I agree with Volpe that Baker has to be pressed because credibility matters when a reporter’s explosive claims depend on anonymous sources, hidden analysis, and public trust. But I also want the record clean. Actual notice is not necessarily legal service. Email receipt is not personal delivery. Substituted service is not always effective service. If Baker knew about the lawsuit but honestly believed he had not been legally served, that is different from lying. Still, Baker owes a straight answer. Did “served on April 22” mean counsel’s shorthand, a concession, or a mistake? Did his understanding change between the broadcast and the declaration? This is not a gotcha. It is precision. In a case where an innocent woman may have been publicly branded as the J6 pipe bomber, the facts must be nailed down, not blurred by ego, anger, or sloppy wording.
The affidavit of service said Fincher received service. Baker told us he wasn't served. He declared under penalty of perjury he was served on April 22. This isn't precision. His declaration contradicts his statements to us.
They are two different things - legal and factual. If Fincher received service, then Baker didn't as a matter of logic and reality; he wasn't factually served. The legal fiction may exist that he was served, and the lawyer-drafted declaration may be swearing to a legal fiction which is nonetheless true in court. It's ambiguous at best.
He told us he didn't know who David Fincher is. So, if he didn't know the person who was served,how did he get served on April 22. His story makes no sense because he lied to us. That should upset you more than it does.
A legal fiction is an assumption adopted by law, contrary to or independent of actual fact, that is treated as true for the purpose of applying a legal rule or achieving a legal result.
The key point: a legal fiction is not necessarily a lie or fraud. It is a deliberate legal device. But when misused, it can become a way to smuggle falsehoods into legal conclusions.
I agree with Volpe that Baker has to be pressed because credibility matters when a reporter’s explosive claims depend on anonymous sources, hidden analysis, and public trust. But I also want the record clean. Actual notice is not necessarily legal service. Email receipt is not personal delivery. Substituted service is not always effective service. If Baker knew about the lawsuit but honestly believed he had not been legally served, that is different from lying. Still, Baker owes a straight answer. Did “served on April 22” mean counsel’s shorthand, a concession, or a mistake? Did his understanding change between the broadcast and the declaration? This is not a gotcha. It is precision. In a case where an innocent woman may have been publicly branded as the J6 pipe bomber, the facts must be nailed down, not blurred by ego, anger, or sloppy wording.
The affidavit of service said Fincher received service. Baker told us he wasn't served. He declared under penalty of perjury he was served on April 22. This isn't precision. His declaration contradicts his statements to us.
They are two different things - legal and factual. If Fincher received service, then Baker didn't as a matter of logic and reality; he wasn't factually served. The legal fiction may exist that he was served, and the lawyer-drafted declaration may be swearing to a legal fiction which is nonetheless true in court. It's ambiguous at best.
He told us he didn't know who David Fincher is. So, if he didn't know the person who was served,how did he get served on April 22. His story makes no sense because he lied to us. That should upset you more than it does.
I don't trust legal documents is the issue. Most are pure bullshit, and they fly like shit through a goose in most cases.
The legal document in question is Baker's declaration. Either he lied in it or he lied to us.
Or the declaration is legal fiction.
A legal fiction is an assumption adopted by law, contrary to or independent of actual fact, that is treated as true for the purpose of applying a legal rule or achieving a legal result.
The key point: a legal fiction is not necessarily a lie or fraud. It is a deliberate legal device. But when misused, it can become a way to smuggle falsehoods into legal conclusions.