Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Why are we taking the troll asking for updates seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we taking the troll asking for updates seriously?

Adding that Arlington mom falls for it every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we taking the troll asking for updates seriously?

Adding that Arlington mom falls for it every time.

That response wasn’t me.

But I will make a prediction in the legal filings: Bryan Freedman will get sanctioned more than once for his conduct in this case before this is over. He should be trying to settle merely to avoid that inevitability at this point lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again who posted about Blake’s IMDb and the movie announcement from five years ago that has never been made. Besides this new movie that just got announced and the one announced from 5 years ago, there are 2 other movies in development or prereproduction. You can’t find any information on them.

So are those movies just not being made and we think this one is? Which one will get made first? I’m betting none.

For the record, Blake turns 38 on Tuesday. My theory is that the last babe was IVF with gender selection timed right after she hosted the Met Gala, and if they have any more embryos, they might go for one more sympathy baby in 2026 so she can be pregnant for the trial if there is one.

But who knows maybe she will make all 4 movies and launch a clothing line.

Fair point about the films, but the fertility spec is gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again who posted about Blake’s IMDb and the movie announcement from five years ago that has never been made. Besides this new movie that just got announced and the one announced from 5 years ago, there are 2 other movies in development or prereproduction. You can’t find any information on them.

So are those movies just not being made and we think this one is? Which one will get made first? I’m betting none.

For the record, Blake turns 38 on Tuesday. My theory is that the last babe was IVF with gender selection timed right after she hosted the Met Gala, and if they have any more embryos, they might go for one more sympathy baby in 2026 so she can be pregnant for the trial if there is one.

But who knows maybe she will make all 4 movies and launch a clothing line.

Fair point about the films, but the fertility spec is gross.

Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

Just now realizing the full letter is available from Without a Crystal Ball’s insta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

This one at least seems real. Doubt anyone in the fandom could fake a letter on Proskauer letterhead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

This one at least seems real. Doubt anyone in the fandom could fake a letter on Proskauer letterhead.

I actually think most, if not all of I, is real. This is the cc who brought Van Zan case to light and JV was her source for that (DM had a copy of the subpoena from either Jones or Lively). But agree, this letter would be near impossible to fake.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, the letter is addressed to Geragos, so that's what he was doing for JV, trying to sue (it seems like, since the letter reminds him his contract calls for arbitration) DM for retaliation after allegedly forcing him to commit perjury in his first declaration. And in this new declaration he says that while the first statement was technically true, it omitted context.

It kind of feels like Freedman got to him, via Geragos, and tried to get him to flip and renounce the first declaration. But then the Lively and Sloane side got him to flip back, switch attorneys, and support his first declaration and even make a stronger one in support of Sloane. It was obvious how both Lively and Sloane immediately pounced on it and it just happened to drop the day Wayfarer was supposed to respond to Liman's request. But he does seem consistent in his claim that he made it clear Sloane didn't say SA, which is a problem for Freedman. It's all so messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

Pro-Baldoni supporters need to stop believing anything will work out for them legally and realize that Liman is corrupt.

Similarly, Pro-Lively supporters need to stop believing anything will work out for them when it comes to actual evidence and that there is no "smoking gun" to be found. JV was just a mentally unstable red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the JV saga. Someone leaked the letter reply from the Daily Mail to his then lawyers about his termination. As I suspected in the old thread, JV is an inveterate liar who has told many versions of the story about his texts. He also lied about sundry other things to his old employer and his lawyers.

https://x.com/Justice4BJS/status/1959245168764219895

Pro-Baldoni supporters need to stop believing anything will work out for them legally and realize that Liman is corrupt.

Similarly, Pro-Lively supporters need to stop believing anything will work out for them when it comes to actual evidence and that there is no "smoking gun" to be found. JV was just a mentally unstable red herring.

Exactly this minus Liman is corrupt. JV clearly told three different stories to three different sets of people and swore to each it was the full and complete truth. Who knows which is true, but he has zero value as a fact witness at this point. Actually surprised the Lively team is desperate enough to try to use him.

[Anonymous]

Btw, this is what I think happened. JV said whatever DM wanted him to say in an effort to keep his job. JV then said what he thought needed to be said to have an action against DM. After that fell through, JV said whatever Blake’s team wanted to get whatever they promised.

[Anonymous]

I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then.

An undated text from a confirmed liar is not a problem. Well, it may be if the text was manufactured recently, but for Lively/Jones.