Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Vanzan thing keeps getting worse and worse for Blake. It’s pretty clear following the motions from the past few days that Blake committed fraud through her company Vanzan. Blake may have SH privilege and litigation privilege but Vanzan does not and Vanzan could be liable for damages.

Vanzan misrepresented itself to the court claiming to have a contractual relationship with does 1-10 to get Jen Abel’s texts. Those texts went directly to Blake to use in her personal case, not the case Vanzan had supposedly requested the discovery for. This would be like Tesla issuing a subpoena and handing the discovery directly to Elon Musk for a personal vendetta. Highly illegal.

WF can sue Vanzan. And frankly, if the state wanted to it could prosecute criminally. Having a shell company isn’t illegal in and of itself, but using a shell company to commit fraud is.

Wouldn’t it be the most divine karma if Vanzan were held liable for any damages Blake won from WF? It was Vanzan’s fraud that opened them up to that suit so WF could sue and say Vanzan is liable for any damages they have to pay out to Blake. It would be a big fat nothing for her in the end, even if she wins.

LLC’s are supposed to protect the individual but WF can likely pierce that protection b/c of the way in which ths LLC was misused. Blake should’ve had more separation. Blake’s personal lawyers, not Vanzan’s lawyers, issued the subpoena. And the discovery went to Blake and not Vanzan.

What, specifically, would Wayfarer sue Vanzan for? Like what is the cause of action? And what specific damages would they allege.

I think the biggest problem in any litigation over the Vanzan subpoena is that everything discovered via that subpoena would be discoverable in the present case anyway. You can argue that obtaining the Abel texts through Jones via the Vanzan lawsuit gave Blake a leg up on Wayfarer, and that seems unfair. Okay. but it does not appear to be illegal. And I think Liman will look at it pragmatically and ask "what did Blake get via Vanzan that she could not have gotten by just subpoenaing Jen Abel in this case? If the answer is nothing, I just don't see what kind of relief you could ask for.

If there is legal action over Vanzan, it is likely against Jones for failing to give notice to Abel or Wayfarer about disclosure of their private data. And that's *if* Abel's phone and messages as not ruled to be Jonesworks property, which is an open question still. Wayfarer may have a breach of contract claim against Jones for that disclosure, but if Jones can allege they broke their contract first by leaving Jonesworks to follow Abel, that might not matter.

It think it's a fools errand to think the Vanzan situation is ever going to yield any real wins. It was a sneaky legal tactic but it's probably not a legal liability for Blake or Vanzan (which actually is something a lot of lawyers are going to take note of because if there are no negative consequences here, expect to see this used with greater frequency in other cases).

The illegal part of the Vanzan subpoena was that Vanzan had no dealings with any of the parties but alleged breach of contract and in doing so misrepresented itself and the purpose of the subpoena to the court. Vanzan also gave discovery to a non party (Blake) for use in an entirely different case. All illegal.

Are you a lawyer? This is a weird interpretation of that subpoena.

Vanzan is some kind of pass through or loan out company for Blake and Ryan. Blake's case is strongest if it's the loan out company she used for IEWU, but there are legal arguments for using it as a proxy for her even if it's not. Blake has not contended that Vanzan is some separate corporate entity with which she has nothing to do -- the opposite, the company is listed as owned by her and Ryan. It was sneaky to use Vanzan for the subpoena, but it's yet to be shown that it was illegal -- corporate pass-throughs and closely held corps are common.

Also, the Vanzan subpoena was brought under a John Doe case, which means there were no defendants listed. The goal of a John Doe lawsuit is to help a plaintiff who believes they have been harmed but does not know by whom, to identify defendants. So there is no problem with Vanzan having "no dealings" with any of the parties -- there were no parties listed, only "John Does 1-99." This is how Doe lawsuits work. And, Blake has the argument that the subpoena in the Vanzan case successfully identified parties who she can argue harmed her, by revealing the texts from Abel's phone that appear to show a retaliatory campaign against her, and she subsequently filed a separate lawsuit against those individuals and continues to pursue that lawsuit. This is precisely what Doe lawsuits are meant to be used for. Had Lively never filed a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and related parties, you could argue that the lawsuit was a "sham" used only to get info to which she was not entitled. But since she did file a lawsuit, it appears to be a valid use of this legal maneuver.

Wayfarer can try to challenge it but I think they will lose. They can pursue action against Jones for breach of contract, but that won't touch Lively, and I don't think there is anything Wayfarer can do to get the Abel texts excluded from the Lively/Baldoni action, as they exist and are real texts and are clearly related to the underlying claims.

Vanzan was not used for iewu, which is why it was not known to the parties. Vanzan has never been used for anything besides ordering furniture and issuing a subpoena for Abel’s texts. Blake’s lawyers are trying to sanitize the fraud and mishandling of discovery by now making it seem as if lively herself directly issued the subpoena. That will not work but it will make it easier for WF to pierce through the protections an LLC is supposed to provide when it comes to damages.

DP, but this weird scheme is something that we should believe coming from Freedman et al, which to this point has been extremely reliable on all legal issues!

The only scheme here is vansham

[Anonymous]

Nothing is going to come of the Vanzan subpoena in the Lively case.

Some chance Jones gets hit with something by Abel (employment issue) or Wayfarer (contract issue) for complying with the subpoena without giving notice to either of them.

But even if the Vanzan subpoena is ruled to be improper, it will have no impact on the Lively litigation because everything they received via the Vanzan subpoena is now discoverable in Lively v. Baldoni et al. I put the odds of Liman punishing Lively or her lawyers for the subpoena at 0%, and the odds of him disallowing any of the evidence discovered as a result of the subpoena at less than 0%, this will never happen.

The persistent claims by Baldoni supporters that the Vanzan subpoena is somehow going o help Baldoni/Wayfarer escape from Lively's lawsuit is bizarre. This is just not a legally defensible position. If any of your TikTok lawyers are saying this, you should stop following them. It's bad analysis.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people deep in the trenches on this one!

What is the appeal?

Seems like a silly dispute.

[Anonymous]

I’m interested because a bunch of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a shady car salesman type lawyer into supporting a male feminist dude who ran a smear campaign against his co star because he was afraid she was going to blow his whole male feminist hero schtick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested because a bunch of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a shady car salesman type lawyer into supporting a male feminist dude who ran a smear campaign against his co star because he was afraid she was going to blow his whole male feminist hero schtick.

Same.

I'm also interested in how Baldoni/Freedman continue to use smear tactics to discredit not only Lively but anyone who supports her lawsuit, often with rhetoric and online tactics that remind me of MAGA and far right media. Like the argument that you can only get "the truth" from Baldoni side or biased social media sources, demonizing anyone who disagrees, engaging in elaborate conspiracy theories to explain motivations that are actually pretty mundane, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested because a bunch of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a shady car salesman type lawyer into supporting a male feminist dude who ran a smear campaign against his co star because he was afraid she was going to blow his whole male feminist hero schtick.

Same.

I'm also interested in how Baldoni/Freedman continue to use smear tactics to discredit not only Lively but anyone who supports her lawsuit, often with rhetoric and online tactics that remind me of MAGA and far right media. Like the argument that you can only get "the truth" from Baldoni side or biased social media sources, demonizing anyone who disagrees, engaging in elaborate conspiracy theories to explain motivations that are actually pretty mundane, etc.

Yep, I repeatedly got called a bot by someone in here just because I had a relatively slow day and commented on how interested I was in learning more about the online smear tactics. The person who accused me seemed to be SO angry, it was shocking. Similar vibe to MAGA + far right media.

[Anonymous]

I’m interested because a a small number of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a C-list actress who tried to steamroll a director and rehabilitate her image by weaponizing false sexual harassment allegations after people saw her for the tone deaf, selfish and racist person that she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested because a bunch of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a shady car salesman type lawyer into supporting a male feminist dude who ran a smear campaign against his co star because he was afraid she was going to blow his whole male feminist hero schtick.

Same.

I'm also interested in how Baldoni/Freedman continue to use smear tactics to discredit not only Lively but anyone who supports her lawsuit, often with rhetoric and online tactics that remind me of MAGA and far right media. Like the argument that you can only get "the truth" from Baldoni side or biased social media sources, demonizing anyone who disagrees, engaging in elaborate conspiracy theories to explain motivations that are actually pretty mundane, etc.

Yep, I repeatedly got called a bot by someone in here just because I had a relatively slow day and commented on how interested I was in learning more about the online smear tactics. The person who accused me seemed to be SO angry, it was shocking. Similar vibe to MAGA + far right media.

Those in the BL camp are super angry and resorts to childish insults. Are you guys secretly MAGA too? Actually, probably, since you stan a racist woman who started a pro-antebellum website and got married on a plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m interested because a bunch of mostly liberal women seem to have gotten punked by a shady car salesman type lawyer into supporting a male feminist dude who ran a smear campaign against his co star because he was afraid she was going to blow his whole male feminist hero schtick.

Eh, her SH claims are just so lame. This has nothing to do with my political persuasion; it has to do with my real-world experience watching people be people. And, unfortunately, a lot of people just kind of suck. Men and women.

[Anonymous]

Just gonna drop this here. Weird, I thought Bryan Freedman and TMZ were buddies, but maybe not anymore ha:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/06/27/vin-diesel-bryan-freedman-matthew-hale-asta-jonasson-punch-threat/

From a complaint filed:

[Anonymous]

The whole month of June 2025 has certainly got to go down as the absolute worst for Baldoni et al in this lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

This fixation on Freedman continues to be tiresome. Your girl lost the court of public opinion, her hair brand is in tatters and even other people in Hollywood think her allegations are a joke. Hence the fixation on the minutiae of this whole legal farce and the lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Random thoughts: Elyse Dorsey got off too easy. I still can't believe this cheating loser has become a victim's advocate even though she slept with her professor and had the gall to insert herself into all this drama.

[Anonymous]

hahahaha! Are you really trying to turn this around and point at bad things on the Lively side? Let's recap the month:

Justin Baldoni's and Bryan Freedman's No Good, Very Bad Month:

June 9: Judge Liman issues his order sh!tcanning every single one of Baldoni and Wayfarer's claims. All but two with prejudice. There are moments in the decision where Freedman looks like an absolute tool for the way he pled the complaint.

June 10: Freedman goes on TMZ and claims that of course he will be filing an amended complaint for all 4 (wrong) remaining claims!

June 23: Freedman is supposed to file the amended complaint, but instead of doing that, as promised, he spends his time cursing out a different opposing counsel, who is just trying to figure out deposition timing. Freedman fake-outs a punch to this attorney, who files a sworn declaration detailing the encounter.

June 24: Baldoni supporters are freaked out and confused about why there is no amended compliant.

June 26: Ellyn Garofalo files a MTC for information regarding the VanZan subpoena, completely failing to mention that she has already received both the subpoena and all the documents produced in response to it more than a month prior and making it sound like she still does not have any of those materials, which make up 2/5 of the items at issue in her MTC.

June 27: TMZ publishes an article releasing the story about Freedman's cursing out/faking out encounter in the Vin Diesel case.

*and scene*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This fixation on Freedman continues to be tiresome. Your girl lost the court of public opinion, her hair brand is in tatters and even other people in Hollywood think her allegations are a joke. Hence the fixation on the minutiae of this whole legal farce and the lawyers.

Fixation on the minutiae? Dude! Your boy's case is dismissed with prejudice! Baldoni is facing sanctions and attorney's fees, and that's not even counting the treble damages etc. that can be pled under 47.1!! And the lawyer that you've been pinning all your hopes on is increasingly looking erratic and impaired.

This is not a "fixation on the minutiae" lol. This is Baldoni's entire affirmative case disappearing, Sarowitz bleeding money, and Freedman maybe finally, finally getting the comeuppance he has deserved for so long in getting exposed as a fraud in a suit. This is the whole game.