Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.75.0.pdf |
Anonymous
Thank you, for those who can’t see my question, this is the link to the Abel reply brief regarding the motion to compel the subpoena. |
Anonymous
Why were these posts about Freedman deleted? They had to do with Baldoni’s attorney and potentially sanctionable behavior in a case on the day he was ostensibly supposed to be taking Lively’s deposition. |
Anonymous
Answering my own question: Baldoni supporters have complained that the posts about Baldoni’s attorney and his erratic and potentially sanctionable behavior are not relevant here and Jeff has deleted them, fyi. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1281090.page |
Anonymous
Yup, if you want to talk about Freedman’s other cases, start a Bryan Friedman thread. |
Anonymous
| Might not be a bad idea to have a general celebrity lawsuit thread since most won't have enough interest to maintain one thread. |
Anonymous
|
I posted a Freedman/Vin Diesel thread here that includes a link to the legal filings I pulled off the LA county website: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/1281118.page#30340509
I won't post the Vin Diesel info here anymore but since some people here were wondering where the info went and might not see the new thread, just wanted to post a link to the separate thread. |
Anonymous
I’m not a supporter of anyone, but why would we want to discuss another lawsuit on this thread? Weird. |
Anonymous
The Van Zan issue is so ugly. I cannot believe Blake supporters can claim this is not sketchy with a straight face. Explains why they’re trying to make up side stories about unrelated issues… |
Anonymous
|
^
“Vanzan is not party to any litigation involving Ms. Lively and the Wayfarer Parties.” |
Anonymous
I think the reply brief is excellent and compelling. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Agree. Blake looks so awful here. As do her lawyers for orchestrating this. Again, it explains the hysterical posting about unrelated issues… |
Anonymous
|
This summery from Reddit on Vanzam
—— The Vanzam Inc is so confusing. 😂 There was a company Vanzam Inc that was involved in a lawsuit involving RICO charges. Different owner but the guy is partners with Ryan Reynolds in mntn / mint mobile. And they stole data. However, there was a Vanzam in cali Delaware where Blake is CEO to import furniture from the UK for the Taylor swift video clip. Than there’s this Vanzam in New York that submitted the subpoena, but as a shell company there’s not much info…. Take with lots of grain of salt, but this looks pretty shady 😂 The criminal lawyers added the last couple weeks was odd. Add the the CIA guy Blake hired back in feb/march… might not change much about the ruling in the MTD, but hopefully it can make a difference in Jen Abel’s case against Stephanie Jones. ETTA: there’s a very small CC that did a big deep dive in the Vanzam and connected all the dots a few months ago. |
Anonymous
|
Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.
Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this. |