Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

This. He can file a responsive pleading on the DC docket, where the court can actually do something with it. But that would require him to actually respond to the arguments in the motion to quash and motion to intervene. Also, if it's true that he and Venable are collaborating now (I increasingly do not think this is true) they could have together filed a pleading to moot the motion to quash. If Freedman's goal was to get this evidence of this alleged threat/spoiliation, that would actually work toward accomplishing that goal.

But what Freedman was actually after was a media cycle. Which was obvious to everyone including Liman, which is why he quite rapidly did away with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, some of you will find this funny.

People magazine posted about Blake’s launch of her body mist spray as part of her Blake Brown line, because of course they did as they work for her now.

But anyway, if you click on the comments, one of the first ones is something like, “instructions for using body mist:Spray on, wait for someone to compliment you on the smell, sue them for sexual harassment.”

LOL

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

This. He can file a responsive pleading on the DC docket, where the court can actually do something with it. But that would require him to actually respond to the arguments in the motion to quash and motion to intervene. Also, if it's true that he and Venable are collaborating now (I increasingly do not think this is true) they could have together filed a pleading to moot the motion to quash. If Freedman's goal was to get this evidence of this alleged threat/spoiliation, that would actually work toward accomplishing that goal.

But what Freedman was actually after was a media cycle. Which was obvious to everyone including Liman, which is why he quite rapidly did away with it.

“Arlington Mom” and “DC Mom” organically double teaming once again, amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad.

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb.

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.

lol. The side making the most noise will *always* be Freedman. Look at how swiftly (ha) he turned a simple notification of related proceedings letter into an accusation of extortion from counsel, so we’ll just wait on his response to award points on this one.

It’s also interesting that Lively lodged 11 Safe Harbor letters and this motion for sanctions only deals with five of them. Though according to the Garafalo letter PP pointed out, they all do deal with the inadequate complaint pleading issue.

FYI, people that Baldoni supporters hate on Reddit are suggesting that people at Freedman’s firm on this case are looking to jump ship from Freedman’s firm.

Source? And why? Because of the motion for sanctions? That’s fairly laughable if thats the reason

The rumor I read on reddit is that Freedman's associates are exhausted from being used as his meat shields and that Freedman was testing the patience of some other longstanding attorneys who help him out as well. You can find it yourself if you look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad.

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb.

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.

lol. The side making the most noise will *always* be Freedman. Look at how swiftly (ha) he turned a simple notification of related proceedings letter into an accusation of extortion from counsel, so we’ll just wait on his response to award points on this one.

It’s also interesting that Lively lodged 11 Safe Harbor letters and this motion for sanctions only deals with five of them. Though according to the Garafalo letter PP pointed out, they all do deal with the inadequate complaint pleading issue.

FYI, people that Baldoni supporters hate on Reddit are suggesting that people at Freedman’s firm on this case are looking to jump ship from Freedman’s firm.

Source? And why? Because of the motion for sanctions? That’s fairly laughable if thats the reason

The rumor I read on reddit is that Freedman's associates are exhausted from being used as his meat shields and that Freedman was testing the patience of some other longstanding attorneys who help him out as well. You can find it yourself if you look.

“The rumor you read on Reddit.” How are you not humiliated even writing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad.

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb.

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.

lol. The side making the most noise will *always* be Freedman. Look at how swiftly (ha) he turned a simple notification of related proceedings letter into an accusation of extortion from counsel, so we’ll just wait on his response to award points on this one.

It’s also interesting that Lively lodged 11 Safe Harbor letters and this motion for sanctions only deals with five of them. Though according to the Garafalo letter PP pointed out, they all do deal with the inadequate complaint pleading issue.

FYI, people that Baldoni supporters hate on Reddit are suggesting that people at Freedman’s firm on this case are looking to jump ship from Freedman’s firm.

Source? And why? Because of the motion for sanctions? That’s fairly laughable if thats the reason

The rumor I read on reddit is that Freedman's associates are exhausted from being used as his meat shields and that Freedman was testing the patience of some other longstanding attorneys who help him out as well. You can find it yourself if you look.

“The rumor you read on Reddit.” How are you not humiliated even writing that.

It can never be worse than the diatribes about Lively's wardrobe choices, but go off. I'm not bothered. After all, I'm tracking all three of you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad.

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb.

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.

lol. The side making the most noise will *always* be Freedman. Look at how swiftly (ha) he turned a simple notification of related proceedings letter into an accusation of extortion from counsel, so we’ll just wait on his response to award points on this one.

It’s also interesting that Lively lodged 11 Safe Harbor letters and this motion for sanctions only deals with five of them. Though according to the Garafalo letter PP pointed out, they all do deal with the inadequate complaint pleading issue.

FYI, people that Baldoni supporters hate on Reddit are suggesting that people at Freedman’s firm on this case are looking to jump ship from Freedman’s firm.

Source? And why? Because of the motion for sanctions? That’s fairly laughable if thats the reason

The rumor I read on reddit is that Freedman's associates are exhausted from being used as his meat shields and that Freedman was testing the patience of some other longstanding attorneys who help him out as well. You can find it yourself if you look.

Are you following Kat Ortega again, she's dumb and annoying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

This. He can file a responsive pleading on the DC docket, where the court can actually do something with it. But that would require him to actually respond to the arguments in the motion to quash and motion to intervene. Also, if it's true that he and Venable are collaborating now (I increasingly do not think this is true) they could have together filed a pleading to moot the motion to quash. If Freedman's goal was to get this evidence of this alleged threat/spoiliation, that would actually work toward accomplishing that goal.

But what Freedman was actually after was a media cycle. Which was obvious to everyone including Liman, which is why he quite rapidly did away with it.

“Arlington Mom” and “DC Mom” organically double teaming once again, amazing!

You do stuff like this whenever someone makes a point you don't like. They don't even have to be supporting Lively or attacking Baldoni. Merely pointing out "yeah so Freedman definitely submitted that letter to the court last week for PR reasons knowing the judge would strike it -- it was not a responsive pleading," which is an obvious point that anyone with even a little knowledge of how litigation works would know, immediately gets you labeled as some kind of Lively shill because it's not slavering devotion to JB or Freedman. It's so, so weird and it's the reason this thread has so little real conversation. This is an interesting case it would be fun to debate. But you have decided people are only allowed to have one opinion about anything and will regulate until that's all that's left.

It's soooooo boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

This. He can file a responsive pleading on the DC docket, where the court can actually do something with it. But that would require him to actually respond to the arguments in the motion to quash and motion to intervene. Also, if it's true that he and Venable are collaborating now (I increasingly do not think this is true) they could have together filed a pleading to moot the motion to quash. If Freedman's goal was to get this evidence of this alleged threat/spoiliation, that would actually work toward accomplishing that goal.

But what Freedman was actually after was a media cycle. Which was obvious to everyone including Liman, which is why he quite rapidly did away with it.

“Arlington Mom” and “DC Mom” organically double teaming once again, amazing!

You do stuff like this whenever someone makes a point you don't like. They don't even have to be supporting Lively or attacking Baldoni. Merely pointing out "yeah so Freedman definitely submitted that letter to the court last week for PR reasons knowing the judge would strike it -- it was not a responsive pleading," which is an obvious point that anyone with even a little knowledge of how litigation works would know, immediately gets you labeled as some kind of Lively shill because it's not slavering devotion to JB or Freedman. It's so, so weird and it's the reason this thread has so little real conversation. This is an interesting case it would be fun to debate. But you have decided people are only allowed to have one opinion about anything and will regulate until that's all that's left.

It's soooooo boring.

I agree with this, but hesitate to do so since it will just entice more of the same comments!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

Freedman *chose* to accuse Gottlieb of extortion in a letter to Liman that he signed and filed on the docket. That was an affirmative choice. Then he made another choice to sign an affidavit swearing to triple hearsay saying the same, and filing it on the docket. He wasn't forced to file these pleadings; he made an affirmative choice. That choice -- and the press furor he created through that choice, which is still being written about today perhaps as much or more as Lively's sanctions motions -- is what I'm talking about above.

My point was one he didn’t affirmatively file anything, he considered it a responsive pleading and it clearly would not have been filed absent the motion to quash.

The only thing Freedman was responding to on Liman's docket was an extremely simple and normal letter notifying the judge of related proceedings in another district. You don't file anything in response to such letters, generally -- I have seen many of them and in zero out of the dozens I've seen has anyone ever filed a letter accusing opposing counsel of extortion, lol.

Freedman choosing to see this as a "responsive" pleading was all hubris combined with his desire to deflect attention from today's sanction motions which he knew full well were coming.

This. He can file a responsive pleading on the DC docket, where the court can actually do something with it. But that would require him to actually respond to the arguments in the motion to quash and motion to intervene. Also, if it's true that he and Venable are collaborating now (I increasingly do not think this is true) they could have together filed a pleading to moot the motion to quash. If Freedman's goal was to get this evidence of this alleged threat/spoiliation, that would actually work toward accomplishing that goal.

But what Freedman was actually after was a media cycle. Which was obvious to everyone including Liman, which is why he quite rapidly did away with it.

“Arlington Mom” and “DC Mom” organically double teaming once again, amazing!

You do stuff like this whenever someone makes a point you don't like. They don't even have to be supporting Lively or attacking Baldoni. Merely pointing out "yeah so Freedman definitely submitted that letter to the court last week for PR reasons knowing the judge would strike it -- it was not a responsive pleading," which is an obvious point that anyone with even a little knowledge of how litigation works would know, immediately gets you labeled as some kind of Lively shill because it's not slavering devotion to JB or Freedman. It's so, so weird and it's the reason this thread has so little real conversation. This is an interesting case it would be fun to debate. But you have decided people are only allowed to have one opinion about anything and will regulate until that's all that's left.

It's soooooo boring.

I agree with this, but hesitate to do so since it will just entice more of the same comments!

Of course you do. Two for two. And that is the true reason there is so little real conversation. The “dynamic” duo of pretend litigators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think part of the strategy here is to make a showy motion for sanctions against Freedman in part to beg the question: if the VanZan lawsuit was such a miscarriage of justice, why haven't they filed for sanctions against Lively and Manatt? By filing this motion, they can now respond to accusations of wrongdoing on VanZan with "so file for sanctions."

Maybe. It's complicated by the fact that it's a different court. IMO, they likely made misrepresentations in that court to get the subpoena, which ultimately formed the basis of the federal lawsuit, but not sure that gives Liman the right to sanction them for what was done in another court. But certainly, it's weird that Freedman brings Vanzan up in all of these sideways arguments (including crime-fraud to rebut a motion to compel) without really addressing it directly. At least, he could stop complaining that it hasn't been turned over, and file a motion to compel (unless he's being shifty and never even asked for it just so he could continue to complain that he never got it).

I don't think there will be a satisfactory conclusion to this for either side.

I think Freedman plays the PR game well and likes to have the last laugh. My theory is that he hasn’t moved for more serious action on vanzan yet because he’s known since April 23 that these sanctions from Lively’s team were coming and he’d only just found about vanzan. Now that the required wait time has passed and lively has formally filed her motion, I think we’ll be hearing from freedman on vanzan, and Taylor witness tampering for that matter, in short order. Lively should enjoy her moment of positive headlines because they won’t last long.

Yeah, true. I said earlier it feels like her lawyers are playing checkers. Their motions are very nice and proper, but they are losing the PR strategy really badly to Freedman, who doesn't care if he gets spanked by the judge once in a while or blows off deadlines. It's like Lisa Simpson going up against Bart.

And we know that Freedman is very patient. He’s been sitting on the Taylor lead since Valentine’s Day. When he finally goes for the jugular on vanzan, it’s going to be diabolical.

NP who hasn't chimed in in 100 pages + but...yes. I totally expect this. I'm a lawyer and generally bored to tears over these technicalities everyone is bickering about. But I do think Freedman will go foe the jugular with the VanZan and...diabolical is maybe the word? I would say savage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad.

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb.

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.

lol. The side making the most noise will *always* be Freedman. Look at how swiftly (ha) he turned a simple notification of related proceedings letter into an accusation of extortion from counsel, so we’ll just wait on his response to award points on this one.

It’s also interesting that Lively lodged 11 Safe Harbor letters and this motion for sanctions only deals with five of them. Though according to the Garafalo letter PP pointed out, they all do deal with the inadequate complaint pleading issue.

FYI, people that Baldoni supporters hate on Reddit are suggesting that people at Freedman’s firm on this case are looking to jump ship from Freedman’s firm.

Source? And why? Because of the motion for sanctions? That’s fairly laughable if thats the reason

The rumor I read on reddit is that Freedman's associates are exhausted from being used as his meat shields and that Freedman was testing the patience of some other longstanding attorneys who help him out as well. You can find it yourself if you look.

“The rumor you read on Reddit.” How are you not humiliated even writing that.

It can never be worse than the diatribes about Lively's wardrobe choices, but go off. I'm not bothered. After all, I'm tracking all three of you!

Sure.