Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

This is nonsense, you don’t have discovery on claims that have been dismissed. Of course that likely won’t stop Liman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

I was thinking the same thing. He may not be doing well mentally. I do still believe he didn't mean to confuse SA and SH in that one email. People make that mistake all the time. It was a honest mistake that Freedman ran with. James said he filed a whistleblower report too so there's going to be a more issues with him and Dailymail in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

This is nonsense, you don’t have discovery on claims that have been dismissed. Of course that likely won’t stop Liman.

This is nonsense. The texts are proof of the continuing smear, as alleged in Lively's amended complaint, so obviously they're relevant, regardless of whether Baldoni's baseless complaint was amended or not. Good effort here though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

I was thinking the same thing. He may not be doing well mentally. I do still believe he didn't mean to confuse SA and SH in that one email. People make that mistake all the time. It was a honest mistake that Freedman ran with. James said he filed a whistleblower report too so there's going to be a more issues with him and Dailymail in the future.

It was an "honest mistake" that he made on December 20th, that he corrected with Freedman on December 25th by explicitly telling him that Sloane had never said anything about SA assault to him. So then for Freedman to go on and use that December 20th text hinting at SA as basically the only evidence of defamation they had on Sloane in their Amended Complaint filed on January 31st was misleading and grossly improper. Freedman certainly knew better, or should have known better, but he doesn't seem discomfitted by the ethical boundaries that most lawyers take seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

This is nonsense, you don’t have discovery on claims that have been dismissed. Of course that likely won’t stop Liman.

It wouldn't be discovery on the dismissed claims. They are relevant to Blake's claims of a smear campaign. Not just the texts themselves, but Freedman's choice to use them in the complaint in a misleading way that made it appear that Leslie Sloane had told JV that Baldoni sexually assaulted Blake. We now know that JV was not referring to anything Sloane told him but to what he read in Blake's complaint and the NYT article (because the text was from December, not August) and that his reference to "sexual assault" was his own misunderstanding of what Blake was alleging, not something Sloane had ever conveyed to him.

But JV is now saying that Freedman KNEW JV was just referring to Blake's complaint and not referencing Sloane told him, but included these texts out of context and without a date, on purpose, to make it seem like otherwise. That would make Freedman's choice to make those false allegations, and then make hay of them in media, part of the smear against Blake, which would make the texts (in context, with dates this time) discoverable for Blake's case.

It's Freedman's fault. Either he included those JV texts knowing they were being used to prove something they don't actually prove (bad faith claim) or he failed to properly investigate those texts before including them (professional negligence). He has repeatedly raised that claim in the press and in other filings since then, compounding the issue. If Wayfarer is unhappy about their potential liability there, they need to look at their legal counsel and ask some hard questions, because this was a major own goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

I was thinking the same thing. He may not be doing well mentally. I do still believe he didn't mean to confuse SA and SH in that one email. People make that mistake all the time. It was a honest mistake that Freedman ran with. James said he filed a whistleblower report too so there's going to be a more issues with him and Dailymail in the future.

It was an "honest mistake" that he made on December 20th, that he corrected with Freedman on December 25th by explicitly telling him that Sloane had never said anything about SA assault to him. So then for Freedman to go on and use that December 20th text hinting at SA as basically the only evidence of defamation they had on Sloane in their Amended Complaint filed on January 31st was misleading and grossly improper. Freedman certainly knew better, or should have known better, but he doesn't seem discomfitted by the ethical boundaries that most lawyers take seriously.

This. Freedman both screwed over JV and his own clients by knowingly using JV's 12/20 texts to Melissa Nathan out of context and without a date in order to make it seem like Leslie Sloane had told JV that Baldoni sexually assaulted Blake. JV is very clear that Sloane never told him that.

Wayfarer is now much more likely to owe Sloane attorney's fees for their lawsuit against her which has been dismissed with prejudice, because it now appears Freedman knew those claims against Sloane were baseless. Plus because Freedman chose to include all this in their complaint, AND post it all on that website, it became part of the public record and thus had a negative impact on public perception of Sloane, Lively, and Reynolds, which now brings it into Lively's defamation action.

I now think this is why Freedman has all but disappeared from the docket in this case. I think they likely knew the JV declaration was coming and realized Freedman had opened them up to a lot of potential liability here. This is just garbage lawyering from Freedman, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

This is nonsense, you don’t have discovery on claims that have been dismissed. Of course that likely won’t stop Liman.

It wouldn't be discovery on the dismissed claims. They are relevant to Blake's claims of a smear campaign. Not just the texts themselves, but Freedman's choice to use them in the complaint in a misleading way that made it appear that Leslie Sloane had told JV that Baldoni sexually assaulted Blake. We now know that JV was not referring to anything Sloane told him but to what he read in Blake's complaint and the NYT article (because the text was from December, not August) and that his reference to "sexual assault" was his own misunderstanding of what Blake was alleging, not something Sloane had ever conveyed to him.

But JV is now saying that Freedman KNEW JV was just referring to Blake's complaint and not referencing Sloane told him, but included these texts out of context and without a date, on purpose, to make it seem like otherwise. That would make Freedman's choice to make those false allegations, and then make hay of them in media, part of the smear against Blake, which would make the texts (in context, with dates this time) discoverable for Blake's case.

It's Freedman's fault. Either he included those JV texts knowing they were being used to prove something they don't actually prove (bad faith claim) or he failed to properly investigate those texts before including them (professional negligence). He has repeatedly raised that claim in the press and in other filings since then, compounding the issue. If Wayfarer is unhappy about their potential liability there, they need to look at their legal counsel and ask some hard questions, because this was a major own goal.

They aren’t relevant to Blake at all, only to Sloane. Blake bots are working hard on this no I nonsense today. Don’t worry Liman will give you everything you want. He always does.

[Anonymous]

Also, compounding this problem for Freedman/Wayfarer, is the fact that people on Reddit remain extremely confused about the JV situation, and many still believe that Sloane told JV that Baldoni SAd Blake, even though JV has now stated twice that he didn't say that. The longer people are publicly discussing this matter with what we now know is Freedman's dishonest framing from their complaint, the worse it is for Wayfarer because it just become evidence of the far reaching consequences of Freedman's actions.

Making this worse is that the texts were with Melissa Nathan, a co-defendant, and she obviously knew those texts occurred in December. Unclear whether she misunderstood JV's meaning or not (this would be an important part of her deposition), but at a minimum she knew when the texts were received and therefore should have understood he was referencing Blake's CRD and not a conversation with Sloane. This makes it far less likely that it was simply a misunderstanding that led Freedman to include those texts as evidence of Sloane defaming Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think Wayfarer should have to produce those texts with JV, at least through the end of December. They are relevant anyway, but Freedman also screwed up in introducing them as "proof" of Leslie Sloane defaming Baldoni and it now really does look like he knowingly misled the court.

I don't think Lively's request for communications "through the present" is reasonable at all, but I guess they went with that knowing it will be knocked way back. don't think there is sufficient reason to request communications from 2025, but since those December texts with JV were already included in the Wayfarer complaint that got dismissed, and now JV has a declaration essentially accusing Freedman of lying in that complaint in the way he presented those texts without dates or context, it's definitely fair for Lively to be able to discover the full text exchanges at this point. That's on Freedman -- if they didn't want to have to disclose them, he should never have put them in their complaint.

This is nonsense, you don’t have discovery on claims that have been dismissed. Of course that likely won’t stop Liman.

It wouldn't be discovery on the dismissed claims. They are relevant to Blake's claims of a smear campaign. Not just the texts themselves, but Freedman's choice to use them in the complaint in a misleading way that made it appear that Leslie Sloane had told JV that Baldoni sexually assaulted Blake. We now know that JV was not referring to anything Sloane told him but to what he read in Blake's complaint and the NYT article (because the text was from December, not August) and that his reference to "sexual assault" was his own misunderstanding of what Blake was alleging, not something Sloane had ever conveyed to him.

But JV is now saying that Freedman KNEW JV was just referring to Blake's complaint and not referencing Sloane told him, but included these texts out of context and without a date, on purpose, to make it seem like otherwise. That would make Freedman's choice to make those false allegations, and then make hay of them in media, part of the smear against Blake, which would make the texts (in context, with dates this time) discoverable for Blake's case.

It's Freedman's fault. Either he included those JV texts knowing they were being used to prove something they don't actually prove (bad faith claim) or he failed to properly investigate those texts before including them (professional negligence). He has repeatedly raised that claim in the press and in other filings since then, compounding the issue. If Wayfarer is unhappy about their potential liability there, they need to look at their legal counsel and ask some hard questions, because this was a major own goal.

They aren’t relevant to Blake at all, only to Sloane. Blake bots are working hard on this no I nonsense today. Don’t worry Liman will give you everything you want. He always does.

Sloane works for Blake. If the allegation is that Sloane told a reporter that Baldoni SAd Blake, the obvious assumption (and the one that people are continuing to make) is that she did so at Blake's direction. In fact this is the precise argument Freedman made in his complaint when he was claiming Sloane defamed Baldoni -- he argued that under agency theory, because Sloane was acting in her capacity as an agent of Lively, that Lively also defamed Baldoni. And there is now tons of evidence of people online and social media talking about how "Blake lied" about being sexually assaulted and how Sloane "did Blake's dirty work" for her. Like the lie is still having a negative impact on Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

I was thinking the same thing. He may not be doing well mentally. I do still believe he didn't mean to confuse SA and SH in that one email. People make that mistake all the time. It was a honest mistake that Freedman ran with. James said he filed a whistleblower report too so there's going to be a more issues with him and Dailymail in the future.

It was an "honest mistake" that he made on December 20th, that he corrected with Freedman on December 25th by explicitly telling him that Sloane had never said anything about SA assault to him. So then for Freedman to go on and use that December 20th text hinting at SA as basically the only evidence of defamation they had on Sloane in their Amended Complaint filed on January 31st was misleading and grossly improper. Freedman certainly knew better, or should have known better, but he doesn't seem discomfitted by the ethical boundaries that most lawyers take seriously.

I agree. Sloane is shady in her own right and Freedman didn't have to lie about thise messages to get it across. Freedman also leaked James the reporter too. Now I don't think that was the only reason he was fired but still. Sloane was right to go after James in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

I was thinking the same thing. He may not be doing well mentally. I do still believe he didn't mean to confuse SA and SH in that one email. People make that mistake all the time. It was a honest mistake that Freedman ran with. James said he filed a whistleblower report too so there's going to be a more issues with him and Dailymail in the future.

It was an "honest mistake" that he made on December 20th, that he corrected with Freedman on December 25th by explicitly telling him that Sloane had never said anything about SA assault to him. So then for Freedman to go on and use that December 20th text hinting at SA as basically the only evidence of defamation they had on Sloane in their Amended Complaint filed on January 31st was misleading and grossly improper. Freedman certainly knew better, or should have known better, but he doesn't seem discomfitted by the ethical boundaries that most lawyers take seriously.

I wonder why it was important to them to include Sloane? Why wasn't suing NYT, Blake, and Ryan enough? It would still get their receipts and narrative out which was the purpose of the suit.