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]This Vanzan thing keeps getting worse and worse for Blake. It’s pretty clear following the motions from the past few days that Blake committed fraud through her company Vanzan. Blake may have SH privilege and litigation privilege but Vanzan does not and Vanzan could be liable for damages.

Vanzan misrepresented itself to the court claiming to have a contractual relationship with does 1-10 to get Jen Abel’s texts. Those texts went directly to Blake to use in her personal case, not the case Vanzan had supposedly requested the discovery for. This would be like Tesla issuing a subpoena and handing the discovery directly to Elon Musk for a personal vendetta. Highly illegal.

WF can sue Vanzan. And frankly, if the state wanted to it could prosecute criminally. Having a shell company isn’t illegal in and of itself, but using a shell company to commit fraud is.

Wouldn’t it be the most divine karma if Vanzan were held liable for any damages Blake won from WF? It was Vanzan’s fraud that opened them up to that suit so WF could sue and say Vanzan is liable for any damages they have to pay out to Blake. It would be a big fat nothing for her in the end, even if she wins.

LLC’s are supposed to protect the individual but WF can likely pierce that protection b/c of the way in which ths LLC was misused. Blake should’ve had more separation. Blake’s personal lawyers, not Vanzan’s lawyers, issued the subpoena. And the discovery went to Blake and not Vanzan. [/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