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 "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
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]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] This argument could also apply more to Blake and the Manatt firm who executed the subpoena. BF could subpoena records of their planning the subpoena and their communications with Vanzan and argue they perpetrated a fraud on the court so no privilege. Wouldn't that be fun![/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
