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][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]

Lively doesn't even need the subpoena to have lawfully obtained the texts. Even if Jones just gave then to her, Lively would not have committed or abetted a fraud to get them.

Jones might have violated contract, I don't know. [/quote]

The fraud is misrepresenting to the court (Liman’s court) how they were obtained.[/quote]

Only if the subpoena wasn't legal, which it looks like it was. What is the misrepresentation?

I agree it's kind of a dirty lawyer trick, but it doesn't look like fraud to me.

If you're referring to Jones saying the subpoena was court-ordered when it may not have been, I don't care about that case. I think Jones has done several things for which she might get in trouble or at least lose her case, but I am not really invested in the Jones case either way.[/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