Blake Lively is in BIG TROUBLE! Justin Baldoni to Sue Her over Newly Discovered Evidence We EXPOSED wellcome to my daily motion channel NBNBB News Live – Fast, Fresh, and Fearless! 📰⚡ Get your daily dose of breaking news, trending updates, and insightful reports in bite-sized Shorts. From politics to pop culture, business to global affairs—we bring you the latest stories in under 60 seconds! Stay informed, stay ahead. Subscribe now for real-time updates!"
Let me know if you want any modifications! 🚀
Let me know if you want any modifications! 🚀
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00But from the beginning, Justin was so adamant about having them included because they were the ones who really made the book as successful as it was.
00:08It was important, in his opinion, to include in the movie the things that the readers love.
00:13They even held a contest and brought in some of their fans to read the script.
00:17The cast was very open and receptive to what the readers had to say.
00:21I know for sure that their feedback actually ended up altering some aspects of the script and for the good.
00:28I thought that was just brilliant.
00:30I mean, who better to comment on the script and what should be in the movie than the readers themselves, the ones who were there from the very start.
00:37Hello, friend. It's Katie. Welcome back to my channel.
00:40So, a few of you were skeptical yesterday as to whether I had actually found the lawsuit tied to the mysterious subpoena.
00:48But as it turns out, I was correct because not only was it that lawsuit, Blake Lively's lawyers have confirmed it was the one.
00:55Brian Frereidman has even gone on record stating he had no knowledge of the lawsuit.
01:00Now, there is an entire new legal battle waiting to be fought in court.
01:05Brian Frereidman has already opined that invoking the use of the lawsuit, which revealed in our research yesterday, may be a misusing of the legal process and system.
01:15This may lead to severe trouble for Blake Lively.
01:18The lawsuit itself was pending in New York's Supreme Court Civil Division.
01:22It was from a firm owned by Blake Lively, which is called Van Zandt Incorporated.
01:27Van Zandt Inc. was originally registered in Delaware by Eric Rothschild, and the firm has connections to Blake Lively, presently Blake Reynolds.
01:35Throughout time, this firm has experienced various changes.
01:39There's been a branch in California, and she also launched one in New York back in 2019.
01:44According to documentation we've pulled from various Secretary of State databases, this company has operated under several different addresses.
01:52The address referenced in the lawsuit filed against the anonymous Jane Doe and where the subpoena was issued is tied to records from the California Secretary of State.
02:02Now, whereas it might look like Van Zandt Inc. in California is still operating, it's actually forfeited according to the California Tax Board.
02:11This means the company can't legally do business in California unless it reinstates its good standing.
02:18I checked with the California Tax Board to verify its status, and sure enough, it's still forfeited.
02:23I even got a letter informing me that Van Zandt Inc. is not presently in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.
02:30When a company is not in good standing, it usually is because they have money that they owe, and they're not allowed to do business in the state of California.
02:39This company itself has many various branches, and its Delaware incarnation hasn't paid its records update in years.
02:46To me, it is somewhat like what a lot of people would term as a shell company.
02:51It doesn't really perform an actual purpose, it just sort of exists.
02:55And what's more, this firm is not directly related to Wayfair, Justin Baldoni, Jen A.L., or Stephanie Jones.
03:02So, in my view, the reason this company was utilized was just to keep Blake Lively's name out of the lawsuit.
03:09She didn't bring it in her own name.
03:11It was brought through this shell company, essentially concealing her identity.
03:15And when you're utilizing the legal system to conceal who you are, when bringing a case against Anonymous John or Jane Doe, that enables you to issue subpoenas without anyone ever being alerted.
03:27That's just what occurred here.
03:29Blake was permitted to serve a subpoena on Stephanie Jones.
03:32And due to the way the case was filed, nobody else involved needed to be notified.
03:37So, neither Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studio, nor Jen A.L. were informed that their private data was going to be revealed.
03:45Now, legally speaking, anyone can make a motion to quash a subpoena if they have a good reason for it.
03:51But in this situation, Wayfarer Jen and Justin were never afforded the opportunity to do so.
03:57Some may say, well, they would have gotten the information anyway.
04:01But in all honesty, that's really not the point.
04:04The actual point is, they didn't have the information.
04:06Instead, a spurious lawsuit was employed to draw it out of Stephanie, so she could avoid her confidentiality contract with Wayfarer.
04:14According to what several attorneys have theorized in hindsight, it appears that this entire thing was done to conceal Stephanie's improper disclosure to Blake back in August 2024.
04:24Now, what has really been written about the case up to now?
04:29The other day, the Daily Mail broke a story about the subpoena and even defended Stephanie Jones by writing about it.
04:36They said they had seen a copy, reported that it was filed in a New York court, and observed that it wasn't stamped.
04:42But this is the kicker.
04:43They didn't reveal what the lawsuit was about, and they didn't say who the parties were.
04:48Did they know?
04:48Sure.
04:49But they chose to leave that detail out, and Deadline did too.
04:53Why?
04:53Because if the public knew that this lawsuit was brought by a shell company, Van Zandt Incorporated, and possibly was being utilized to secretly gather information, dodging the legal subpoena process, and not giving the targets an opportunity to defend themselves, it would reflect very badly on Blake.
05:10If individuals got to read the entire lawsuit, they'd find that it had nothing to do with sexual harassment.
05:17They'd also find that Stephanie Jones, the individual who wasn't even a party to the suit, was served with a subpoena just four days after the suit was filed.
05:26And while the filing stated they didn't know who was involved, they somehow knew precisely who to subpoena, which, let's be real, doesn't look good.
05:34Now people are referring to this entire thing as being really shady.
05:38They're playing dumb that I discovered the lawsuit was news to them, stealing my work, and only now caring about the case because I exposed it.
05:46Daily Mail, can I get some credit, please?
05:48Anyway, back to it.
05:49From their version, what started this whole war with Justin Baldoni is Blake Lively's sneaky move-in-law that triggered it all, before he even realized it was going down.
05:59They stated she surreptitiously filed this on-the-down-low case, months ahead of her courtroom fight, with her It Ends With Us co-star really getting serious.
06:09But don't kid ourselves, this investigation they're conducting?
06:13That news ended up on their desk because I broke the story.
06:16Now, the Daily Mail is supposedly exposing it all.
06:19Lawyers are accusing the lawsuit of being a sham, with one commenting that it appears super shady.
06:25But what's most noteworthy in this case is that the attorney for Baldoni has said that this appears to be a deliberate end-run around the legal system,
06:34meant to get these documents secretly without informing anyone.
06:38That, in his view, would be an abuse of process, and they intend to pursue every legal remedy available in retaliation.
06:45He had no notion this lawsuit even existed until Daily Mail contacted him for comment.
06:52He thought something fishy may have transpired, but didn't know which lawsuit they employed.
06:57And even though the process of discovery is ongoing, let me just put it this way.
07:02People don't always comply with discovery.
07:04A deadline doesn't assure that documents will be turned over.
07:08In these kinds of situations, the parties will object, and then you have to go through the ritual of bringing them into compliance with document production.
07:16It's annoying.
07:17So, even though Blake and Stephanie have admitted the subpoena, they might still object to producing it.
07:22And that is the point.
07:24These discovery acrobatics are tiring.
07:26Just because discovery is about to wrap up, doesn't mean Wayfarer, Baldoni, or Frariedman have received the information yet.
07:34Frariedman explained that he didn't have any idea about the lawsuit until Daily Mail requested a statement from him.
07:40And that's kind of odd, isn't it?
07:42Because if Daily Mail did have the subpoena, they could have easily informed him what case it was connected to.
07:48Now they're discussing the same lawsuit I wrote about yesterday.
07:52Sued by Blake Lively's lawyer, Samantha Katze, within four days of the filing, the Daily Mail reported that Katze issued a subpoena to Jones Works.
08:02They also admitted to seeing the subpoena themselves.
08:05Jones did not contest it and wound up producing a big cache of private messages between Jen Abel and an erstwhile staffer at her PR firm.
08:14She continued working with Baldoni and crisis PR specialist Melissa Nathan.
08:19The messages were retrieved from a company-issued cell phone of Abel after she informed Jones that she was quitting Jones' work.
08:27The report also states that Katze dismissed the lawsuit on December 19th, which I already reminded you of yesterday.
08:34And then, on the following day, she filed the California Civil Rights Department complaint.
08:39Again, not news to you if you've been keeping up.
08:41I already did that.
08:43And yes, Van Zandt was founded in Delaware, which, again, I already mentioned.
08:47Now, it seems like people are investigating further.
08:50People over at the Team Justin Baldoni subreddit discovered that the only actual thing Van Zandt appears to have done was bring in some furniture to Blake's rural resident.
09:01And the individual included on the attention to field was Molly Caro, who is a PR representative and also happened to be included as a producer on a Taylor Swift music video that was directed by, yes, Blake Lively.
09:14Now, legal analysis, Ron Zambrano, who has been a guest on Popcorn Planet, referred to it as a sham suit filed for an ulterior purpose and stated it even might be sanctionable because it squanders judicial resources.
09:29He opines the whole thing was rigged to operate in a hush-hush manner.
09:33In his own words, super shady.
09:35Yet another lawyer, Peter Gleason, he's represented loads of Hollywood people, said this appears to be a rude, something designed merely to give the appearance of a legitimate discovery process, when in fact it was designed for a whole other legal case.
09:50And if that's what happened, he says, then sure enough, that's absolutely inappropriate.
09:54Other people are also noting how unusual it is that a firm would sue its own employees or representatives, particularly when they don't even appear to know who those individuals are.
10:06Over at Ask Two Lawyers, Keith also weighed in and said,
10:10It's extremely unusual to sue only Doe defendants.
10:13Doesn't make sense to me.
10:15Appears more like a fig leaf.
10:16Essentially, it was just in there for appearances.
10:19Of course, Blake Lively's camp is fighting back.
10:22Ezra Hudson, one of her lawyers, contends there's nothing out of the ordinary about Doe Lawsuit.
10:27They're really a completely legitimate legal vehicle to reveal the identities of individuals behind wrongful acts.
10:34In his view, the lawsuit uncovered the fact that the Wayfair crew had an organized plan, on their own terms, using their own language, to bring Blake down.
10:44He says the other side's outrage has nothing to do with legal ethics or law.
10:48It's all because they got caught doing something they thought would never be traced back to them.
10:53And then, there's L.A. lawyer Lincoln Bandlow, who chimes in that suing unidentified defendants isn't unusual if you don't yet know what you're up against.
11:03Like in defamation cases online, for instance, he says all Blake did was use Van Zand to avoid drawing media attention.
11:11If you're trying to stay low-key, it makes sense.
11:13According to him, there's absolutely nothing weird about using that kind of legal path to find out who's targeting you.
11:21I just wanted to say something.
11:22If you have never been part of a civil lawsuit, you might not even understand how unaffordable this process is to most individuals.
11:30Ordinary people like you or me do not possess the means to sue anonymous individuals.
11:35Why? Because it costs an enormous amount of money.
11:38Who is going to pay $30,000, $50,000, or, in this instance, possibly millions of dollars, on a lawsuit that doesn't even identify a particular defendant?
11:48Nobody would, unless they had essentially unlimited fun and a very particular objective in mind.
11:54This legal maneuver, the Doe defendant lawsuit, is a tactic being employed by someone very rich.
12:00Not because she didn't know who she was coming after, but because she did.
12:04If Blake Lively didn't know who was on the other end, how exactly did she get to subpoena Stephanie Jones four days after the lawsuit was initiated?
12:12You don't just happen to stumble upon that.
12:15You'd already need to know who had the information you were seeking.
12:18So, let's cut through the gaslighting.
12:20This isn't a normal legal move.
12:22It's not ethical, and it might not even be lawful.
12:25Lawsuits like this, designed to access information that would normally be protected, can be considered an abuse of process.
12:32Baldoni's legal team is already signaling that they may pursue that specific claim, and rightfully so.
12:39Here's why this is important.
12:40Legally, a claim of abuse of process can make Baldoni and Wayfarer's case stronger, particularly if they are attempting to prove malice.
12:48They might contend that the whole lawsuit was brought in bad faith, not to pursue an actual legal claim, but merely to dig up information by the back door.
12:58If the information gathered had no actual relevance to the real claims in the suit, and Blake Lively's representatives knew precisely what they were looking for, that's compelling evidence of an abuse of process.
13:10Think about it. The lawsuit had no actual defendant, and yet she went straight to Stephanie Jones with a subpoena.
13:17That alone shows intent, and because she didn't formally sue anyone, none of the real party, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, or Jen Abel, were notified.
13:27That's a major issue because under normal legal proceedings, they would have had a chance to contest the subpoena.
13:33So, how does Baldoni's team pursue this?
13:36In order to win their abuse of process claim, they'll have to establish that this dirty legal trick had concrete harm, such as damage to their reputation, financial damages, or being defamed by allegations based on illegally discovered information.
13:50They can also contend that this entire business was perpetrated in order to retroactively sanction Stephanie Jones' wrongful release of confidential information back in August, before there ever was a subpoena.
14:04And in law, Stephanie was only able to release that type of information upon a valid subpoena.
14:10Let's get this in a nutshell.
14:11If Stephanie Jones turned over confidential communication prior to obtaining a subpoena back in August, and the subpoena itself wasn't issued until October, then it's rather apparent what they're doing now.
14:24They're attempting to retroactively cure that violation of the privacy.
14:28In essence, they're using this subsequent subpoena to cover up that prior sharing of confidential information as having been valid all along.
14:36That's a gigantic legal problem.
14:39Why?
14:39Because it implies that Blake Lively's lawyers might have intentionally interfered with Stephanie's contract with Wayfair, attempting to assist Stephanie in avoiding a possible breach of contract lawsuit by backtracking and covering their bases with this conveniently timed lawsuit and subpoena.
14:57And that's where the intentional tort of abuse of process comes in.
15:01Abuse of process occurs when a person utilizes the legal process in ill will, i.e., not in pursuit of justice, but in pursuit of some illicit aim, having nothing to do with the claim for which process is sought.
15:14Furthermore, the statute also provides that even non-litigant individuals who are not technically parties to the action can be liable for abuse of process.
15:24If they actively join in the legal gamesmanship that causes injury, that would make Stephanie Jones, while not technically being named as a party to the action, possibly liable since she was an active participant.
15:37And if this was all staged as a strategy on the part of Blake and her lawyers, it might put Blake Lively herself, Stephanie Jones, and even her lawyers in real jeopardy.
15:47What are they?
15:48Disqualification of attorney.
15:50Wayfair or Baldoni's legal team could file a motion to have Blake's attorneys disqualified from the case.
15:56The argument?
15:57That they participated in unethical behavior by helping orchestrate this abuse of process.
16:02That's a major accusation.
16:04One that could lead to attorney misconduct charges sanctioned.
16:08Financial penalty.
16:09Damage to their legal credibility.
16:11Ethical misconduct.
16:12Lawyers are expected high standards of ethical behavior.
16:16Were they to utilize legal processes, such as subpoenas, in order to skirt discovery rule, or to avoid informing opposing parties, as they reputedly did so here, that would be considered an open-and-shut violation of professional conduct.
16:30Some examples include filing frivolous lawsuits, subpoena abuse to harass or intimidate abuse of the discovery process, in order to acquire information they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to withholding notice, in order to avoid challenges in court effect on malice argument.
16:47All of this underpins Baldoni and Wayfair's malice argument.
16:51If Blake's crew deliberately skirted the rules to obtain harmful information, it's no longer a matter of ethics.
16:58It's a weaponized legal strategy, and that can definitely influence a jury.
17:03At the end of the day, Blake's side could perhaps counter with something like,
17:07You're just angry that you got caught, but that's a diversion.
17:10That's basically flipping the script and saying,
17:13Yes, we did something illicit, but your indignation just shows we succeeded.
17:18That kind of argument only does more to show that they're not playing by the rule, and that makes the abuse of process case all the stronger.
17:25What exactly were they caught doing?
17:27They were discussing a plan, albeit hypothetical, one that might be employed online for the purpose of fending off false accusations of sexual harassment and being a sexual predator.
17:39The important thing here?
17:40That plan was never adopted by anyone.
17:43Blake Lively provided the New York Times with a portion of an actual text message, but this is the cat.
17:49She left out important context.
17:51When you see the whole conversation, it does not give evidence for what she is arguing.
17:56Sure, there were not so pleasant things that were said in those texts.
18:00I mean, want to feel like I can bury her is not a pleasant thing to say, but let's get real here.
18:06That may have been emotion raw, anger, frustration, not an attack on word.
18:11If I was stuck dealing with Blake Lively methods, I'd be furious too.
18:15You can't pick out one sentence and label it as proof.
18:18You need to examine the whole conversation to see intent.
18:21But Blake didn't do that, because if she actually had proof of this plan being carried out, it would have been at the forefront of her complaint.
18:28And let's not forget, she's smeared content creators of colluding with Balan when they've very much gone on the record elsewhere as saying otherwise.
18:37People came on the record to the New York Times in order to state otherwise.
18:41Now she's slinging mud about Balan's team leaking this out.
18:45People even accused me of receiving the leaks from Friedman.
18:48That simply is not happening.
18:50I stumbled across this myself.
18:52Blake simply doesn't want to accept that there are individuals online who don't like her, and Balan had nothing to do with it.
18:59Is it right that people don't like her?
19:01I don't know.
19:02Is it wrong that some people were upset during the promo period?
19:06I don't think so.
19:07Did she talk about domestic violence in interviews?
19:10A little, but nowhere near as much as people anticipated.
19:14What most of all outraged people was the constant self-promoting and insisting that this isn't a film about domestic violence.
19:22Look, it stinks when the tide turns against you.
19:24It stinks to get canceled.
19:26But nothing on the internet ever lasts forever.
19:28Everybody gets an opportunity to rebrand and recover.
19:32What Blake's doing now, though, it's not work.
19:34It's making things worse because we're getting to see the kind of tactics she's employing to obtain information she legally shouldn't be able to access.
19:43And it makes you wonder, how often is this playbook being employed?
19:47Because if you're just some ordinary person going up against the likes of someone like Blake Lively, with her sort of resources and legal muscle, she might be able to drown you in lawyers' bills.
19:58She might be able to get you to acquiesce to her whim.
20:01If you push back, she might file a frivolous suit, fabricate claim, and embarrass you in public.
20:06So, what do you do?
20:08You foal.
20:08You acquiesce.
20:09You behave in her interest, not your own.
20:12That's my take.
20:13There are a lot of people online really trying to figure this out.
20:16But when one party refuses to be open, people are going to do it for themselves.
20:20And now, the Daily Mail is attempting to take credit for work I did, attempting to cover up their own cover-up of Stephanie Jones.
20:28Remember, a lot of these media outlets are being fed by PRT.
20:32They're representing whoever gives them permission, not the truth.
20:36So let me ask you, do you think they'll file new claims with their lawsuit?
20:40Can Blake's lawyers actually get disqualified?
20:43Can someone on Balan's behalf file a complaint with the bar?
20:46Can these lawyers face sanctions or even be disbarred?
20:50Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
20:52If you enjoyed this video, give it a thumbs up.
20:54Don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss a video.
20:58Thanks so much for watching.
21:00Bye guys.