Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a lot more than damages at stake here. Even if Blake wins in court, Ryan Reynold’s squeaky clean image is gone. Their actions add up to something far worse than what they’ve accuse Baldoni of.

That wa gone after the truth started coming out and Ryan joked about it on snl. That's why they need some kind of legal win to say they at least have something they can fall back on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I’ve learned from all of this is that the legal profession needs to be much better monitored and regulated. Look at how much girardi got away with and for how long. These so-called prestigious lawyers and law firms are soooo shady. They violated wayfarer’s constitutional right to due process. They can try to minimize it but this is not a small thing and we should all be outraged, especially right now when our rights are under threat.

That's not really new TBH. Most all shady. Even Freedman. These are not good and moral people

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Freedman had not written that letter the other day if he would have written to the court today requesting leave to amend in light of the new information about the subpoena. I suppose he still can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

Ok sorry I think she turned 23, but still, not much better.

The company belongs to Ryan reynolds and Blake reynolds though they didn’t supposedly marry until 2012? What was going on with that’s two? Nothing good. A lot of sneakiness and deception.

Everyone said that little stint of sightings with Leo in 2011 was fake. Now it all looks so sordid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

Something’s not adding up there. Why would your first order of business when embarking on an affair be to establish a shell business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14618807/blake-lively-shady-legal-maneuver-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ends-us.html

Thank you! Appreciate the link.

I've posted criticisms of Freedman before but I'm going to criticize Lively's team here. This article covers the statements from Freedman and from Esra Hudson. I really want to know how they can claim that these are unknown Doe defendants, and yet they know they have contracts with them, and also had enough information to issue the subpoena? That's rather curious. The only way I guess in theory it could work is if they heard a "rumor" that "someone" knew Stephanie Jones was in possession of some sort of communications that someone who may have been under contract with Lively was doing "something" against Lively and they issued a very broad subpoena to Jones for any and all communications related to Lively. But then, the plaintiff here isn't Lively, it's Vanzan, which is owned by Lively and Reynolds, but is apparently some kind of import company, so it seems unlikely they could credibly claim that this company had any contracts that would be in any way related to Jonesworks, PR, Wayfarer, or IEWU that were being breached, IMO.

Now if turns out the subpoena directly asks for information related to Wayfarer, IEWU, Baldoni, etc then I definitely think they have a problem if they can identify that information in the subpoena but somehow can't identify them as defendants to this Vanzan lawsuit.

As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

I do agree this isn't going to affect the admissibility of the texts in the main lawsuit, and have no idea if Blake and Ryan were personally aware of these legal maneuvers or understood them, but it's still really problematic and skirting ethics if their team tried to push through a lawsuit using Doe defendants for the purpose of not giving notice to the parties that were intended to be the defendants (Wayfarer and co). I mean, what if Sarowitz took one of his shell companies and started a Doe lawsuit and tried to use that lawsuit to subpoena some of Lively's records without her knowing? Lively and her supporters would be crying foul too.

Respectfully, I think some of you commenting attorneys are pushing way to much legal theory on all of this, when the reality is that your common jury isn't going to fall for this legal mumbo jumbo. Jurists are everyday people, not a pool of top legal talent, that is deciding the claims of a case. The optics of this continue to look very bad for Blake's team. Very, very bad.

I know that you are trying to provide a 'neutral' approach to the facts and how they apply to your legal knowledge, but the fact remains that most people are going to see this case as it is. This fake subpoena (and I love the thought promoted above about the fact that their law firm may have illegally done this tactic without their knowledge. BS. If I'm paying you money to represent me, you mean I'm not going to know that you are filing a 'fake' subpoena. Blake and Ryan were integral actors in all of these early actions -- INTEGRAL. Lawyers are their agents. And Blake cannot claim that 'she was unaware that the subpoena was not real, that she's just that dumb and did not know.)

The legal nuances that several of you continue to hash over is for legal curiosity. Not one solid shred of evidence produced by the BL team that supports he harassed her -- no solid evidence yet! Everything that she has shared thus far to the public has been her opinion, unsupported by solid facts or evidence.

Enough already!

The jury won’t hear about this at all if the evidence is deemed admissible, because it’s not relevant to the lawsuit directly. I don’t disagree that it’s gross and optically bad for Blake… but the jury won’t hear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

They really deserve each other, they're both scumbags.

Ok sorry I think she turned 23, but still, not much better.

The company belongs to Ryan reynolds and Blake reynolds though they didn’t supposedly marry until 2012? What was going on with that’s two? Nothing good. A lot of sneakiness and deception.

Everyone said that little stint of sightings with Leo in 2011 was fake. Now it all looks so sordid.

There was a lot going on with that stint and a while bunch of other stuff with Blake around that era but we are not supposed to talk about it. But she's not and never has been some babe in the woods and has a Brook Shields like stage mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

Just go away. I don't want to hear anymore from the Lively supporters on here on the merits of Blake's claims. You all know that it was false all along, but road with it, for whatever reason.

Receipts!

once again "receipts!"

Enough of this bs. All manufactured and orchestrated by Blake and Ryan.

Disgusting!!!

I’m not a Blake supporter and I have no idea where you’re getting that from. I’m telling you that she will not personally get in legal trouble for this shady use of a lawsuit — at most her lawyer will — and that my guess is that the suit is more nuanced than the reporting here if a judge granted the subpoena/couldn’t immediately tell that they knew the identities of the offenders (my guess is they could plausibly not know the specific employees of the firm given the allegations, but that’s speculation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

Just go away. I don't want to hear anymore from the Lively supporters on here on the merits of Blake's claims. You all know that it was false all along, but road with it, for whatever reason.

Receipts!

once again "receipts!"

Enough of this bs. All manufactured and orchestrated by Blake and Ryan.

Disgusting!!!

I’m not a Blake supporter and I have no idea where you’re getting that from. I’m telling you that she will not personally get in legal trouble for this shady use of a lawsuit — at most her lawyer will — and that my guess is that the suit is more nuanced than the reporting here if a judge granted the subpoena/couldn’t immediately tell that they knew the identities of the offenders (my guess is they could plausibly not know the specific employees of the firm given the allegations, but that’s speculation).

You don’t need a judge to grant a subpoena. Her lawyers issued the shady subpoena on their own without oversight after filing the shady lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as folks in this thread seem to be clamoring for it, Blake and Ryan are not going to be personally in trouble if their lawyer filed a legal but unethical suit. If anyone would be in trouble, it would be the lawyer. Random lay people don't get in trouble if their lawyers file unethical suits. Come on. Also, if the suit is so apparently a sham on its face, the judge should have been able to figure that out... but apparently didn't? Suggesting it's a legal if shady tactic.

Just go away. I don't want to hear anymore from the Lively supporters on here on the merits of Blake's claims. You all know that it was false all along, but road with it, for whatever reason.

Receipts!

once again "receipts!"

Enough of this bs. All manufactured and orchestrated by Blake and Ryan.

Disgusting!!!

I’m not a Blake supporter and I have no idea where you’re getting that from. I’m telling you that she will not personally get in legal trouble for this shady use of a lawsuit — at most her lawyer will — and that my guess is that the suit is more nuanced than the reporting here if a judge granted the subpoena/couldn’t immediately tell that they knew the identities of the offenders (my guess is they could plausibly not know the specific employees of the firm given the allegations, but that’s speculation).

You don’t need a judge to grant a subpoena. Her lawyers issued the shady subpoena on their own without oversight after filing the shady lawsuit.

Left off “in NY”. You don’t need a judge to grant a subpoena in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake and Ryan created the company before they publicly confirmed they started dating?

Yes, named after Vancouver where he is from and Tarzana CA where she is from. Vanzan.

Blake turned 22 in August 2010. That means clearly he was cheating with a 21-year-old when he was 32 and married. I’m sorry, but that’s really disgusting. He loves to manipulate and control and 21-year-olds are a lot easier to do that with.

I feel bad for Scarlett Johansson, she does not need to be dragged into this. It clearly happened when they were married. He’s an absolute scumbag.

Something’s not adding up there. Why would your first order of business when embarking on an affair be to establish a shell business.

Delware is like a tax haven with lots of loopholes. For example the Delaware entity can import something (furniture art cars whatever) then the actual owner (Blake and ryan) can buy it for only 5 dollars more cutting out any extra taxes.

Since this was early in the affair they most likely were using it get each other stuff which is why the name represent them with both. Not necessarily them doing actually business together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

I don’t ever want to hear another word from team Blake about how shady Bryan Freedman is. This is giving fraud. And the icing on the cake is the straw lawsuit NEVER mentions sexual harassment. It’s all about breach of contract and reputation. I guess they came up with the SH part later when they were forum shopping and set their sights on CA 47.1.

Let's hear from the strong Lively supporter who all but called us Baldoni supporters out for not giving her credit last week. I am open to hearing her opinion about this fake subpoena, issued by none other than ...wait for it....Blake and Ryan, in a New York court nonetheless!

I haven’t been interested in the subpoena and haven’t weighed in on it before.

Does that make you less wrong about either the PO or the extension request which you said would clearly be granted but it wasn’t? Hint: No! But suddenly Team Baldoni lawyers are back in this thread I guess. Before you ask me to weigh in on an issue I never even commented on, maybe those two attorneys can come back to say they were wrong on the extension issue they very definitely did weigh in on, since they were both smug and wrong.

You ask for accountability from me on an issue I haven’t even had an opinion on, when you take zero accountability yourselves.

Ah, back to what you do best, gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Been gone from the thread for 36 hours. Last I posted, at least one other poster and I were saying something was off about the subpoena or it would have been produced. And there was more than one response that it was an impossibility that anything to do with the subpoena could possibly rise to the level of affecting the main case. What a difference a few days make.