Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

And, oh look, the Vanzan allegations don't really matter at all with respect to this case and "someone on TikTok said so" doesn't count as evidence in support of those allegations to begin with. Color me shocked.

Dp. Oh please, some non lawyer provided the most basic of explanations. Why are you so concerned about damages anyway? You told us his entire complaint would be tossed.

I don't know who you think I am, but I definitely never said his whole complaint would be tossed. (The only complaints that I think will get tossed at some stage are the one against the NYT and possibly those of some of the non-Baldoni parties if they don't replead well and soon.)

And just to second this, I don't remember ANYONE here saying they thought his entire complaint would be dismissed, and certainly not dismissed with prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Vanzan has been relegated to literally a footnote in this case as predicted. And I'm in the group that thinks it was unethical, but as directed to the state court where it was filed. Unsatisfactory though it may be it just isn't going to move the needle in this suit. But we may get some flashy move from Freedman to deflect.

I don’t agree. The judge said they didn’t meet the probable cause standard with what was presented, seems an invitation to revisit the argument later with more evidence.

I don't read it that way, because he states in the footnote that they did not provide evidence of their assertions, but he doesn't leave it open for Wayfarer to renew their motion like he did the other day with Lively. That subpoena was not in his court and it seems like he's not particularly inclined to get into it. Feels like he wants to avoid drama, but we are plenty of it from both sides.

Not the same thing, Blake has to either reach agreement with Freedman on the dismissal or apply to the court. It’s a binary situation. The claim has to be dismissed by one of those two methods.

I think it’s notable that the judge doesn’t say that the crime fraud exception couldn’t be based on Van Zan. Instead, he says there wasn’t enough evidence presented. I personally don’t think the documents Freedman is seeking in this motion are particularly important, so I wouldn’t renew this particular motion but I think we could see the crime fraud exception argued again in this litigation.

Funny how Freedman can file a crazily improper affidavit charging his opposing counsel with extortion with less than 24 hour's notice, but somehow it's taking him close to two months to figure out how he might possibly challenge what he's calling a gravely improper subpoena that was the springboard to launching this entire case including the NYT article. "Oh really, you mean I can't work this challenge in just as an attachment to my Opposition to a Motion for a Protective Order? You don't say? What else can I try? Maybe I should work this into some response to that letter from Brett Douglas MacDowell, hold up."

[Anonymous]

More good news for Lively's case just in:

Sloane and Vituscka have worked out an agreement whereby Vituscka has filed an declaration, stating, essentially, the following (as paraphrased by Sloane) that explains he got certain facts wrong in his article which he regrets, and which I believe basically absolves Sloane of liability for defamation; as a result Sloane is dropping her motion to compel against Vituscka:

"The Sloane Parties and Vituscka have reached an agreement wherein Vituscka furnished a sworn declaration stating, in relevant part, that 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Ex. A ¶ 5. The text messages appearing at paragraph 193 of the Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint were therefore a 'mistake,' the truth of which the Wayfarer Parties never confirmed prior to filing their complaints that included Vituscka’s texts without his authorization. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Vituscka has also agreed, by June 23, 2025, to produce his communications to which Bryan Freedman is a party for the time period of July 2024 through January 16, 2025."

Did you happen to catch that closing zinger? Vitscka will produce seven months of his communications with Bryan Freedman involving the time in question.

Sloane letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.0.pdf
Vituscka declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

Suck it, haterz.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

[Anonymous]

So he is saying the texts are legit but he didn’t mean them?

[Anonymous]

Read his declaration, which I linked. He's saying Sloane never told him Lively was claiming Baldoni *either* SH or SA her. He was getting that from Lively's complaint and not Sloane. He mistated the SA/SH info in his texts, and Baldoni/Freedman/carful of clowns never consulted him before filing his texts in their complaint. *chef's kiss*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So he is saying the texts are legit but he didn’t mean them?

He's saying the texts are really but he wrote them in a sloppy way and didn't mean them the way they came out.

Baldoni's FAC included a text thread from a Daily Mail reporter said "and now she's saying Blake was sexually assaulted" ("she" apparently implying Leslie Sloane). The implication was that Sloane defamed Baldoni by telling the reporter that Justin SA'd Blake. However, some people speculated (I think Sloane might have said this in one of her motions) that he had read the NYT/CRD complaint and this was his own interpretation of Blake's complaint, and he meant something like "And now Blake is saying she was SA (or SH)."

In this affidavit, Vituscka identified himself as that reporter and that he meant to write "And now she's saying that Blake was sexually harassed" but he's saying that Blake was saying she was SH, and Leslie Sloane never said this to him. In that case, if Blake is lying about the SH, then Blake is the one that defamed Baldoni, not Sloane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

And yes, he had a lawyer who responded to Sloane's motion to compel his texts. He was asserting the journalist privilege but apparently decided to just cooperate with this statement.

[Anonymous]

Clearly, Freedman is playing 3D chess here at a level we have never before seen, such that he repeatedly gets smacked down cold by Judge Liman, but actually in a way that will later benefit him for sure in a manner that will soon, very soon, amazingly soon, be revealed to all!!!!

/sarcasm

[Anonymous]

Also can't believe nobody here is talking about what amazing things might be revealed in these Bryan Freedman texts/emails/telegrams etc. involving Vitsuscka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also can't believe nobody here is talking about what amazing things might be revealed in these Bryan Freedman texts/emails/telegrams etc. involving Vitsuscka.

It seems slimy that BF texts with DM reporters. Not unexpected though.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know who NAG means here? https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7512612048765947182

[Anonymous]

Vituscka just admitted to straight up lying about what Sloane said to him, I think this is totally it for the case against Sloane. Without Vitsucka they have no evidence against her.

Kind of wild that Vitsucka agreed to produce SEVEN MONTHS of communications with Freedman. That obviously goes back to before Lively even filed her complaint. Maybe nothing in there but also.... maybe there is something in there. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know who NAG means here? https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7512612048765947182

I bet it's CO.

Good for her that she is calling out this problem with the Baldoni-supportive creators who often just tell their supporters what they want to hear (which is always that JB is doing awesome, Blake Lively lied and is losing) and are often wrong on legal issues.

This is why a lot of JB stans online will often parrot just totally incorrect legal concepts or analysis and yell even at NEUTRAL commenters who are just pointing out how/why they are wrong. The discussion of damages in this thread recently is a good example. There was a long post just explaining how damages work in civil cases and discussing what the purpose of each category is and how plaintiffs can prove that they deserve them, and one or two JB supporters in the thread were calling it "PR babble." No babes, it was just neutral info that could actually be useful to you if you cared to listen.

Anyway, good on NAG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also can't believe nobody here is talking about what amazing things might be revealed in these Bryan Freedman texts/emails/telegrams etc. involving Vitsuscka.

It seems slimy that BF texts with DM reporters. Not unexpected though.

??? leslie sloane literally texts with DM reporters herself. page 121

so you admit you think leslie is slimy too. 👍