things", which uh, literally THAT'S the place to specify WHICH "such things". But there are none, is why, and she's been allowed to revise & resubmit the suit THREE TIMES (and months late for at least one of those).
You should see MadCatster's videos on this (there's a few as the case very slowly progresses). He's a lawyer and can obtain copies of things like this (lawsuit filings) and indeed does, and then shows & explains specifically what the problems are.
As someone who has filed and has an active lawsuit for defamation, I can say it is very difficult to prove defamation. In my case, the defamation was very blatant with lots of evidence and it links in with discrimination based on sexual orientation. When I went to an attorney after making the decision to file suit it was very rough and there needed to be a lot of details and things needed to be very specific. I remember the first hurdle I had to clear was the prima facia burden. I don't think Blair has met even the basic requirements for her claims.
I am so sorry about your whole lawsuit. That sounds like a headache and a half tbh
She's definitely aiming to commit financial abuse on these people. I hope she's not delusional enough to believe she could win this.
The burden of proof is nuts, but you don't need to prove your case to scare the shit out of someone. I'd bet a pretty penny that they have no intention of actually going to court. Suing someone, then offering to withdraw the suit if they sign a document agreeing to specified terms is legal blackmail.
good luck with your case! I've heard defamation is one of the hardest civil cases to prove and it looks like Blair has an uphill battle while she's pushing a rock.
Sounds like someone called you a gay furry at work and you got mad about it.
Oh god, the whole "their actions caused me to lose followers" thing just reminds me of Bob Loblaw - "why should you go to jail because of a crime someone else noticed?"
If an NDA involves illegal acts, it's basically un-enforceable.
Doesn't it also mainly apply to a company's trade secrets as well? I might be wrong though. I just always thought it was centered around information regarding a company's sop/anything that falls under how they operate and their financial position and that it doesn't cover petty workplace drama.
@@redchimera7518It's common with celebrities and their employees, too, that you cannot discuss things seen or heard while in their employ. Unless it is something illegal. But that doesn't stop people from using them to scare people they know cannot afford to defend themselves.
@@redchimera7518 Not necessarily. You can make a contract about anything. NDAs included. But they're not legally binding if they're used to withhold or promote illegal actions. The applies to every contract (except MAYBE government ones, but I'm not sure about that).
Would this be enforceable given its extreme duration? That pinged my radar
@@nicolec.6232 I think you can make them for any duration you wish, but, it's outside the usual. But people seem to think it covers ANYTHING, but it doesn't.
She’s been reduced to trumping her former victims
Legal sass is so great tbh. It acknowledges the framework it’s being forced to operate under is bullshit. “We recommend throwing this case out because she just... rambles about weird unsubstantiated shit she refuses to elaborate on for like 30 pages. This is very stupid go away”
I can’t edit the main comment bc it got a bean like thank u😭
So all I’ll say is, I have a lot of memory issues, some linked to personality disorders, some linked to complex trauma- and my favorite thing about that in relation to legal and medical documents is, *_I_* don’t need to remember shit, technically, because the documents remember for me. The people that made them, fortunately, didn’t make afaik the clerical errors and/or any malice in their documentation (being trans & disabled in American medicine ain’t great but my experiences have been on the painless side.)
I don’t need to remember the exact date I paid my electric bill bc the company I pay it through has that information all the time. I don’t need to remember the last time I got a physical, my doctor can look that up and tell me. Like my therapist has a better concept of how long I’ve been seeing them than I do 😂
Unfortunately I’ve blacked out about ~5 consecutive years of my life (and one non consecutive that became weird it was missing in hindsight.) idk if I’ll ever recover memories from that time bc like idk. That’s not how recovering memories works.
Recovering memories of things I repressed is possible and has happened-sort of? It’s less remembering the tangible memories and more remembering the context that was true then, like how a lifelong relationship that was fraught as long as I can remember would have been fraught when I was a really little kid as well :/ and that’s like, heartbreaking. There’s a lot of context and recovery a person can get without remembering literally everything.
If you have memory issues and you’ve lived this long, you’d kind of have to develop coping mechanisms- and I’m still trying to live independently, Blair’s a multimillionaire: when she broke up with her boyfriend she *_simply BOUGHT ANOTHER HOUSE????_* like YOU WOT M8
Also how tf does an serially unreliable narrator expect people to believe everyone in her life treated her like or worse than she treated others including the people caring for her.
Going to law school in the fall....am 100% planning to leaen how to throw MAD legal shade.
“He said he was going to move to TX when he _specifically pwomise he wON’T LEAVE ME-“_
Ma’am you broke up with this person who you were actively abusing. Really reads like “you KNEW better than to try to leave me, how dare you try to escape my control?!”
“A much younger adult who’s no longer connected to me deserves to be scolded like a child by me for daring to ever disobey me or attempt to leave me. Court, shame this man!” is what that reads as.
I am very familiar with trying and failing to leave controlling financial relationships. It’s so hard. I’m so happy Oz and co. were able to sever as many ties as they were!
Blair really sounds like “justice system make my victims come back and force them to be my victims again which is their natural deserved state” and it’s like
You... Blair... it’s against even your twisted best interests to say that in so many words. You don’t deserve to have victims. You don’t deserve to be built a hundred golden thrones a day by an army of servants.
I can’t hire a cleaning service bc apart from the shame of my basement having no business looking like this (pls that meme is so good,) I can’t afford that. Blair lives like I do at my lowest and she just. I don’t like living like this ma’am I’m unwell
Why is she going so hard to broadcast how unwell she is without being aware of it. She’s like putting up a Batman sigil over how genuinely untreated and unhinged she is.
Jesus just get help for your shit. Go stay in an ultra luxe mental health program most of us living with that shit can’t afford. She has the funds to financially argue she’s more worth saving (🤮) so get that saving you tungsten dense buffoon-
$10K a month
Blair a luxurious month for me is when I have over 1K at any time. When I can afford to buy groceries, pay bills, buy myself art/special interest garbo, shop at my friends’ cafes and stores, and send whatever I can spare to 🇵🇸🇸🇩🇨🇩. That is the height of luxury for me and that levels out to a little over $300 a week.
The fuck are rich people even doing
@@FIRING_BLIND I can't wait for you to deal with your first Karen lmao. Everything you'll have learned will be useful in throwing shade
"your honor, if these people didn't uncover my plagiarism after i falsely accused a lawyer of plagiarism, i wouldn't have lost all these viewers and money." [proceeds to wipe tears with $10K]
I was a fan of Illuminatii years ago, I remember the video that made me unsub. It was the one where she started ranting about people not buying her candles and giving her advice on raising her dog. It was like "give me your money and shut up"
For me it was the gradual shift in the video tone - they took on a, for lack of better words, "holier than thou" tone.
I clicked on one of her videos cuz it came on my recommended. I hated the way she talked.
It's going to sound weird but I started having a bad feeling when she made a second channel (or was it just a serie of videos? Can't remember) solely dedicated to her dog playing around. Kinda felt like she was using her dog's cuteness for views.
she already ticked me off a few years ago, i unsubbed even before she started her MLM Mondays. I couldnt really explain why, but one of her videos was covering a reseller-type company, and equating them to the usual MLM's, when they explicitly payed a salary and other things, like a real job (the reselling profit was more of a commission bonus, iirc).
it felt like she just had to paint a picture, because that was the point of the channel (80% anti mlm channel at the time), like she couldnt just admit it wasnt like that. it just felt super performative, instead of informative
I hope someone saves Casper
One thing I noticed is she’s specifically targeting her friends who aren’t financially well. One topic and the click would probably (probably I’m not saying would) be able to afford the costs of a legal battles.
They're out of the US
@@AaayeeeeBexactly what I was thinking. The logistics and costs would impact her too. It's not a one and done silence tactic if it takes ages to even go into court.
They’re also not as young as Oz and Wonder. I think the reason she could string them along for much longer was because they were more vulnerable
@SevenQs it seemed as though she would target vulnerable people on purpose
I agree that she seems to have targeted vulnerable people. But being Swedish myself, she would have had to go through so much troble to file against Click. You can't just file a suit here.
Ex fan of hers, I am here for the content, hoping that eventually, she is going to suffer consequences. I followed her from her reddit change and had faith she believed what she preached. Had hopes she treated her people well, finding out she was another flavor of abusive and toxic traits.
Same here, I only heard about this situation when she posted her apology video and I was definitely on her side. For about a day. Until I saw everything else lol
I actually tripped into all this cuz I’m subscribed to The Click.
I wasn’t a fan per say, but I appreciated her work. That until the honey hit the fan.
Yikes. Having been in an abusive relationship with someone like her while all this was going down, I got really hooked.
Left that person, but yeah. I hope both Illuminaughtii and my….. “””friend””” face consequences. I doubt it though.
Another ex fan here. Used to watch every one of her videos within hours of posting. I also didn't know about this until she posted her illuminati exposed video and ironically, how she did that video itself immediately told me I was not on her side. Then I watched for the responses and I've been watching her downfall ever since and supporting Wonder, Oz, OT, and the Click in the meantime
I too came from her Reddit days and initially really liked the shift to video essays. Over time I ended up drifting off from her though. After the RSlash stuff rubbed me the wrong way.
I think your point about being here for the content is an important one. It's been pretty clear based on general history that if a content creator is big enough, they can weather most scandals by waiting it out. This is the internet, after all - short attention spans abound. That is, unfortunately, usually pretty effective. Any creator with over a million subs probably earns enough from ad revenue to make up for whatever hit their channel takes.
That is precisely why we need to keep up the pressure on Blair - she is hoping she can either bury this problem or moderate her content enough to control blowback. Best way to make sure this doesn't happen is to watch the content other creators are making about *her.* Keep reminding viewers (old and new alike) about what she's done and what she continues to do and strengthen our resolve to help her victims find justice. She needs to see that she has driven away her core audience right into the arms of her biggest and most credible critics.
RE: Legal matters. (Not a lawyer.) That isn't Oz and his team being "nice" to Blair to ask her team to present a good case; it's documenting Blair's refusal to improve her case, and to show that Oz's team is doing its due diligence and cooperating.
This is because a common way to drag a case on is to present a shoddy case, claim the civil equivalent of a mistrial, and then force the defendants into a new case, ad infinitum until they get the result they want, the relevant judge throws it out immediately, or the defendant caves due to financial strain. Documenting from the jump that the defendant's team is doing everything in its power to answer the case in good faith and that the plaintiff is refusing to cooperate makes it much more likely that any subsequent attempts to retry the case will be thrown out.
I do think Oz seems like a nice person, but this isn't angelic levels of grace-- it's just sensible legal practice.
Edit: Same deal with the judge's response. This is standard-practice grace, issued in case the plaintiff has been misled or otherwise failed by their legal counsel, etc etc. The general idea is that it's fucked up to stomp out someone's opportunity for legal recourse on the basis of a mistake, misinformation, or poor work by their counsel, so you have to inform them of the issues and provide the opportunity to correct them before you can discard the case. Legal cases aren't like primary-school homework; you aren't expected to put forth perfect work else suffer a failure. Naturally, bad actors in the system will abuse this as much as possible, but most judges are aware of that and VERY ANNOYED when they catch someone doing it.
I'm an attorney. This is a pretty good analysis.
Not a lawyer either, so more of a question: Isn't there also a possibility for sanctions against her, if she keeps this up?
It seems like she is trying to drag this on as long as possible.
@@littlefrog5606 it's possible. Colorado has an anti-SLAPP ("strategic lawsuit against public participation") law. This allows someone to file a motion to dismiss when a claim is brought merely to stifle freedom of speech, and also allows for sanctions against the party bringing the claim. The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 also allows a party's attorney to be sanctioned for bringing factually or legally frivolous claims.
My question would be: “What pain killer was she taking that caused such memory issues?” Because it sounds like that was a Schedule 2 drug, to which a small non-refillable prescription was issued for.
Yet it sounds like she was on this drug for months at a time.
And if the drug ends up being a strong dosage of Tylenol or Motrin. Does that imply that anyone else on such dosages cannot legally sign a contract otherwise it could be viewed as Bad Faith Contract, because the person who signed it was not in their right mind and could not be held liable for signing the contract.
Such a decision could upend contract law.
This is so blatantly a SLAPP suit and I don’t know how this lawsuit hasn’t just been thrown out already. Blair has no case and all these amendments are clearly just designed to draw this out as long as possible to financially and emotionally harm Oz, Wonder, and Felix.
Also, I’m pretty sure the reason Oz and the judge gave her an opportunity to actually present a decent case is so that they’d have it in writing that she was asked to correct the issues in those documents and failed to do so, and so now she can’t later try to claim a mistrial.
As I understand it (IANAL, just have done a lot of googling while chasing down questions like this), the anti-SLAPP laws are a defense that can be claimed in a lawsuit. Right now, the defendants have not submitted a defense to Blair’s claims, but are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. With no claim, they don’t need to submit a defense, which means they don’t need to apply the anti-SLAPP defense. IF the judge accepts her claim, that’s when they would do that, and probably supply their defense to the claims in case the judge rules that the anti-SLAPP law doesn’t apply.
What's even funnier about Blair's initial/amended complaint is that she didn't even have to provide evidence of harm to her reputation or that the statement was 100% defamatory. She literally just had to tell the court that oz made ANY statement that harmed her reputation. She just had to point to him lying even once, and couldn't even do that.
Also I wonder if Blair included her company so she could use company resources to pay for this
Nabs, you did not just drop a dramamentary the size of an 8-part miniseries on a random Thursday 😭
hahahah
Gottem
Hehe
@@iNabber ⵓoͦͦ° ᗒ^•×•^ᗕ °օͦⵓ
(Beans!)
it’s pretty insane. Can you even imagine caring this much.!?
@@renehill3351That's his niche to make money plus the situation is interesting. If you don't care it's more silly to be here than him making a video. Plus without people talking about subjects like this, the villain can more easily manipulate the situation and hurt people more.
3 hours?! Nice. I shall watch when I should be sleeping like the mentally healthy person I am
same
Same
same
Same
Same
"My income went from $30,000 per month to just $5,000 per month."
Mr. Krabs: "Oh, boo-hoo, that's so sad. Here, let me play a _sad_ song for you on the world's smallest violin."
Meanwhile, our family of four is considered well-off with 3.5k € netto. Germany, so that includes childcare benefits (250 € each).
5k would be pretty sweet, though.🧐
For real, why does Blair frame herself as a victim for having been asked by her bf struggling with money and being the person financing their living situation, to have to contribute a little when she easily had hundreds of thousands to even a million dollars to her name? Did she really expect that Oz was just going to let her hoard her small fortune all to herself, AND let her just stay at his place for free, AND expect him to take care of her on top of it??? What level of entitlement do you have to have to even believe that is a f*cking acceptable thing??? Does Blair actually believe that she is a billionaire princess who simply has to have everything provided to her?
Absolutely outrageous.😑
I’m guessing because she’s controlling and a bit narcissistic.
My ex friend was like this and they wanted me to manage their feelings. Anything they did was my fault because I wasn’t psychic.
Therefore, they’re always the victim. I sprained my ankle? I somehow victimized them by being late.
They were also a millionaire.
Ironically, she is trying to pretend she is the victim, when she is the employer being in a relationship with an employee, who is 10 years her junior, financially unstable AND the person woth 0 power in the relationship. She is what people mean when they talk about abusers trying to pretend they are the victim. DARVO in the wild, if you will. It is so perfect an example, its a bit ridiculous.
Two words: financial abuse
Well just cause u have money doesn't mean u have to give it to ppl. Now ur living with someone u pay half the bills , buy ur own food an crap
@jborrego2406 for sure. That's why when Blair stayed at Oz's house for three months he had a right to ask her to pay some rent money. And then later she made him pay her back all of it, now claiming he was manipulative in asking for funds to provide her food, shelter, and care after a procdure and staying for months. She should have been paying her keep. Smh
Lol, Blair must be absolutely SEETHING that so many of the TH-camrs picking apart her lawsuits are international.
Would be funny if she did try to sue them too.
@@usonohoshi6165 Wait , is the Click not being sued cus he lives in the Scandinavian area??
@@dundeecake I don’t know if that’s the only reason why, but yeah he isn’t getting sued because he lives in Sweden I believe. One Topic lives in Canada and isn’t getting sued either. However, I think part of the reason they’re not getting sued is because Neither of them actually worked for Blair. Oz, Wonder, and Felix The KitKat all worked for Blair at some point. So she probably thinks that she can get away with suing them because of contracts that they signed well working for her.
the most sinister thing that I noticed is it looks like Blair didn't even care about making a case efficiently so it could go to court asap, this feels like she deliberately targeted the people who couldn't afford to stay in a legal battle for a prolonged time, these courts documents have shown us that this case is just getting more and more ridiculous as time went by. i personally think that is what Blair and her legal team wanted, to drag this back and forth for so long the other side will run out of funds for the legal fees.
SLAPP lawsuits. She seems to be a big fan of that tactic.
happens with divorce cases all the time, it's really an ugly side to humanity
I knew someone like that who tried to use that very tactic on me. I'm lucky to have gotten away before hitting rock bottom
@@fae206wtf how is that not illegal??? Although idk how you would be able to prove someone is doing it I guess :/
@@catherinemccormick3184 They do things like reschedule, demand an inventory of assets, bring in other arguments, say that they want certain items (like real estate property) and then say they don't want it just to cause stress to the other person. It's not illegal as long as you're doing things like arguing over childcare payment amounts, etc. You just act like you want something, but it's just to dry the other person out (or so I've learned from studying transcripts in court reporting studies)
I heard she had a 95% drop in viewership, she deserves all of that & more
Proud to be part of the 95!
Hearing that the Confidentiality Agreement was 25 years made me viscerally angry. She took advantage of people who considered her a friend because they were in a bad spot, and KNEW she was going to manipulate them from the beginning. They trusted her enough and/or were in a bad enough spot to sign a 25 year silencing. Disgusting.
You can't prevent people from reporting crimes with confidentiality agreement.
Any contract that hinders prosecution of illegal activity is _itself_ a crime.
This feels like a SLAPP, and Colorado does appear to have anti-SLAPP laws on the books. For those unfamiliar, SLAPPs are lawsuits meant to silence people -- the person filing the suit often doesn't even expect to win, just expects the other party to drown in legal fees. Since Blair knows the financial situations of those she is suing, and is dragging things out by amending again and again (poorly each time), one could argue that this is a SLAPP suit she is intentionally elongating in order to intimidate or bankrupt the defendants into silence.
Linking the wikipedia article for this in case people want to look further into SLAPP suits:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
(also iNabber may talk about SLAPP in this video I'm only halfway through okay)
EDIT: Okay I finished the video and he did not mention this! Also with the additional details from the interviews I am now convinced this is a SLAPP suit. Great video!
This is really interesting to learn, but unfortunately not surprising. Who'd have thought I'd learn something new in an Inabber comment section
It does sound like a SLAPP suit. I recognized it from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, when he got hit with one after one of his segments.
These were my thoughts too. It feels like she's using her lawyers to drag out the suit. It might be hard to prove SLAPP, though.
Yep, she’s just dragging this out til they run out of money.
I'm still surprised that from my understanding in the US legal system it's not normal for the losing party to be forced to pay all legal costs of the winning party for every lawsuit, as it would be in many other counties.
If Cruel World Happy Mind's video is mentioned as defamatory, why doesn't Blair sue Madison (CWHM) instead? Could it be because then Madison could countersue Blair for making equally defamatory comments about her, trying to bully her (a much smaller creator) off the platform, all while Madison was pregnant? Might not be a good look for Blair, huh?
If Oz and Wonder do wind up having to argue their defense (like with evidence) this will be extremely relevant. Blair would have to prove that *their* statements caused her financial harm. Madison’s video about her own separate experience could easily have contributed, and it’s ultimately impossible to say which videos caused what amount of financial damage. And she’s basically acknowledging it in the complaint 🤦🏻♀️😂
I wonder if she could see her anyway. Blair is claiming her video contains defamatory content which could itself be defamatory if not true and can be shown to have actual malice.
I had the same thought. I was surprised she didn’t mention Madison
@@coreymichelle408 Madison likely has the financial ability to countersue. Blair is going after people she personally knows not only to be cruel and petty, but also because she knows they have less financial power. Of course she couldn't predict her former fans and the Internet in general to despise her so much they happily donated to help these people.
She also can't control, or hope to control, Madison's reactions.
“retain memory” means actively forming NEW memories, not the ability to recall old memories
There is a beautifully cyclical nature to Blair/ iilluminattii's downfall and the current coverage that Madcatster is doing. The thing that kickstarted the backlash against her bad behavior was Blair lashing out against a (pretty famous) lawyer who called her out for her selfish nature, and now it is a (growing )lawyer who is truly raising the tides in the TH-cam harbor by sharing the information he has gathered to anyone just willing to ask.
Truly a great man, even before you consider that Madcatster is also passionate about fostering/ adopting older and handicapped cats. The dude literally just asks that IF you want to support him, you do so by helping his cats. What a guy.
He didnt even do that, LegalEagle. He just super nicely pointed out that her claims were untrue. She did ALL OF THIS herself. Unprompted. 😂
And he thanks people for buying things for the cats from his Amazon wishlist :)
For real. One of the most wholesome guys on TH-cam for sure.
@@eneyavorodecky oh, 100%. His "The rising tide raises all ships" was one of the nicest ways anyone could have told Blaire she needed to stop being weirdly defensive over a nothing issue (literally, since the thing she tried to call out was not related to what LE's editor was even asking about).
The most absurd part of this is that Blair thought that the state of the car Wonder was driving was unacceptable. Yeah it's untidy but that is a car that he was, at the very least, driving daily and was using as a personal, unshared vehicle. He's not required to keep it 100% spotless all of the time so I'm baffled by the idea that some trash, clothing items, dirt is some horrible condition. A broken glove box handle and a cracked windshield can all be fixed on his own time really quickly. Bring it up as if its some trump card is ridiculous.
He also had proof of appointments to fix those! If she hadn't snatched it back in the dead of night, he was going to fix that on his own time and money.
It wasn't just something he drove every day, he was LIVING out of his car at the time as well. Besides, with how her room looked, she has no room to speak on the car being messy.
That's her bag: trashing others - like a mirror! Every accusation turns out to be false but actually true of her but worse!
Well, that's a case of course of action first and justification later.
I can’t believe she *threw out his stuff!* including his TH-cam plaque. What the hell?!
I'm sure someone else said it but blair DEFIED the judge not DEFILED those two words men vERY DIFFERENT THINGS
She'd probably have a better outcome if she did defile the judge 💀
@@UnicornsPoopRainbows 💀💀💀💀 i screamed omg
@@UnicornsPoopRainbows For real lmao
Certainly have some rather different meanings but with everything she's doing I can't help but feel like both apply in their own way💀 I know I'd feel pretty damn defiled if I were a judge or jury member someone brought this into the courtroom in front of me.
So does "MEN" and "MEAN". And also, it's "Very" not "vERY"
Blair taking vauge sentences and saying it means "this spesific thing they say i did" is the biggest self report I've ever seen
Blair ‘defiling’ the judge adds a whole new dimension to this 😂😂
😂
I skipped ahead when I saw that and was a little disappointed tbh.
@@FirstLast-po8ozI get the annoyance, but mispronouncing words isn't a big deal. Also, hasn't Fraser said he's dyslexic? Or am I confusing him with another creator?
@@janecat8753its not a big deal its just a funny typo because of the implications of 'defile'
@@janecat8753 I think they’re disappointed not because of Fraser, but because Blair wasn’t actually defiling the judge…
please like this video the moment you see it! been away for a while so would appreciate it a LOTTTT
Love your content 😊😊❤❤
Did immediately ✨
Don't translate...
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु……..
you’re one of my fav commentary channels 🩷 thank you for making long form content!!! ik it must be hard & strenuous, but i appreciate your dedication & time!!
if you don’t have a fan, that means i’m dead 🥹🩷
🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘🫘😂🫘🫘
Blair likes to throw out a lot of lawsuits to milk money out of her victims because she is a deeply, deeply evil woman who gets joy from having complete control over people. It doesnt matter if her suits dont make sense. That was never the point.
And thats exactly why i so badly want her to lose her suits. I want her to find out the hard way that she /cant/ control people. And i want the people shes hurt to finally be free.
They can file that she is a lectious litigator which means she will be barred from being able to file any lawsuit.
Well she is in for a nasty surprise as Colorado has anti-SLAPP legislation.
The problem she has is that public anger against her is so strong that people will fund the defense of her opponents.
Completely agree! Genuinely hoping all of this will be over soon so that her victims can actually move on with their lives.
@@michaelcorcoran8768 That's only a problem for her, so I don't care. Well, I do, but only in the way you'd care about something funny that makes you crack a sadistic smile every now and again
“In or about (date)” is standard lawsuit language. Also, they don’t have to wait until after this lawsuit to counter sue and there’s less than a 10% chance this will make it to a jury.
"I was drugged beyond the ability to make decisions for myself when I agreed to give him money... So when I was off the meds and fully cognizant, I agreed to it again." Ok binch good for you. Like what did she think she'd accomplish by admitting that?
Not to mention, I’ve had medicine that cause anterograde amnesia and, yeah you cannot make decisions under that. The catch: that medication was used to put me under for an invasive surgery. I have no idea what she was taking?? But surely you’re not supposed to take it regularly??
She would be opening herself up to a psychological assessment by this, and several other of her claims. I imagine that would not go her way.
This surgery is going to turn out to be lasix or something 🙂. Girl, stop watching SATC
She is so full of it. Narcotics don't really work that way if you are not abusing your medications. Yeah they can make you a bit loopy, but it takes A LOT before memory can be anywhere near impaired. If you get to that point, you are almost to the point of OD, or you are a very old person or already have cognitive issues. If you take these meds long enough, you don't get loopy anymore but they still work to decrease pain. I've been on Dilaudid 4x a day since 2015 and don't even feel "high" anymore but it does help manage my pain and allows me to have quality of life. What she is doing is basically admitting to something without meaning to admit to it AGAIN!. Saying she had memory issues is pretty much saying she was abusing her medications. Plus, given how much or a porker she is, it would take more for her to reach that point than a thin person. And I thought I was kind of a slob, at least I have good hygiene where she, IIRC, is known to be a rather disgusting person. I mean who TF uses their hand to pick up their shit from the toilet in order to throw it in the trash because her turds are so massive it would not flush? I may leave my stuff laying around, she is NASTY. She also, according to OZ, spends a couple hundred dollars A DAY ON FOOD. So yeah, she is a PIG.
@@Shadow1Yazyeah, like there's Versed and stuff, but you can't FUNCTION like that
@@Shadow1Yazthey don't give you those kind of anesthetics to TAKE HOME, people literally go to school for a decade to administer them, what in the actual hell does she think she's talking about?
Edit to add your pfp is adorable! ❤
If last year she had literally just said "my bad, I'll try to be a better person in future" that would've been the end of it after maybe 2-4 weeks at most. She wouldn't have even had to bother becoming an actual better person either.
The incredible thing is that SHE brought all of this to herself! It all started because SHE blamed a lawyer youtuber of plagiarism over an insignificant highlight effect on a video 😑😑😑
Yeah, Blair is serving the most dramatic and extended self-own I’ve ever seen on TH-cam.
...and three fingers pointed right back at her.
And not just any kind of lawyer neither, she had the gall to go after a copyright lawyer of all things
Guess she doesn't know it's a very stupid idea to bring up "legalities" and "plagiarism" to someone who literally studies the law. xDDD
To think she'd probably be living her life just fine if she hadn't let her ego try to strap up against someone with a bigger gun.
The incredible thing is that anyone would spend this much time making a video about this or that anyone would actually spend three hours of their lives watching this crap.
22:42 bold of Blair to claim that she works just as hard as a corporation and needs that agreement while she just copy pasted texts and steals other peoples articles and documentaries💀💀💀💀
(Idc if she really claims that or not, but I believe that doesn’t matter to understand the double standard irony)
I think the timetable for Oz and Blair's relationship is _suspicious,_ because going by Oz's video it almost seems like the time in which she was living in his house he regarded her as his romantic partner - however - the court documents make it sound as if they were living together _as friends._ Sure she could be faking the memory loss to drive sympathy, but more it seems like a cover in case someone in the future asks her to give a definitive point in time where the relationship ended. Seems like she had moved on a while prior but continued to use Oz as a temporary free-landlord.
I broke my vertebrae in 2011 been taking opioids every day since.. the whole memory loss thing is utter bull shit.
I'm on a pretty high dose I can still drive I can remember things.. unless she was taking like surgical grade anesthesia.. there's no way in hell pain medicine would make her forget.
Oz did mention that when they were together in the house their relationship was rocky and they broke up but they said Blair promised them they'd be back together or him helping with her finance could save their relationship but Blair had already moved on. So Blair would defo try to push the "just friends" narrative or admit she manipulated him.
@@StarrChild. Oz only ever wanted pegged.
Beans
he was also pretty young at the time with a small age gap between them. yikes.
"In or about" is a legal shorthand for "yeah dude we're 98% sure it was THIS date, but if we're wrong about that small detail we know you could throw out the rest of this argument "
Yep exactly. Like "we are pretty sure this is the date, but don't hold us to it in case it conflicts with other evidence" lol
I've had two windshields replaced and used to have a car with low profile tires and that was a NIGHTMARE. I also had a bend in my rim before my first oil change and everyone told me I must have hit something and I swore on my life I didn't. Two years later I get a letter about a class action lawsuit because of wheels malforming under normal driving conditions. I got a payout and proved I wasn't lying. The point is, sometimes things happen with cars, even new cars, that are beyond your control.
In my family, we always say don't get too attached to a new car because something Always happens. My aunt got her sports car repainted. The very next day one of her son's friends rested his bike against the car and it slid down scratching the door. Years later she bought a car for her son and within a month the engine set itself on fire while they were in the drive thru of a Wendy's. She got him a new car with the insurance money and 2 months later he was T boned in an intersection… maybe she just has bad luck with cars. 😂
2:09:00 Here she's trying to justify the repossession of the vehicle. So, per the terms he was supposed to live in Colorado ubtil the car was paid off. I don't know why she decided to reposses the car before evn the first payment was due (an illegal act in most states) but then after the repossession she's claiming she found proof (not provided) that she was correct in doing the repossession. That's not how anything works. You can't reposses something and then find a reason for it afterwards. This isn't the minority report.
Not to mention, it's not legal in the US to create a legal agreement requiring a signature holder to not leave a state for XYZ reason. ONLY the government can legally hold a person from traveling with in the US boundaries under penalty.
I think that’s what she thinks that means but the car residing in Colorado just means it’s registered in Colorado and has a Colorado address for where it usually is, not that it cannot leave the state lol
Can you imagine being a judge, climbing to that point in your legal career... and be demanded to police the opinions of TH-camrs...
Probably is about the same experience as arbitrating squabbling neighbors and malicious divorcies. Maybe just a bit different in the evidence, since a lot is more online, so more receipts, but also more indirect and non-physical receipts.
"Climbing" to that level is a funny way of saying it. Judges are not noble, or really anything of the sorts.. They are bias, spiteful, and just narcissistic all around..
Before Frasier said it I was thinking “she’s obviously only suing Felix because she REALLY wants to sue The Click but can’t”
Also it’s WILDLY DISGUSTING that she decided she HAD to mention Wonder’s mentioning that he was considering ending his own life AGAIN here.
Yeah it really seems like it. I think another poster already said something along the lines of "she may think it's The Click's fault it blew up so much because his tweets/video were kind of the catalyst that made the other three come forward as well." Even though she was the one that brought it to youtube in the first place.
I'm inclined to agree with that.
Also the situation with wonder makes the whole thing just so so bad. I'm so happy for him, he got out from under her before it could become even worse. I really hope the three of them come out as unscathed as possible from all this.
I am an attorney it is completely normal for lawsuits to use the phrase “on or about” and not give exact dates. Now saying on or about July is a little shady, it should say a date or a range of dates not an entire month. On or about just avoids any nitpicking. Blair’s attorneys may be very good lawyers, but at the end of the day the lawyer is only as good as the facts of the case they are arguing.
Is it common to base much of the arguments on personal interactions/details of the relationship or no?
just wondering if these things are included for legal reasons?
I'm NAL but watching this video is VERY frustrating, honestly. If someone is going to try and give a definitive summary of events including a legal case, they NEED to have a basic understanding of legal norms and policies. Eyeballing it with a layman's understanding and speaking confidently from that incorrect framework will do nothing but mislead.
I wish iNabber had consulted with... absolutely anyone with an understanding of the American legal system for this video. Things like "on or about", or any of the "kindnesses" shown by Oz's team and the judge... it's all nonsense based on a faulty understanding of legal procedure, and isn't helping ANYONE understand this case or what's happening.
@@spnxmchee it’s hard to say what’s “common” with regards to specific facts in a complaint, that’s more case specific. My personal opinion on this, is Blair filed a lawsuit to harass these individuals because she did not think they would be able to afford lawyers to defend them. The lawyers drafted the Complaint to the best of their abilities based off of the factual information available to them. Blair probably assumed that Oz, wonder, and Felix would just default because they wouldn’t have lawyers, and at that point it doesn’t matter how paper thin the allegations in the Complaint are. Now since they all do have attorneys they are trying to salvage their weak case with an Amended argument. There are no facts for her to allege that would rise to defamation and the only recourse her and her attorneys are left with, is to just throw out a bunch of factual allegations and details. The judge will probably see through it.
Thank you, I’m a court reporting student and hoped someone would point out this normal jargon
@@JayEyedWolfthank you. I was cringing too and I’m a high speed court reporting student, not even a lawyer. I mean, that probably puts me closer to legal jargon in a purely written form but some of this was just hard to sit through. They could have emailed Mad Catster with questions (❤
I used to be a Iluminaughtii fan, well... watcher? I enjoyed her content. Yet I never felt great after watching it. I felt the same way for a lot of 'Tea' Channels and 'Expose' Channels. So I decided to unsubscribe. I know a lot of people say "I got a bad feeling about her", but I can understand if people say they felt caught off guard.
I mean... I wasn't overall shocked. But I was intrigued that she acted like the one's who she had been criticizing about for YEARS. She's the girl I learned what an MLM even was. Yet at the same time, it kind felt like she was doing her own little MLM scheme. Manipulating people into supporting her or enduring her abuse...
All support to her victims. Oz Media, The Click, Felix, WonderStruck, all of them. A quote I love to use from one of my favourite TH-camrs. Don't send hate to Blair. Send love to her victims.
There is a theory that the judge hasn't thrown the case out because he trying to see if Blair file this with prejudice in mind, so that way she doesn't have the abilty to file this lawsuit again if it gets dimiss. But that is just a theory. Honsetly after she filed the current ammendent really late, the judge should have thrown it out by now because she is wasting the judge and court time. Also, beanz.
I’m honestly befuddled as to why the late application wasn’t immediately rejected. The theories are interesting
@Shadow1Yaz I think the judge is being super lenient in part, to ensure that if it does get thrown out, there's also no possibility of her getting an appeal through in a higher court circuit. The last thing we'd want is for her to drag this out for years because she got an appeal through on a technicality.
Something hilarious about Blair’s insistance on including pyramid inc, she might be piercing her own corporate veil. Something a lot of richer people do to try and avoid paying stuff like taxes and penalties is to make a company and do everything through their company so it technically is not their own personal money, even though it is. Piercing the corporate veil is when during a lawsuit you prove that this company is essentially the same as the individual, allowing you to claim company assets as their personal assets for purposes of paying taxes, penalties, and debts. If she is insisting that Pyramid Inc is being damaged when it’s only her being damaged, this could be used as an argument to treat them as the same entity.
And let’s not forget, Blair is currently being sued by debt collectors and the IRS, who would probably *love* to use any evidence to pierce that corporate veil so they can take the money from there too
She’s WHAT
@@chloskyskies4399 oh yeah, she is currently being sued by the IRS and Debt Collectors. Why do you think she feels the need to get younger men to sign their names on everything? Her credit must be abysmal
@@thehoodedteddy1335 yeah I knew her credit was bad. I just didn’t know she had anything /currently/ going on with the irs
At this stage, evidence isn’t relevant. The court will presume truth of claims in order to decide if the case is worthy of hearing (as in, if we assume the claims are true, is there standing for the legal claims being made?)
And she can’t even state what her claims are beyond “that hurt my feelings :( “
What I mean is…what she is lacking here isn’t evidence. It is actual claims she is failing to make. We have freedom of speech, so they all have the right to say what they want. She has to make a claim that can be substantiated such that a “reasonable person” would assume that there is “actual malice” (meaning, the videos and statements were made with the intent of causing her harm and have no relation to reality)
At best, we have interpersonal drama in a workplace. That is not grounds for defamation. Maybe violating an NDA, if that is legally valid (and airing information about the internal workings of a company is general grounds for that) but Blair waved any ability to claim that by SHE HERSELF talking about those topics publicly. She could have stayed silent and sent the lawsuit, but she had to open her stupid mouth.
Blair is getting scammed by her lawyers. They are getting paid either way, even if the case is never even heard.
Also…you should do NDAs…it isn’t just for big companies. It is the most basic form of legal coverage and it isn’t just for your video ideas and editing software. It is also for things like…your finances, how you negotiate ad spots, the companies that contact you for ad deals, etc.
Blair is a moron flapping around trying to save her company and lifestyle, but that isn’t a good reason to not do a well structured NDA.
I shouldn't be surprised Blair is treating a courtroom like a twitter cancellation. Like she can just say a bunch of stuff someone supposedly did and have everyone pity her.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that "on or about [date]" is a standard cover-your-ass way of phrasing a complaint. I also hate it when that is used for statements about messages etc. with specific dates and times you can see on screenshots. Also, filing a motion for summary judgment (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) doesn't necessarily mean that there is zero evidence of proof of a claim, it is merely the defendants' attorneys being diligent and doing their job to attempt to get the case dismissed early on. In this case there does appear to be no real defamation claim, but summary judgment orders are both granted and denied frequently.
As a licensed attorney myself, “in or about / on or about” are very common attorney verbiage to use, just fyi. It doesn’t denote laziness or lack of specificity as this is a complaint and exact dates can’t be verified by the court record at this time. Not defending her or her terrible attorneys, just making a statement.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it does seem like they're over using it right? Like "on or about 2022" a whole year under that is shady from my understanding?
It seems strange to use "on or about the end of April 2022" when referencing supposed defamatory tweets, I would think saying "on or about" and using the dates of the tweets themselves and then linking to them or providing them in the filing would make it seem less strange. The refusal to give any specificity to what should have a date stamp on it is what makes it seem like nobody knows when any of these things happened.
It's definitely strange to use in this context and is even more so given the specificity requested by the judge. It is a phrase that is more often seen in far less serious circumstances and I don't think it belongs in this sort of document either. Maybe in a cease and desist letter, but not in your second or third amended complaint. @@vb8801
Yes, they are over using it. Especially when the dates are very easily verifiable from tweets/video upload dates. @@victoriakelley664
Sure, if it's ''on or about November 27''. Saying ''on or about July'' is silly.
She thinks she lost thousands of followers due to the responses from the others? I left when I watched HER video where she "exposed," "apologized to" and then wished she'd never met a ton of them one after another. Because ick, and because everyone she called out were creators I quite liked and it didn't add up.
Yeah. I watched the “exposed video” after I saw Click’s video and I just about died when she showed WanderGuy’s private note. Like, I looked away. Then she *read it aloud* so even visually impaired people could hear his very sensitive message. It was disgusting.
My soul would have filed for divorce and left me with the kids if a message like that from me was made THAT public. Holy carp!
Same. Not even halfway through that awful video, I unsubscribed. She's 100% the only cause of her problems
Me too. I found out about the allegations from Blair’s video, and that was the last of her content I ever watched. I didn’t even know of anyone else involved at that point. I was a huge fan, I’ve seen every video, most multiple times until then. Her video didn’t sit well with me, especially after showing Wonder’s s note / talking about his mental health, so I went to Twitter and she went downhill from there. For someone who talks about shady people/businesses having a lot to hide, she’s embodying irl
I unsubscribed bc of the hypocrisy: You can't make countless videos about bad business practices, scams and abusive people whilst you are doing all those things yourself behind the scene.
Ditto. I don't to twitter so I thought the exposed video was a self correction. The gaslighting was so obvious, I don't know how anyone missed it. It was like a train wreck, I couldn't look away from the hole she was digging herself. Then she got to Click and I had heard that story from him on a stream a few months prior and knew it sounded off. She made it sound like it took a week but I knew he said the perv was banned before he even woke up. He brought it up in the context of having good and appreciating mods
I’m at about minute 65, and honestly there should be a gofundme to pay legal fees in order for these guys to counter sue Blair until she’s making payments to their grandchildren when she’s an old woman on her deathbed
All three set up GFMs, they raised about $75,000 between them. Oz said on stream that his legal fees range between $2,000 and $6,000 a month right now.
@@kevinz.9785 I see you Kevin. They're professional victims. Admit it.
@@HuckleberryHAIL oh, is that not meant to be sarcasm? 😂
Something people might not know, is she has a second channel for her dog, Cloud. And it turned out she bought him from a puppy farm. When that video came out, I honestly just… stopped watching her. She had spoken at length about how much research she had done because she needed a hypoallergenic dog. It’s a small thing, but it immediately made me distrust her.
The reason she needed a hypoallergenic dog was just a bit stupid, and the fact that she claimed to do so much research but then it turned out just to be almost a lie, it always rubbed me the wrong way
Edit: The dogs name was Casper, but the channel name was "Casper the Cloud" iirc, which is where my mix-up was. Thank you for the correction!
Yeah why even lie about that? Why even say anything besides maybe I got a new dog?
Oftentimes puppy mills will pose as reputable breeders, and while I absolutely hate Blair, I want to imagine that she didn't intend to purchase Cloud from a puppy mill. But knowing her, I know that she probably didn't truly care.
@perytonpred2356 curious about the dates, I wonder if she did it before or after she slammed puppy farms
@@perytonpred2356 Dude, stop. She doesn't care about the welfare of the dogs, but she clearly cared enough about her reputation to claim she didn't buy from a mill. If some internet rando could figure out it's a mill, she easily could have.
@@WobblesandBean I haven't seen anything from Blair herself since this started- I didn't want to inadvertently support her bs by viewing them.
I just want to try to be somewhat optimistic and look at this fairly. I want to believe there's at least some shred of good, even if there isn't. Not everyone knows all the signs to spot the difference or the techniques.
You're right though. She probably didn't care about Cloud's welfare.
Influencers throw around the word "defamation" but do not know what it means. It's not defamation just because you don't like that someone else calls you out on your awful behaviour towards them. Defamation have to be lies. You being offended by their words doesn't mean they lied about you and doesn't mean it's defamation, lmao.
Exactly. If one is enraged at the statement “the earth is round” that’s not an attack against them.
If she’s offended at “Blair punts puppies. I seen it!” That’s defamation.
Of anything, Blair's the one who's committed defamation, since she keeps lying about what happened with her former friends, employees, and partner to frame herself as a victim of their actions and not the other way around
But that’s the thing with entitled narcissists: they think being called out for their awful behavior *_is_* defamation- even if it is *_true._* Maybe even *_especially_* if it’s true.
Maybe for some reason she thinks of the Japanese version of defamation
Apologies if someone else has already said this, but if anything, her victims actually have a case of defamation against her.
To think this whole thing came about from Blair's overzealous plagiarism accusations backfiring and spiraling completely beyond her control.
If she'd just kept her mouth shut that ONE time, she may still be one of TH-cam's most respected commentary creators.
All over an open source plugin that overhauls a highlighting format that news and drama channels like Clevver and the like had been using since before Blair even manifested in this hellish ecosystem of views and engagement.
Boy just imagine how that one Legal Eagle editor must feel watching all of this explode in real-time. Poor editor's going "I JUST WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT A PLUG IN EFFECT!" while the dominos fall
Pretty sick to think these people all knew exactly who she was yet helped her become powerful to enjoy the free ride.
@@Kyman102 I'm pretty sure he's, in some way, glad this all happened - because it's going to help the boys out in the long term. Blair's abuse of her employees and friends would never have come out otherwise.
@@beanybabyrabie it's looking pretty obvious that once anyone close to her found out how awful she was, she already had enough "ammunition" amassed on them to torture them at will to keep quiet. The only stench of your aforementioned "sickness" is coming from Blair.
Definitely not. Blair's videos have already been exposed for plagiarism and being just factually incorrect so I think it would only take one person who doesn't like her in order to expose her lazy content if she didn't already expose herself
I can't help but giggle each time you say how Blair "defiled" the judge, rather than defied.
Felix and his parting words gave me a good chuckle. It really is Blair just shooting herself in the foot over and over again and letting these no name, shit posting nerds from Twitter(no shade i love me some nerds) take down her entire multimillion-dollar business because she couldn't get over herself. It's glorious. The internet never forgets, Blair. Never.
A defamation lawsuit is meant to defend *against* defamation, not to defame the defendant party.
Shhh don't tell her
Im not a lawyer but it makes no sense that "confidentiality agreements" dont protect employers from accountability for breaking laws or abusing employees worker rights. Confidentiality is for protecting maybe IPs or not spoiling things if you're in an entertainment industry working on a show/movie/or video game.
Not a lawyer either, but I’ve heard neither “Confidentiality Agreements” or “Nondisclosure Agreements” (NDAs) cannot be used to conceal criminal activity. The other parties can legally go to the authorities or such if a crime has been committed.
Oh they definetely dont. I have to deal with them a lot and its about not disclosing work strategies or content, whatever is valuable to the company. It could be not leaking confidential research to the public, or maybe a new workflow that gives a company an edge. It can be used maliciously by covering shitty business practices but illegal stuff? Nah, honey, bullying and perjury isnt covered by an nda
People have already let you know that illegal activity (including violation of worker's rights) can't be covered or protected by confidentiality agreements, but if you're curious to learn more about your rights (something everyone should know) the specific phrase you're looking for is "whistleblower protection".
I'm reminded of the old saying that a narcissist's accusations are confessions.
as an old fan of Blair's, i'm actually shocked at how easy it was to just stop watching her content.
Her actions are reprehensible at best and everything revealed in the last year is shockingly horrible. I'm amazed that she can think in any way that she could salvage her reputation. Between her own actions, her history with her ex-friends and Hbomberguys video, it is so sullied that i dont know if anything could save it at this point.
I used to watch her videos daily and with how easy it was to stop watching her content I realized she didn’t really do anything unique that couldn’t be found elsewhere
I stopped watching when she stared in on a couple of topics I have a bit of background in.
Made it obvious fast that the "research" in question was a cursory google search with no regard for the source quality or accuracy.
Well half the country is stupid enough to be in a cult and vote for an accused sexual predator con man while simultaneously believing he was sent here from God so…Im guessing she still has a chance. 🤷🏻♀️
The same. I used to be a huge fan of hers circa 2019-ish. Now there are so many other creators doing just as good if not better work than her that aren't absolute twat waffles. I can't in good conscience support someone like that. And looking at her decimated view counts, it seems I'm not the only one...
Yep. I watched the hbomberguy doc and the unprofessional plagiarism was enough to unsub. But I didn’t dislike her as a PERSON at that point, I was just disillusioned with her as a news source.
but then I found out about all the other crappy behaviour and was like “wow, I wish I could unsubscribe again” and can honestly say that as a PERSON, I find her utterly contemptible.
And SHE DID THAT. The original plagiarism stuff made me dislike the channel. The personal stuff made me dislike BLAIR.
I wonder what Blair thought would happen at the end of the 25 years, if everyone who signed an NDA hadn't just gone "fuck that, I say what I want." Did she think she wouldn't piss off someone enough that would wait it out and come for her neck? Maybe she'd have made a crap ton of money at that point, but it's pretty obvious that nothing will be enough for Blaire, and being taken down after decades of having an amazing reputation would be especially embarrassing. That's not even counting all the people who didn't sign anything, like Cruel World Happy Mind or The Click who can easily take her down right now.
Honestly. Like yeah 25 years is a long time, but if everything went her way? I don't know about you, but I can hold a grudge for 25 years and I'd have a TH-cam video out the day after that shit expired 🤷♀️ whats done in the darkness always comes to the light
@@BeehiveBoy especially if it's this bad
I kept wondering throughout this whole case "why is she persisting what is obviously a losing battle" and it felt like the answer came when Oz said his life every day was fearing he was going to get bad news from his lawyer. That's why she keeps this case going even though she doesn't really have anything. Her entire history shows her to be just that petty...
All he does is sit and play video games... such a hard life.
@@HuckleberryHAIL Hi Blair. How's the hoarded trash situation in your home going?
@@odwrksboxedtrash3730
Holy shit I forgot Blair was doing that under videos about her lol.
(Although even if they aren't an alt account- no promises she isn't also paying people to defame the people she hurt)
@@odwrksboxedtrash3730 Not Blair.
@@Nyx_Fey_ Not being paid. I just think these guys are crybabies.
I had never heard of MadCatster but somehow, when the clip of him came up, he was everything his name made me want him to be: Hawaiian shirt, hat, and petting a cat in front of a microphone.
It's a slap suit. Plain and simple. This is the exact reason we need laws against them. 1 person has money to burn that wants people who don't to not speak anymore. Blair's hypocrisy is ridiculous and the fact she doesn't see it is insane.
Yeah, there's no way her lawyer is behind the scenes telling her that anything will come of this. She just wants to drag out this process until they are drained of money and in total anguish from being stressed/silenced for so long.
Oh, she sees it. She just never expected it to seriously, negatively affect her!
If it's in the USA and they caught her doing something illegal, they can still speak out against her, even if they signed that. That piece of paper only protects so much of the boss.
I'd love it if, after the dust settles, people/companies she's made vids about to sue her for defamation. If she can put forward BS SLAPP suits, then she's fair game to everyone she's said negative things about (which is essentially the nature of her complaints).
Also, with the issue of the "he didn't take care of me" thing, everyone has said "why didn't her sister and friend take care of her" which is 100% but something else I thought of, why tf was Oz the one they left in charge of her if he truly did swoop in on the opportunity when she was, 1. Recovering from surgery and 2. On pain meds and allegedly in an altered state of mind, in order to extort her.. and they were there, and they saw that, and then subsequently they leave him alone with her as her sole carer? I mean, the claim is legally hearsay anyway coming from her but if I watched someone try to extort one of my loved ones while they were out of it, I'd insist on them staying with me instead. It's clearly a very dangerous situation, so I just have to ask, is blair a liar, or is everyone in her life as dumb as she seems to be...?
"Oh no, the consequences of my own actions! Better make this someone else's fault!" Blair
Blair wasn't prepared to issue an actual lawsuit,
She thought the threat of one would work how it did in the past!
When it didn't keep people as silent as she wanted THEN she wanted
to try to sue. She screwed herself, yes with the Legal Eagle issue but
the "apology" where she decided to go after Wonder and everyone.
In that video she sealed her fate when she brought up Wonder's
Mental health (ie the S. Note)! That's when I began to see people
go "Ok, it's official she's a B***h we're done with her"!!
Of course this is all my own opinion, but she's like any other
bully I've ever known not able to understand people get tired of
threats and being afraid.
I agree. I used to be a fan of Blair's and had no idea of the drama on Twitter until her video about it was posted. I was completely biased on her favor when starting the video but it was so bad that stopped watching her content.
I literally started watching her before that big drama and I was so happy to have something to listen to while drawing BUT OF COURSE it was a matter of time 😭😭
Fr it was the same for me dawg
Same 💀
Same, but instead of drawing, I listened to her alot while playing minecraft.
I was a long time fan of hers. Makes me feel icky now. The hurt on poor Oz's face just breaks my heart. What a nasty piece of work she is.
Yeah, tbh her voice has a cadence to it that’s good as background noise. I feel you.
But yeah. She’s made a real donkey of herself.
The “in and about/around” is legalize speak to cover your ass in case you wrote the wrong day. Say it happened on the 3rd, but you wrote the 4th. The Prosecutors will use that as their “glove doesn’t fit, must acquit.” golden ticket.
yeah got the feeling he really didnt understand that ^^
Okay just to explain this as best as possible (I'm a European law student so maybe not 100% accurate), when Oz's lawyers mention the outdated documents in their response to iilluminaughtii's response to the motion of dismissal, they're not saying the law itself is outdated. The law is just the law. Their statement pertains to how the law should be interpreted. When deciding how to rule in a case, a judge won't just look at the law on its own. They'll also look at similar cases, especially ones from the supreme court, and see what was decided in those arrests. Lawyers will bring up such cases when it benefits their case.
What I believe happened is that Blair's team brought up one such arrest, but Oz's team (correctly) fired back by stating that it's irrelevant as the standard set by that arrest was overruled by the supreme court later, such as what happened with Roe v Wade. A standard was set, and later the supreme court decided to change that standard.
I know you're not a lawyer and not American, but I'm an American attorney and here's a couple nitpicks:
19:32 It's not "lack of evidence." It's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." You don't present evidence this early in a lawsuit. You only make allegations. If the court assumes your allegations true, and you STILL wouldn't win if those allegations *were* true, that is "failure to state a claim." This same principle applies when allegations are mere "conclusions" (e.g. "the defendant breached the contract" instead of "the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform the services when he was supposed to under the contract.")
Also, "on or about" is just common legal jargon. It's just to make it clear that it's *around* that time, to give the plaintiff wiggle room in case they typed the wrong date.
A complaint is not called a "lawsuit," it is called a complaint. The complaint is one small part of the entire lawsuit. The document is titled "Amended Complaint" but you keep saying "amended document" or "amended lawsuit." You will say anything other than complaint. I promise people know what a complaint is lol
You don't "defile" a court's order, you "defy" it.
The judge didn't do anything wrong by giving Blair another chance. Judges don't like to dismiss lawsuits on procedural issues, and would rather the case be decided on its merits, to give little room for appeal.
Defiling sounds pretty badass tbh.
@@HuckleberryHAIL yeah I wish that was the word lmao
Thank you! I do wish he had done more research on some legal basics because so much of what is presented as shocking or sinister is just normal stuff.
@@MsBean02 yeah, it's hard to blame him though. He's not American and law is complicated in general. Some of this stuff you can only learn through studying for a long time and practicing law for an even longer time.
In terms of the vagueness rampant throughout the Complaint, the FAC and the SAC, this is a common defence tactic known as "spaghetti". When a case has weak merits, one potential avenue is to use every allegation in the book as a way to try and find any wriggle room.
At this point, I genuinely wonder if Blair's filings are intentionally subpar in order to draw this out hoping that Oz, Wonder, and Felix stop run out of money to keep paying their lawyers to fight this. Essentially just a nuisance lawsuit designed to further financially punish them, with the potential side benefit of something she can spin into a win if they have to settle or something.
Also: Beans for the algorithm.
Re: the alleged memory issues: Blair is saying her medication caused anterograde amnesia.
In that type of amnesia the process of forming memories is disturbed. You've possibly experienced or witnessed it yourself, because the memory loss from drinking alcohol is anterograde. One retains their short time memory so they remember the last minute or so, but can't remember what was done or said just five minutes ago. Taking medication with similar effects is like getting blackout drunk every day; when you quit the substance, your ability to form memories returns.
You can't live normal life with anterograde amnesia. It's like having Alzheimer's. If Oz really did take care of Blair in such a state, what he deserves is praise and compensation.
I was about to retire to bed out of sheer boredom. Now i'm getting snacks.
same lol
Time to disturb the neighbors with microwaving popcorn.
56:33 before listening to your part on Felix, I have a theory. The Click was really the first of sad milk to speak up. He did a good job at explaining and validating his own story BUT I think Felix sealed the credibility of the Click’s video. Since the Click is not in the US, it complicates suing him, so rather than going after the Click, Blair is lashing out at Felix. But that’s just my guess 🤷♀️.
2:38:24 it seems we have the same theory
For sure for sure, I was honestly surprised that Click wasn’t one of the people in the lawsuit because I was fully expecting him to be.
But him not living in America certainly is likely a big factor that she can’t, so her getting mad enough about that to go after Felix does make sense.
@@DeanDraxon8752 yeah the Click and One Topic are somewhat safe in the fact it would come down to which country has jurisdiction and I don’t think she wants to risk either of their countries running the show. Well that and One Topic would be even less of a case than Felix. He was clear everything he says is his recollection or his opinion and stated so quite often.
I'm not sure that's the reason but I could be wrong. It's really not that hard to sue someone internationally. The Hague Convention (1965) lays out exactly how it's done. Also, the court in Colorado would likely have jurisdiction over a defamation claim, even if the defendant was international, because of the ruling in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
The only reason I’m glad I have a law degree is to be able to parse through the TH-cam drama lawsuits
Oh I’ll bet this is like listening to mad libs! 😆
Blair will not stop, I was a regular watcher of her channel and since all this blew up I am truly disenchanted. I feel that she has buried herself so deep that the chances of her recovery and rebuild will take a very very VERY long time. As with all youtubers this to shall pass and she will accumulate new subscribers (hopefully real) who never heard of this lawsuit.
really quick - "in or about *date*" is actually really commonly used legal jargon in US court filings. It's not necessarily them not being specific - it's just what is considered proper form
Came to say this as well. They aren’t doing the actual trial in these documents. Its just the pre show.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a lawsuit that doesn't have "in/on or about" in it
“On or about” is also used on the off-chance that there are things done prior or after the actual known/established date(s) in question if additional evidence surfaces during discovery or the trial itself. This way, there’s a chance for both the defendant(s) and the plaintiff/prosecutor to use that new information to their advantage.
That phrase is typical, but it was a red flag for me just how many times “upon information and belief” was used. Not necessarily facts listed, just supposition upon belief.
@@lindseystein9676 actually that phrase is also common legal jargon in the US and is also proper form to use in that context. Again, it's not necessarily them not being specific (although in this case it may actually be) - it's just proper form
As someone who have seen corrupt court cases in my own country, Blair is not "lazy" or "forget things". This is deliberate because the actual evidence would make her look bad and silly. Instead, she's opting to be as incompetent and insufferable as possible to exhaust the court, and coz they can't dismiss someone for "being annoying", they'll end up ruling in her favor to make her stop, or the defendant ultimately got tired of it or run out of money that they'll settle to get her to shut up. She's ready to drag this for years if needed to be, as long as she can get just one win. She knows she's suing people with less money, and when this is over they won't counter sue her for damages because they will not have any funds anymore.
There should be a law to let judges dismiss someone cuz they're annoying tbh
@@cyansalvatore6011 i wish, but in reality if that happens it will be abused really badly as well
@@trashcan9153 I know, but it would be fun to see people like Blair get served plate of shit and cry about it
There's an actual name for that: S.L.A.P.P. suits. With the intent on dragging these cases out for as long as possible to run the defendant out of money. And luckily, they are thrown out now more often than not (also thanks to a certain talkshow host).
Cruel World Happy Mind was targeted by Blair ages ago because Blair ripped off her video on an MLM and Blair kept doing Mean Girl BS to her, so I am not surprised that she also put CWHM in the lawsuit.
"Janet Braun, no! Sorry, force of habit -at seeing lawyers clowning themselves and their clients- "
I can almost predict what's going to happen, if this actually comes before the court --- Blair referenced the fact that Felix gave screenshots of her comments to "...a 'youtuber'..." specifically, the Click, to be used in his video. Well, she's introduced it now. That means Felix's lawyer has grounds to show the Click's entire video, in court. And that essentially gives him full access to all the things Click, and probably One Topic, as well, have said, to confirm the claims made by Oz and Wonder.
I’m hoping that the judge is allowing the amendments late because he’s knows it’s crap, but is letting it take its course so she basically loses it in spectacular fashion and can’t resubmit it
I am not even physically adjacent to a lawyer and even my humanities-studying brain could write a more compelling, provable legal argument. (No shade to the lawyers- I imagine they are doing the best with what they’ve been given.)
I think my favorite bit is trying to claim that people not liking you after a messy public meltdown is someone else’s financial responsibility.
Beans, sir.