Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE USE CHATGPT TO SUMMARIZE THIS WHOLE THREAD. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS IS 550+ PAGES LONG. WHAT HAPPENED??

[Anonymous]

Just read the most recent Daily Mail article

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did Jennifer Garner do to shade Blake?

It was so petty! Here’s the TikTok

https://www.tiktok.com/@crimetimekenny/video/7493534022413389102

When is that?

How is this petty......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did Jennifer Garner do to shade Blake?

It was so petty! Here’s the TikTok

https://www.tiktok.com/@crimetimekenny/video/7493534022413389102

When is that?

How is this petty......

Seriously? Garner used a stone statue of the evil Scarlet Witch as a stand in for Blake. Let’s not forget the long simmering rumors that Ben and Blake had an affair during their movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read the most recent Daily Mail article

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

I'm shocked that's what Stephanie Jones looks like.

[Anonymous]

I’m wandering if there is a money trail from a Blake/Ryan entity to Stephanie Jones. Seems like that’s where this is heading. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only lawyer in this thread who doesn't find the subpoena lawsuit that big of a deal? I am a little surprised they didn't just try to do a pre-litigation subpoena for records, but I guess if they did that, perhaps Wayfarer or Abel would have been told? I don't know how it works in NY.

Anyway, I don't get what people are worked up about. It's a little tricky but sometimes lawyers do tricky things to zealously advocate for their clients. This is not that big of a deal IMO.

It’s a high profile case. There’s a lot of eyeballs. Does not set a good example. They manipulated the law to take away someone’s due process. Apparently the only thing standing between any of us and having our constitutional rights violated is a “tricky” lawyer. Judge should throw the book at them imo.

Words like “tricky ” and “loopholes” are just fancy words for cheating, lying, and other scummy behavior. Apparently big law deserves to be extorted by Trump. He’s just being “tricky” back, right? They can just all be one big “tricky,” slimy, rotten, terrible family.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did Jennifer Garner do to shade Blake?

It was so petty! Here’s the TikTok

https://www.tiktok.com/@crimetimekenny/video/7493534022413389102

When is that?

How is this petty......

Seriously? Garner used a stone statue of the evil Scarlet Witch as a stand in for Blake. Let’s not forget the long simmering rumors that Ben and Blake had an affair during their movie.

It’s particularly relevant because Jen Garner doesn’t beef with anyone. She’s not a Kardashian. She’s like America’s favorite mom and for her to be throwing shade like this is significant. Especially since she is friends with Ryan - they work together a bunch. She’s basically saying she doesn’t give two sh!ts about his loser wife. Keep in mind this is when people were just bashing Blake last August for the baby bump interview and all the bad press that she insisted was a smear campaign when it’s actually just no one likes her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was using Leo to get back at Ryan.

Scarlett and Ryan were still together in August. They had just bought a house.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303731/Scarlett-Johansson-Ryan-Reynolds-add-portfolio-stunning-1-8-million-L-A-home.html

You are trying to tell me, Scarlett and Ryan’s marriage was going to survive him setting up a company with another woman and her taking his name? Come on you can’t be that naïve. The publicists were at work to make sure Ryan could disengage from Scarlet and they wanted to make it seem like she was dating Leo. We didn’t know then, but we now know, that Leo does this all the time. Leo is into dudes and all the model dating is fake.

He was happy to play the game with Blake. It helps his reputation as well. They weren’t really dating and she wasn’t getting back at Ryan. They were fully together.

Only Blake had created the company and it wasn't Reynolds yet. It was still Blake lively. She created it in September 2010. Scarlett obviously didn't know about the affair when they bought the house. They officially announced their break up in December.

But it was an ode to him, Vanzan is their hometown‘s combined. I’m sure you’d be totally fine if you found out some woman started a shell company with your husband adorably combining their hometown names - perfectly normal thing to do!

I’m sure by then Scarlet knew of the affair and the marriage was unraveling so she truly probably doesn’t care, it’s just a bad look though. He should have disentangled from her before pursuing things with Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only lawyer in this thread who doesn't find the subpoena lawsuit that big of a deal? I am a little surprised they didn't just try to do a pre-litigation subpoena for records, but I guess if they did that, perhaps Wayfarer or Abel would have been told? I don't know how it works in NY.

Anyway, I don't get what people are worked up about. It's a little tricky but sometimes lawyers do tricky things to zealously advocate for their clients. This is not that big of a deal IMO.

It’s a high profile case. There’s a lot of eyeballs. Does not set a good example. They manipulated the law to take away someone’s due process. Apparently the only thing standing between any of us and having our constitutional rights violated is a “tricky” lawyer. Judge should throw the book at them imo.

PP here and no -- due process has to do with criminal law. Being denied due process means that you are having your liberty taken away without a far trial, legal representation, the chance to defend yourself, etc. The Maryland man who was deported without a trial or any evidence presented that he was a criminal or posed a threat, was denied due process.

This is a civil case about contract and employment disputes. The worst that could happen is that one of these rich people has to give one of these other rich people money. It's not about due process.

[Anonymous]

If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

BFS.

Someone said that you would come in here with your spin on how clever Blake’s lawyers were to pull off this manuever.

I’m sure most of us agree that Blake Lively is scum. No, she’s lower than that.

I hope Justin takes this all the way to a jury. Everyone sees the lies; every seethes the lies.

BL used the PO to possibly hide Vanzan.

She is just truly disgusting and vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

BFS.

Someone said that you would come in here with your spin on how clever Blake’s lawyers were to pull off this manuever.

I’m sure most of us agree that Blake Lively is scum. No, she’s lower than that.

I hope Justin takes this all the way to a jury. Everyone sees the lies; every seethes the lies.

BL used the PO to possibly hide Vanzan.

She is just truly disgusting and vile.

I don't know who you think I am but you've gone around the bend, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you knew that texts existed showing your former employer had tried to destroy your reputation while you still worked for them, in order to discredit you do that people wouldn't believe you if you went public with allegations about potentially harassing behavior by your employer, you would also want your lawyer to find a legal way to obtain those texts without tipping off your former employer.

I think a lot of you are hypocrites. You don't like Blake, which I get, so everything her lawyers do is bad. But the reality is that her lawyers used a clever, and legal, strategy to get needed evidence they knew existed. They did their jobs correctly.

And how would you feel if your former employer did this to you?