Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Ah, the good old days, when Baldoni supporters thought getting a $40M settlement from Lively before those MTDs were decided would be too low! It feels so long ago but it was actually only last week lol. |
Anonymous
You’re mischaracterizing. WF has subpoenaed Blake’s communications with Taylor about iewu. They’re still relevant to the case and they will need to turn them over regardless of what happened with Venable. Blake’s entire motion asking for a protective order is just for PR to use Taylor’s name for clickbait b/c she already has a PO. |
Anonymous
Sarowitz is a billionaire with a big B. Sorowitz gives more than 40M to charity each year. It was never about the money. They’ll settle for destroying her in the court of public opinion instead. |
Anonymous
I do believe that's how this lawsuit started. |
Anonymous
I saw that, also! I admit that I generally like NAG as well, she has grown on me, but I don't think they "shared screens" and the Venable attorney showed Freedman the letter that way -- anyone knows you can just screenshot a Teams call, no lawyers is going to do that. NAG's other theory was just that Freedman basically lied and got nothing -- she did say that was one of the two big possibilities. She didn't understand why he'd give up on the subpoena, then, but someone else suggested that Freedman basically got what he wanted from Swift's statement that she had nothing to do with the film, which tended to suggest Lively had been lying about her involvement. And he also got what he wanted because Swift and Lively are estranged. The thing is, if Freedman's story was wrong and misinterpreted, there was really nothing for Freedman to get. Venable could have told him it was wrong, and then there's no point in deposing etc. If the part about Lively asking Swift to delete texts was true, that could explain why Freedman still really, really wants to get communications between Swift and Lively, even if they're not otherwise relevant to the case anymore. But man, did this dismissal ever throw a huge bomb into Freedman's plans if that's the case. Presumably he also would want to raise this issue later this month in Lively's deposition, I'd think, so this motion may be designed to try to take that off the table, as well. |
Anonymous
Right? If they hadn't done the smear, nobody would be talking about this anymore and Baldoni would be directing PacMan. Instead he's out here telling the judge that the wimmenz should be quiet about what the law means, and I'm sure he might get some pointed comments about that directed at him whenever he emerges. I know everyone is anticipating Lively's deposition, but can you imagine what Baldoni's is going to be like? Or Heath's? |
Anonymous
PP. Yeah, I was like - he would have had to fly there in person to look at the letter in that case because obviously they could screenshot. And if they proved the letter existed then it would be crazy for Freedman to not pursue the subpoena and get the actual document (a document like that getting in the wrong hands actually would give Lively a good reason to settle the case!) I don't see why Venable would play games and make shady deals instead of seeing their motion to quash through. Especially since their email indicates that Freedman was withdrawing the subpoena without prejudice, reserving the right to reinstate, which would mean they gave up this supposed information receiving basically nothing in return. |
Anonymous
If she hadn’t done the hit piece in the nyt no one would be talking about this anymore and people would possibly be buying Blake brown (though that’s a long shot). Instead she’s out here losing friends and doing pap walks with fake infants. If this was such a great week for Blake, why is it that literally no one congratulated her except for her D list sisterhood of the traveling pants costar Amber Tamblyn. It was crickets from everyone else in Hollywood. No one under 60 will go near her. |
Anonymous
Right? If the document actually existed, Freedman would be a fool to walk away after having only seen it and not being able to use it. I don't understand how that helps him. I don't want to fool myself into believing there's absolutely no "there" there. Maybe there was something there. I don't know how Liman would decide this one, tbh, as I don't think he wants to sensationalize the case but a PO *was* put in place for specifically this kind of issue and PP Baldoni supporter is probably right that if the docs involve IEWU they may have some relevance. I'll be interested in how Freedman answers this one, for sure. |
Anonymous
| Something very fishy is going on with that IEWU sub. The main mod was extremely pro-Justin but decided to hand it over to someone who is pro-Blake but still apparently somewhat neutral. I'm beginning to think they bought the sub from her. |
Anonymous
Except there are multiple new mods and the most vocal one (the one responding to criticism in comments) is pro-JB. I think what actually happened is that sub is just exhausting to moderate and the previous mod has to bow out quickly so the new mods have not had time to organize (especially since there are at least two from different sides and the are actively recruiting more). Also this happened at a bad time, right after Justin's claims were dismissed, because there is a lot of discord right now with Lively people feeling emboldened by the decision and some Justin people grasping at conspiracy theories to explain. I think the mess is organic, to borrow a term. |
Anonymous
| I have seen speculation that the pro-Baldoni mod who left had been getting paid to post and didn’t want their identity uncovered, but I think that’s a conspiracy theory. |
Anonymous
The majority the last time I checked were all pro-BL, and the main mod themselves is pro-BL. And the only reason the pro-JB one is the most vocal is not because they have the most power, but because all the pro-BL mods are cowards, since they know they're going to have to deal with a large number of pro-JB posters. |
Anonymous
lol stop spreading your pro-BL propaganda. The rumor is that pro-BL people paid off a pro-JB poster. |
Anonymous
This is directly contradictory because you say they are all pro-BL but then say the pro-JB mod (who apparently doesn't exist) is vocal. Obviously there is a pro-JB mod because that person is being vocal in the comments. I think the issue is that some pro-JB people don't want the neutral sub to be neutral. They want it to be pro-JB while also claiming it's neutral because then they can say "look, even the neutral sub is pro-JB" as evidence of his support. But when pro-BL people, who exist, post there, the JB people aggressively downvote them, argue with them, make fun of them. The ruling on Justin's claims made the pro-BL group bolder and more willing to put up with those behaviors, so more of them are posting in the neutral sub because they have positive news to talk about. This then gets criticized as a "take over" by the pro-JB people, who are used to being able to bully pro-BL people out of the sub. But it's actually a normal result of a very favorable week for BL. There's just a real misunderstanding in the sub of what it means to be a neutral sub. It would be normal for a neutral sub's comments to vacillate between sides depending on what is happening in the case, and for supporters of the side that is "winning" at any given moment to be more active and vocal. When JB was doing much better than BL in the case, the sub was dominated by pro-JB posts and comments and BL people didn't say they were "taking over." They just accepted that's how it was and either risked posting there, knowing they'd get downvoted, or retreated to the pro-BL sub. Now the reverse is happening and the pro-JB people aren't even being downvoted or yelled at the way pro-BL people have been, and the JB people are claiming conspiracy. It's interesting. |