Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am super out of the loop of the JV thing. So the pro-Livelier is claiming that Leslie Sloane never said that Justin Baldoni sexually assaulted that and that Bryan Freedman knew that she never said that, correct? And they're using this text as evidence? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf "I had many conversations with about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault." I will eat my hat if that's not the text you're referring to, but you have to be joking, right? This text does not prove that Bryan believed Leslie said nothing about SA, and then proceeded to lie about it. All he's saying is that Leslie never said anything about sexual assault to him. Right, but he can also believe that and also believe that Leslie was going around to DM reporters and saying Justin did SA Blake. I am super confused where the huge smoking gun against Bryan is. [/quote] Here is Wayfarer's motion in opposition to Sloane's request to attorney's fees. Don't you think that text, if authenticated, undercuts this argument in bold? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.392.0.pdf loane points to a declaration submitted by the Daily Mail reporter disavowing that Sloane had made such a statement, Mot. at 29 (citing Dkt. 286-1). The reporter, James Vituscka, had previously stated exactly the opposite. In the messages, Vituscka was explaining how, during the Summer of 2024, Sloane had been telling him that there were issues on set because “everybody hates Justin” but had not asserted, or even insinuated, that Baldoni had engaged in sexual misconduct towards Lively. Am. Compl. ¶ 193. Indeed, Sloane had specifically told him that it [the tensions on set] “ha[d] nothing to do with Blake[.]” Id. By contrast, after the publication of the Times article, Vituscka noted that “[Sloane is now] saying that Blake was sexually assaulted.” Id. Vituscka noted the sharp discrepancy in Sloane’s story and wondered aloud why she would not have said anything back then. Id. , Vituscka’s recent disavowal of his prior statements is not credible. Vituscka now claims that he “meant to say, ‘sexually harassed’” and was referring to the allegations in Lively’s CRD Complaint and “not in reference to any conversation I had with Leslie Sloane.” Dkt. 286-1, ¶¶ 3, 4. [b]Whatever meant to say, his statements were not ambiguous, his explanation does not make sense and at the time their Complaint was filed, the Wayfarer Parties had every right to rely on the statement – they were not required to have a crystal ball to predict that Vituscka would change his story. Therefore, the inclusion of Vituscka’s statement in the Amended Complaint was neither knowingly false nor a function of any failure of diligence on the part of the Wayfarer Parties. The reason for the claim’s failure was, instead, a failure to adequately plead the requisite state of fault. Id. at pp. 91, 93-94.[/b] [/quote] But, as a lawyer like Freedman, you can't receive a text after all of this, on December 25th, where Vituscka says Sloane NEVER said anything to him about SA (he doesn't say "in august she never said SA" he just says she never said anything about SA) and then use the earlier text as the entire basis of your defamation claim against Sloane. Without doing a single question of investigation (which Vituscka confirms Freedman didn't do). You can't possess materials like that which you know are misleading and then put them before the court claiming the truth of the assertion you know at a minimum is misleading, without doing a single second of investigation about it. Wrong-o. That's sanctionable imho. Freedman is surely getting sanctioned before all of this is over. All signs point to yes.[/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