Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 12:22     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the judge can have an evidentiary hearing on the sham litigation issue and include Twohey. Stays can be lifted by the Court on the basis of new evidence.


Did anyone else notice that Twohey hasnt published anything since January? Before that, it was a couple articles per month.

I wonder if she is on some kind of probation at the Times.


Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me if they generally bench a reporter while a defamation action is pending.

Though also Twohey has taken breaks previously to write a book, so it could also be that. Honestly impossible to know how this is viewed internally by the Times.
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 12:20     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


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.


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


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.
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 11:58     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Let’s talk about the crime fraud exception Freedman has alleged in the Jones case (and maybe will allege in the Lively case, since he said he’s preparing more motions). Apparently this is a big deal and is not used often. Any lawyers have thoughts?
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 11:54     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the judge can have an evidentiary hearing on the sham litigation issue and include Twohey. Stays can be lifted by the Court on the basis of new evidence.


Did anyone else notice that Twohey hasnt published anything since January? Before that, it was a couple articles per month.

I wonder if she is on some kind of probation at the Times.


Baldoni bots posting their deepest wishes here as though doing so will speak them into fruition.
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 11:53     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the judge can have an evidentiary hearing on the sham litigation issue and include Twohey. Stays can be lifted by the Court on the basis of new evidence.


Did anyone else notice that Twohey hasnt published anything since January? Before that, it was a couple articles per month.

I wonder if she is on some kind of probation at the Times.


Ohhhh that’s interesting.
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 11:13     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:I think the judge can have an evidentiary hearing on the sham litigation issue and include Twohey. Stays can be lifted by the Court on the basis of new evidence.


Did anyone else notice that Twohey hasnt published anything since January? Before that, it was a couple articles per month.

I wonder if she is on some kind of probation at the Times.
Anonymous
Post 05/11/2025 09:40     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Back to subpoena gate, any guesses to how long before we hear from the judge? I think it will be this week, but to request further info from the parties.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:29     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.



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!


This is one of those cases where the coverup truly might be worse than the crime. I think it also lends credibility to the theory that Blake NEVER expected it to go this far. She just wanted to smear JB in the NYT, claim her throne as the poster child for me too and the voice of the voiceless and ride off into the sunset. Boy did she miscalculate.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:15     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


+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.


I was one of those lol and now I think you are right!
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:12     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote: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.



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!
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:08     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


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.


It’s fraud on the Court to represent in pleadings they were obtained by proper subpoena when they were not. Not to mention Livelu is the one who filed a sham lawsuit.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:08     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


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.


The fraud is misrepresenting to the court (Liman’s court) how they were obtained.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:05     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote: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.


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.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 23:03     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
Anonymous wrote: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.


+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.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2025 22:50     Subject: Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
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.