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]It’s a crime fraud exception and the fraud argument is the stronger one.  Both Jones and Lively have represented to the Court that they properly obtained the texts via subpoena but that is untrue because the subpoena issued in sham litigation.  The litigation was a sham because VanZan pled a breach of contract claim, which isn’t amenable to Doe litigation because counterparties are known.  Furthermore Van Zan had no relationship, contractual or otherwise, with the Wayfarer defendants.

Jones also represented that the subpoena was Court ordered but no judge was ever assigned to the litigation.[/quote]

+1 and I saw someone either on Reddit or tik tok speculate that Blake’s team or Jones team knew all of this Vanzan legal action was coming and that’s why they had all those creators like Not Actually Golden muted. At first people were like Vanzan was like 3 weeks ago, why are they muting people now, but NOW it makes total sense.

BF is about to go scorched earth and they know it. This also means those rumors way back when that Blake’s team had added criminal attorneys to the team were also probably true, too.[/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