Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here’s a nice summary courtesy of Reddit

1.	⁠In the example provided, lively herself admits in her May 16th email to wayfarer that the subpoena from Jones was INCOMPLETE. There were missing attachments and missing metadata. Hence, why freedman needs to go to the source to obtain EVERYTHING that was included
2.	⁠They also want to cross reference subpoenas. Why is jones handing over a subpoena that is missing attachments? It’s not fair that wayfarer only gets to look at a peak and not the entire thing.
3.	⁠Wayfarers lawyers are also asking for additional documents outside of what was provided in this May 16 email. Why you ask? Well VANZAN issued a subpoena for breach of contract, despite Abel and Jonesworks never having a contract with VANZAN, and not being named in the active case of DOES 1-10. So, what does VANZAN know that Abel and Jones don’t, since they’ve never been in contact with one another[/quote]

Just pointing out that the breach of contract VanZan could have been looking at is a potential breach of contract by Wayfarer against Lively (perhaps there is some provision in her contract for the movie that might have been breached by a smear campaign against her as the move was coming out). It still makes the VanZan lawsuit a bit sketchy, unless VanZan was the entity who contracted with Wayfarer (actors generally use loan out companies for their film contracts for tax reasons, but I don't think VanZan was Lively's loan out company, I guess I could be wrong), but there's no reason to think the VanZan lawsuit was intended to investigate the contract between Abel and Jones -- obviously it wasn't, since Lively wasn't a party to that. The VanZan lawsuit was intended to obtain evidence of wrongdoing by Wayfarere/Baldoni/Abel/TAG against Lively, and to lead to to the lawsuit Lively ultimately filed. It was never about the employment issues between Abel and Jones, it just sought to benefit from those issues by obtaining the information that Jones had pulled from Abel's phone as a result of those issues.[/quote]

blakel is Blake's company that signed the loanout agreement. They would have been an appropriate entity to seek the breach of contract action.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics