Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

I'm the PP. Sorry, I'm not trawling through legalese and reading long copy and paste statements. You can try rewriting this in a normal way, or maybe someone else can attempt to explain what you mean.

I don't remember anything about Wallace's depo, but there was an MTC requesting his client list, list of contractors, and other docs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

Just bookmarking this to bring it back up after Gottlieb deposes him lol (PJ or not, that declaration was a giant crock of BS, so let's see how all that plays out for him).

Wallace was already deposed, keep up.

And you can tell how well it went by their non-use of it in their Second Amended Complaint. By hey, they do have that post of Blake on Insta where she mentions New York.

He wasn't actually. He was supposed to be but he was a no show. Was noted from something on the docket (last week?) that Lively was the only one deposed so far lolol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

Just bookmarking this to bring it back up after Gottlieb deposes him lol (PJ or not, that declaration was a giant crock of BS, so let's see how all that plays out for him).

Wallace was already deposed, keep up.

And you can tell how well it went by their non-use of it in their Second Amended Complaint. By hey, they do have that post of Blake on Insta where she mentions New York.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

Just bookmarking this to bring it back up after Gottlieb deposes him lol (PJ or not, that declaration was a giant crock of BS, so let's see how all that plays out for him).

Wallace was already deposed, keep up.

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

It’s also weird that the Blake supporter is thinking that we are shocked that in this David and Goliath case, Goliath is winning. Like did we really think Ryan Reynolds and his $400 million and hiring CIA was being set up to lose? We knew that they would have a ton of advantages. I don’t think any of us expected Baldoni to score a ton of wins, but that hardly means that Blake is going to actually prove SA or retaliation at the end of the day.

The court of public opinion is a different story and I don’t think Blake could be doing worse here. Somebody wake me when she gets cast in a movie that she isn’t self funding lol or even when the movie that she is self funding actually gets made. I won’t be holding my breath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

His activities are relevant whether he remains a defendant or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

Just bookmarking this to bring it back up after Gottlieb deposes him lol (PJ or not, that declaration was a giant crock of BS, so let's see how all that plays out for him).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

Are you pinning your hopes on him too? I have some bad news for you on him and personal jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Are you talking about Jed Wallace?

See, Blake supporter is all worked up and reaching for something. Meanwhile, she is pinning her hopes on a recovering addict who has already told three or four different stories. All with respect to claims that were dismissed months ago. Sad.

Dont forget Heath completely bungling his communications and getting into litigation with at least thre different insurance companies... it's actually amazing how much both Wayfarer and their counsel have messed up. I can even understand why they initially hired Freedman to do a lawsuit for PR reasons and it worked but why not change firms now? Freedman was supposed to be the one to "take on WME" but when given the chance didn't or couldn't amend his complaint and produce a contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a troll and not expecting anyone to explain this to me, but just putting it out there that I have no idea why this stuff looks bad for Freedman.

From what I understand from what a poster just posted a few comments ago JB did say that Sloane told him justin sexually assaulted Blake, then he came back and said I didn’t mean sexual assault I meant sexual harassment. Then he came back and said never mind. She never said anything. I read that in the complaint.

I’m sorry, but this guy sounds unhinged and it also definitely sounds like Sloane told him crappy stuff about Justin including allegations of SH at best, at worst SA but something spooked him and now he he is backtracking. How this bad for Freedman?

Again, not really expecting an answer but just saying that’s when I’m reading from somebody not going straight to the documents but just reading this thread.

It’s just the Blake bots trying to make things sound good for her/hope something happens to Freedman. Personally, I think this is going to blow up the other way, as JV has given tons of documents to The WF side and said all kinds of things. Using a recovering addict who has already been proven to be a liar is a desperation move. The text they think is so important isn’t even dated or shown in full.

Is the case going to get better for you guys from here or is the circle just going to keep constricting tighter and tighter?

* That August 7th email talking about the final plan accepted for Wallace to accomplish, which included encouraging tiktokers, instagrammers, Xers, and other CCers to run negative stories about Lively seemed horrible for you to me. I understand Wallace has sworn that he did none of this, but this appears less and less believable to me given that email and the fact that he made $1,000/day for 90 days, claims to have had no employees or anyone working for him, and only produced 130 pages of docs. If you're just "monitoring" social media and not manipulating it or getting employees/subcontractors to do same, you better have a ton of written reports you're distributing daily or weekly to show wtf you've been doing to earn that nut.

* Ferrer clearly appears to dislike Baldoni after all, despite everything Baldoni did to make this amicable. What did Baldoni do to deserve that I wonder? Does it have something to do with filming that scene?

* Not sure Vituscka will be a huge help to Lively, but he's definitely not going to be the hidden weapon Baldoni was hoping for when they had Freedman's buddy Geragos representing him. Why didn't Freedman even ask him a single question about what Vituscka meant about the SA text before he included it in Baldoni's complaint as the single piece of evidence relied on re Sloane's alleged defamation of Baldoni/WF? That's terrible lawyering.

*More witnesses still to come out of the woodwork during depositions seem unlikely to be good for Baldoni, including Slate and Sony execs. Meanwhile, was that meaningless excerpt from Lively's deposition the best Baldoni got from it?

I guess this could still turn around during depositions if Ferrer and Slate say their treatment wasn't that bad but their coloring of it was influenced a lot by Lively. But from where I'm at, things have been getting worse and worse for Baldoni/WF over the last 2 weeks, while Baldoni has been off on vacation again in Switzerland lol. Okay, Jason -- enjoy that while your world burns etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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. 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Not a troll and not expecting anyone to explain this to me, but just putting it out there that I have no idea why this stuff looks bad for Freedman.

From what I understand from what a poster just posted a few comments ago JB did say that Sloane told him justin sexually assaulted Blake, then he came back and said I didn’t mean sexual assault I meant sexual harassment. Then he came back and said never mind. She never said anything. I read that in the complaint.

I’m sorry, but this guy sounds unhinged and it also definitely sounds like Sloane told him crappy stuff about Justin including allegations of SH at best, at worst SA but something spooked him and now he he is backtracking. How this bad for Freedman?

Again, not really expecting an answer but just saying that’s when I’m reading from somebody not going straight to the documents but just reading this thread.

It’s just the Blake bots trying to make things sound good for her/hope something happens to Freedman. Personally, I think this is going to blow up the other way, as JV has given tons of documents to The WF side and said all kinds of things. Using a recovering addict who has already been proven to be a liar is a desperation move. The text they think is so important isn’t even dated or shown in full.