Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

Pp. I like NAG but this area is far outside her area of expertise from what I can tell. From 100 feet up, it looks like it could be simple (fair report blah blah) but it’s not. And as I said above, my bet is that activist types would love to get involved to help take down the NYT and potentially the legal standard in Sullivan.

Someone helped fund that crappy Palin case for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Well there are journalists and lawyers posting there. I’m PP and I’m not team Baldoni. I’m more interested in the NYT case that people are less focused on because it’s ultimately a much bigger case imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

If they did this, they are toast. But I don’t think they would tbh. They were super sloppy here (I’m still trying to figure out why - holiday staffing issues?? I really can’t figure it out) but that would be a huge line to cross. I think Blake’s lawyers knew how to give the NYT cover so that’s what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

When Ortega was posted here before, it was with a note that pro-Baldoni people wouldn’t like her comments. Whereas the links above were posted with the comment that it was “industry chatter” reflecting that many people disagreed with PP’s view that NYT would be dismissed. Definitely the same thing. 👌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

Again, I don't disagree that the NYTimes was highly unethical. There were huge red flags and not only did Megan Twohey fail to properly vet the story, but these types of bombshell reports tend to be focused on men with a history of allegations, not seemingly isolated incidents. I'm just pointing out that thread doesn't offer real legal analyses, it's more from a reporter pointing out why what Meghan did was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

When Ortega was posted here before, it was with a note that pro-Baldoni people wouldn’t like her comments. Whereas the links above were posted with the comment that it was “industry chatter” reflecting that many people disagreed with PP’s view that NYT would be dismissed. Definitely the same thing. 👌

I have definitely see Ortega's analyses covertly incorporated in comments before, just because they include way more details about Freedman than I would like to know. That or it's Kat herself (very likely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

Their response was just the right to sue letter, which she needed to file her lawsuit. They don't have to investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

When Ortega was posted here before, it was with a note that pro-Baldoni people wouldn’t like her comments. Whereas the links above were posted with the comment that it was “industry chatter” reflecting that many people disagreed with PP’s view that NYT would be dismissed. Definitely the same thing. 👌

I have definitely see Ortega's analyses covertly incorporated in comments before, just because they include way more details about Freedman than I would like to know. That or it's Kat herself (very likely).

I only recently discovered this poster and at first I thought it was interesting how she posted some of the inside baseball on Freedman's other cases, but after a while, oof. She went on a huge rant about Flaa evading a subpoena in Europe with zero evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

When Ortega was posted here before, it was with a note that pro-Baldoni people wouldn’t like her comments. Whereas the links above were posted with the comment that it was “industry chatter” reflecting that many people disagreed with PP’s view that NYT would be dismissed. Definitely the same thing. 👌

I have definitely see Ortega's analyses covertly incorporated in comments before, just because they include way more details about Freedman than I would like to know. That or it's Kat herself (very likely).

Dp. I posted the link to reddit. Who is Kat Ortega? I’m not following

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

Again, I don't disagree that the NYTimes was highly unethical. There were huge red flags and not only did Megan Twohey fail to properly vet the story, but these types of bombshell reports tend to be focused on men with a history of allegations, not seemingly isolated incidents. I'm just pointing out that thread doesn't offer real legal analyses, it's more from a reporter pointing out why what Meghan did was wrong.

Aha, yes I see. I’m curious if Baldoni etc would take help from any third parties on this case. There are people who would be happy to help fund this, I’m sure, because the ramifications are much larger than this case. I think freedman is a very good lawyer but I’ll admit I don’t think he’s up for this type of case on his own. He should bring in a serious Ps side defamation lawyer if he’s serious about this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

Again, I don't disagree that the NYTimes was highly unethical. There were huge red flags and not only did Megan Twohey fail to properly vet the story, but these types of bombshell reports tend to be focused on men with a history of allegations, not seemingly isolated incidents. I'm just pointing out that thread doesn't offer real legal analyses, it's more from a reporter pointing out why what Meghan did was wrong.

Aha, yes I see. I’m curious if Baldoni etc would take help from any third parties on this case. There are people who would be happy to help fund this, I’m sure, because the ramifications are much larger than this case. I think freedman is a very good lawyer but I’ll admit I don’t think he’s up for this type of case on his own. He should bring in a serious Ps side defamation lawyer if he’s serious about this case.

Not a lawyer, but it seems more likely that third parties would get involved at the appeals stage, particularly on 47.1. That law seems unconstitutional and will for sure be challenged. I’m less sure about the Sullivan angle but agree there are people who would want to challenge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

Again, I don't disagree that the NYTimes was highly unethical. There were huge red flags and not only did Megan Twohey fail to properly vet the story, but these types of bombshell reports tend to be focused on men with a history of allegations, not seemingly isolated incidents. I'm just pointing out that thread doesn't offer real legal analyses, it's more from a reporter pointing out why what Meghan did was wrong.

Aha, yes I see. I’m curious if Baldoni etc would take help from any third parties on this case. There are people who would be happy to help fund this, I’m sure, because the ramifications are much larger than this case. I think freedman is a very good lawyer but I’ll admit I don’t think he’s up for this type of case on his own. He should bring in a serious Ps side defamation lawyer if he’s serious about this case.

Not a lawyer, but it seems more likely that third parties would get involved at the appeals stage, particularly on 47.1. That law seems unconstitutional and will for sure be challenged. I’m less sure about the Sullivan angle but agree there are people who would want to challenge it.

For a case against the NYT, I think certain people might be interested from earlier stages of the case. Peter Thiel allegedly helped fund Sara Palin.

I don’t know much about 47.1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

When Ortega was posted here before, it was with a note that pro-Baldoni people wouldn’t like her comments. Whereas the links above were posted with the comment that it was “industry chatter” reflecting that many people disagreed with PP’s view that NYT would be dismissed. Definitely the same thing. 👌

I have definitely see Ortega's analyses covertly incorporated in comments before, just because they include way more details about Freedman than I would like to know. That or it's Kat herself (very likely).

Dp. I posted the link to reddit. Who is Kat Ortega? I’m not following

Just a tangent, nothing really to do with what you posted. Someone was saying that reddit link was pro-Baldoni so someone pointed out others have posted stuff from Kat Ortega, an extremely pro-Lively attorney who posts a lot on reddit.