Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

"Self-own" is proper usage here, e.g., https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/self-own-era-politics-ocasio-cortez-gillette.html. But please continue to lecture me about language and the law!

I'm a lawyer. I also have admitted weaknesses in Lively legal positions in the past. For example, I have admitted weaknesses in the sanctions motions (filed more to support dismissal with prejudice than actually get sanctions); the early subpoenas (overbroad); some of the doc requests (overbroad); that Lively's retaliation claim is stronger to me than the SH claim (though it is improper to retaliate against someone for merely reporting perceived harassment); the VanZan subpoena (I don't know whether it's legally permissible or not but it seems shady); etc.

As I and others have noted here before, the difference between Lively and Baldoni supporters is that Lively supporters actually *do* admit when something bad happens. Unlike you, we have even said we'll switch sides if the facts really go that way, like if Gottlieb really threatened Taylor Swift with extortion. We have asked you all what would make you switch sides before and with a few exceptions where the facts coming out at trial would matter, you have all said that Lively is a terrible person and you would never take her side over Baldoni's. Would anything switch you to Lively's side at this point?

How typical for you to try to figure out who I am and call me names. When Baldoni fans spend hours looking into an issue its "sleuthing" and it's heroic, but if I spend 20 minutes tracking Baldoni's remaining claims its "pathological" and I'm a "deranged lunatic" (while at the same time you complain about my tone, that's rich). If you don't want me to insult you, then don't insult me. As far as my picking on Freedman specifically goes, he has done this to himself by making wild statements to the press at every opportunity. That's his MO and I think it's terrible lawyering to focus on that instead of the actual legal claims, as this week's order (and his ill-considered TMZ appearance) has shown.

I really cannot believe that less then a week after Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni's claims you are standing there lecturing me that "Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive." Lady, all but two of your dude's $400M claims are gone. Sit yourself down and take the loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following stroller gate? Blake and Ryan did a pap walk with an infant stroller meanwhile their youngest kid is 2.5. These people are so gross and attention hungry. Their PR stunts keep backfiring b/c they don’t know how to be anything besides fake.

Ha, I believe this. They seem to have put two shills who post night and day about nonsense on this thread (and from what I can tell they are shilling all over Reddit too and people notice). So what’s to stop them from a silly stroller pap walk too?

Honestly, I'm just glad you guys are alive, I was actually a little worried about you. I know it's been a tough week.

Not a tough week. Blake’s an idiot for bringing up the Taylor stuff again. It makes it even more clear that Taylor is completely done with her because if they’re besties, why can’t Blake ask Taylor what was told or given to freedman?! With these people, every accusation is an admission.

Up is down. Down is sideways. Bad weeks are good weeks. etc. etc. okay.

Gottlieb has known since late May that Venable didn't produce any documents to Freedman in exchange for him dropping the subpoena. Freedman's whole affirmative case is basically gone, and Swift is no longer relevant to anything, yet even after that happened, as late as this week after the dismissal, Freedman was still bugging Gottlieb for Swift documents. What's up with that? Of all the things to worry about this week, why is that high on his priority list lol?

This letter motion is aimed at calling Freedman's bluff and killing the Swift story on their own timeline instead of letting Freedman run it. If there was anytime to do it, it was probably this week. And I love that they bugged Freedman about it like 3 hours after the dismissal came down. Whatever Swift had, it's hardly relevant anymore, and if Freedman thinks it is, he will need to argue that now, on Gottlieb's timeline rather than on his own (while he's still struggling to figure out which two claims he's allowed to replead lol).

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.

I think it will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to this motion. The last time he tried to deal with this issue before Judge Liman, he refused to discuss the issue directly with Gottlieb or his people (as he continues to do here) and then tried to file something with the judge that accused Gottlieb of extortion, which the judge struck. If Freedman is starting to figure things out and learning that winning with the judge is as important as getting salacious facts out to the people, he might try filing whatever he's going to charge Gottlieb with under seal, or request for a closed hearing. If he pulls the same old routine, though, he might just achieve the same old dumb result.

[Anonymous]

It’s possible to think Liveky sucks but also understand she has the only actionable legal issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

"Self-own" is proper usage here, e.g., https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/self-own-era-politics-ocasio-cortez-gillette.html. But please continue to lecture me about language and the law!

I'm a lawyer. I also have admitted weaknesses in Lively legal positions in the past. For example, I have admitted weaknesses in the sanctions motions (filed more to support dismissal with prejudice than actually get sanctions); the early subpoenas (overbroad); some of the doc requests (overbroad); that Lively's retaliation claim is stronger to me than the SH claim (though it is improper to retaliate against someone for merely reporting perceived harassment); the VanZan subpoena (I don't know whether it's legally permissible or not but it seems shady); etc.

As I and others have noted here before, the difference between Lively and Baldoni supporters is that Lively supporters actually *do* admit when something bad happens. Unlike you, we have even said we'll switch sides if the facts really go that way, like if Gottlieb really threatened Taylor Swift with extortion. We have asked you all what would make you switch sides before and with a few exceptions where the facts coming out at trial would matter, you have all said that Lively is a terrible person and you would never take her side over Baldoni's. Would anything switch you to Lively's side at this point?

How typical for you to try to figure out who I am and call me names. When Baldoni fans spend hours looking into an issue its "sleuthing" and it's heroic, but if I spend 20 minutes tracking Baldoni's remaining claims its "pathological" and I'm a "deranged lunatic" (while at the same time you complain about my tone, that's rich). If you don't want me to insult you, then don't insult me. As far as my picking on Freedman specifically goes, he has done this to himself by making wild statements to the press at every opportunity. That's his MO and I think it's terrible lawyering to focus on that instead of the actual legal claims, as this week's order (and his ill-considered TMZ appearance) has shown.

I really cannot believe that less then a week after Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni's claims you are standing there lecturing me that "Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive." Lady, all but two of your dude's $400M claims are gone. Sit yourself down and take the loss.

You’re kind of a joke at this point. Your huge ‘victory’ is that Lively- the woman who claimed to be a #metoo victim and wanted the entire world to view Baldoni as a serial predator - is currently not facing any multi million dollar legal claims for her obvious lying about basic facts and extortion of her best friend. That’s hardly a victory, no matter how hard you spin it. Good luck trying to convince a jury she’s a victim.

She ruined what was left of her half way decent reputation from her ‘self own’ PR blunders. And spent millions doing it, including on useless shills like you.

No one’s trying to dox you. You keep claiming to want to dox yourself by meeting in person, and I’ve just said you can use a consistent, but anonymous, sign-in here if you want to be real about how often you post. But of course you don’t. It’s all games, as always.

And freedman. You’re obsessed. Truly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

^ oh and if you’re a lawyer and so willing to meet to prove who you are (but won’t post from a consistent albeit anonymous user name), at least tell us what kind of law you practice. Genuinely curious what legal career gives someone 14+ hours a day to read legal filings about an unrelated case and post on social media all day long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

"Self-own" is proper usage here, e.g., https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/self-own-era-politics-ocasio-cortez-gillette.html. But please continue to lecture me about language and the law!

I'm a lawyer. I also have admitted weaknesses in Lively legal positions in the past. For example, I have admitted weaknesses in the sanctions motions (filed more to support dismissal with prejudice than actually get sanctions); the early subpoenas (overbroad); some of the doc requests (overbroad); that Lively's retaliation claim is stronger to me than the SH claim (though it is improper to retaliate against someone for merely reporting perceived harassment); the VanZan subpoena (I don't know whether it's legally permissible or not but it seems shady); etc.

As I and others have noted here before, the difference between Lively and Baldoni supporters is that Lively supporters actually *do* admit when something bad happens. Unlike you, we have even said we'll switch sides if the facts really go that way, like if Gottlieb really threatened Taylor Swift with extortion. We have asked you all what would make you switch sides before and with a few exceptions where the facts coming out at trial would matter, you have all said that Lively is a terrible person and you would never take her side over Baldoni's. Would anything switch you to Lively's side at this point?

How typical for you to try to figure out who I am and call me names. When Baldoni fans spend hours looking into an issue its "sleuthing" and it's heroic, but if I spend 20 minutes tracking Baldoni's remaining claims its "pathological" and I'm a "deranged lunatic" (while at the same time you complain about my tone, that's rich). If you don't want me to insult you, then don't insult me. As far as my picking on Freedman specifically goes, he has done this to himself by making wild statements to the press at every opportunity. That's his MO and I think it's terrible lawyering to focus on that instead of the actual legal claims, as this week's order (and his ill-considered TMZ appearance) has shown.

I really cannot believe that less then a week after Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni's claims you are standing there lecturing me that "Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive." Lady, all but two of your dude's $400M claims are gone. Sit yourself down and take the loss.

You’re kind of a joke at this point. Your huge ‘victory’ is that Lively- the woman who claimed to be a #metoo victim and wanted the entire world to view Baldoni as a serial predator - is currently not facing any multi million dollar legal claims for her obvious lying about basic facts and extortion of her best friend. That’s hardly a victory, no matter how hard you spin it. Good luck trying to convince a jury she’s a victim.

She ruined what was left of her half way decent reputation from her ‘self own’ PR blunders. And spent millions doing it, including on useless shills like you.

No one’s trying to dox you. You keep claiming to want to dox yourself by meeting in person, and I’ve just said you can use a consistent, but anonymous, sign-in here if you want to be real about how often you post. But of course you don’t. It’s all games, as always.

And freedman. You’re obsessed. Truly bizarre.

Unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

"Self-own" is proper usage here, e.g., https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/self-own-era-politics-ocasio-cortez-gillette.html. But please continue to lecture me about language and the law!

I'm a lawyer. I also have admitted weaknesses in Lively legal positions in the past. For example, I have admitted weaknesses in the sanctions motions (filed more to support dismissal with prejudice than actually get sanctions); the early subpoenas (overbroad); some of the doc requests (overbroad); that Lively's retaliation claim is stronger to me than the SH claim (though it is improper to retaliate against someone for merely reporting perceived harassment); the VanZan subpoena (I don't know whether it's legally permissible or not but it seems shady); etc.

As I and others have noted here before, the difference between Lively and Baldoni supporters is that Lively supporters actually *do* admit when something bad happens. Unlike you, we have even said we'll switch sides if the facts really go that way, like if Gottlieb really threatened Taylor Swift with extortion. We have asked you all what would make you switch sides before and with a few exceptions where the facts coming out at trial would matter, you have all said that Lively is a terrible person and you would never take her side over Baldoni's. Would anything switch you to Lively's side at this point?

How typical for you to try to figure out who I am and call me names. When Baldoni fans spend hours looking into an issue its "sleuthing" and it's heroic, but if I spend 20 minutes tracking Baldoni's remaining claims its "pathological" and I'm a "deranged lunatic" (while at the same time you complain about my tone, that's rich). If you don't want me to insult you, then don't insult me. As far as my picking on Freedman specifically goes, he has done this to himself by making wild statements to the press at every opportunity. That's his MO and I think it's terrible lawyering to focus on that instead of the actual legal claims, as this week's order (and his ill-considered TMZ appearance) has shown.

I really cannot believe that less then a week after Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni's claims you are standing there lecturing me that "Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive." Lady, all but two of your dude's $400M claims are gone. Sit yourself down and take the loss.

You’re kind of a joke at this point. Your huge ‘victory’ is that Lively- the woman who claimed to be a #metoo victim and wanted the entire world to view Baldoni as a serial predator - is currently not facing any multi million dollar legal claims for her obvious lying about basic facts and extortion of her best friend. That’s hardly a victory, no matter how hard you spin it. Good luck trying to convince a jury she’s a victim.

She ruined what was left of her half way decent reputation from her ‘self own’ PR blunders. And spent millions doing it, including on useless shills like you.

No one’s trying to dox you. You keep claiming to want to dox yourself by meeting in person, and I’ve just said you can use a consistent, but anonymous, sign-in here if you want to be real about how often you post. But of course you don’t. It’s all games, as always.

And freedman. You’re obsessed. Truly bizarre.

Look at all the stupid insults you threw at me, when all I said to you was it was typical of you to call me names, which ha you totally did, and now did again, and that you should stop lecturing me because I've been more right than you. But look at you telling me I'm a joke and obsessed and bizarre and a useless shill. Does that make you feel better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m different PP than Po above, and the one who first posted about the mod change on that sub.

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Was the change bought? Was the mod who left the one who was being paid? I dunno.

But the idea that the sub was “neutral” under prior mod is nuts. Pro-Lively posters were banned there frequently.

I saw a discussion about a mod turnover on a Swift sub, that previously criticized a Swift enemy who had bought her recordings. With the change, the site turned into a Swift snark site? I don’t know its status now.

What if that person had bought the prior IEWlawsuits mod. Now he is getting subpoenaed and might not want to have those connections. Also, remember the text between Nathan and the other PR rep, congratulating themselves on quieting a press story that could have been much worse, and ending with “at least they didn’t bring up scooter!”

This sounds like a conspiracy theory though so I’ll stop.

But the idea that the lawsuits sub was “neutral” even though it billed itself as such is a joke. Lively supporters were scorned and mocked. Similar to what Baldoni supporters do/did/are even now still doing here. PP above is still calling us bots, even though her entire weltanschauung is falling apart before her eyes because she has been wrong about everything and we, the Lively supporters, have been right.

I hope more info on the smear gets exposed and I hope Amber Heard gets vindicated, too.

You mean Blake livelys smear against justin?

Well, that claim was just tossed out by a judge for being wholly unsupported. While Lively’s claims all remain. Sorry not sorry.

He didn’t bring a legal claim about the current PR smear campaign as far as I’m aware. But you can confirm as you spend 14+ hours a day on this case, even though you’re just a ‘neutral’ Arlington mom, right? Nothing to see here, right? Totally normal.

In any event, anyone paying attention can see the desperate PR efforts all over this thread and places like Reddit and TikTok. Your team even hired a psyops CIA guy to help.

Get real.

I’m not a neutral poster, I’ve been saying I’m pro-Lively here for quite some time. Really, in anti-Freedman, but whatevs. I even offered to meet people in person, which I’m pretty sure a PR rep wouldn’t do, but nobody from the Baldoni team was up for that lol. Then you guys started asking for all sorts of personal info and wanted Lively supporters to post under logins. Wut? No. I owe you nothing.

I’m a pro Lively DMV area lawyer who has been right about a lot more than any of the Baldoni people have. I’m not a shill and I’m not being paid by anyone. Sorry if I can’t take it too seriously when I’m lectured on this by a supporter of the creepy dude who hired Amber Heard’s crisis PR team.

By ‘neutral’ I meant not paid. You’re obviously pro lively and will twist and turn any facts to get there.

If you’d like to meet, why don’t you take a first step and just start posting under a screen name here? Can still be anonymous. No one asked you for ‘all sorts of personal info’ in any real way. People are just tired of how obvious your PR push is and want you to stop droning on with nonsense.

As far as you being a lawyer, who knows? Who cares? I’m sure failed lawyers can become low level PR shills too. As many people on here have noted, for all your hours and hours just ‘randomly’ reading and listening to court documents and arguments, your analytical skills are not great, and you often write like an unintelligent and mean teen girl with your ‘lols’ of yourself and ‘sorry not sorry’ style.

This is a terrific self own for Baldoni supporters and Freedman himself. What does it say about all the Baldoni supporters who claim to be lawyers if the weakness of their legal claims are being pointed out by a layman, not even a lawyer? And same, when 20 minutes of reading Liman's opinion made it completely evident to me that Freedman only had two claims remaining, after he went on live TV after a whole day to ingest the opinion to say he had four?

Sadly though I am a lawyer. I think the only way for Baldoni supporters to deal with the fact they are losing is to assume that Lively's side is cheating. Thus all the crazy conspiracy stuff they are posting. You can do better, guys.

Sigh. This isn’t a self own (I think it’s called own goal, but whatever, you continue with the juvenile style that is your trademark.). So are you and your PR twin lawyers or not? According to you two, everything lively or her lawyers do is ‘for women’ ‘for victims’ ‘so she won’t be another amber heard’ (although you mixed up her name with JDs above), and freedman is a fraud, bad, incompetent, Baldoni is a harasser, creepy blah blah. Your focus on Freedman is pathological at this point. Some people think you’re that Kat woman who is in love/hate with him. Im a lawyer myself and I’ve never seen anyone care so much about the lawyers’ representation in a case. Lawyers are typically barely even named in coverage, even in high profile cases. Yet you post about Freedman day after day, digging up his life history, as well as other defense lawyers, even claiming you know their current work calendars, and what work they can handle.

Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive- and you crow for pages over them like a deranged lunatic, but you refuse to acknowledge anything good or decent on Baldonis side, or of course the many manipulations and outright lies that Blake and team have been caught in. The vanzam subpoena alone was a totally scummy move. As was going to the NYT. Just slimey behavior all around. But of course that doesn’t count to you.

Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.

"Self-own" is proper usage here, e.g., https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/self-own-era-politics-ocasio-cortez-gillette.html. But please continue to lecture me about language and the law!

I'm a lawyer. I also have admitted weaknesses in Lively legal positions in the past. For example, I have admitted weaknesses in the sanctions motions (filed more to support dismissal with prejudice than actually get sanctions); the early subpoenas (overbroad); some of the doc requests (overbroad); that Lively's retaliation claim is stronger to me than the SH claim (though it is improper to retaliate against someone for merely reporting perceived harassment); the VanZan subpoena (I don't know whether it's legally permissible or not but it seems shady); etc.

As I and others have noted here before, the difference between Lively and Baldoni supporters is that Lively supporters actually *do* admit when something bad happens. Unlike you, we have even said we'll switch sides if the facts really go that way, like if Gottlieb really threatened Taylor Swift with extortion. We have asked you all what would make you switch sides before and with a few exceptions where the facts coming out at trial would matter, you have all said that Lively is a terrible person and you would never take her side over Baldoni's. Would anything switch you to Lively's side at this point?

How typical for you to try to figure out who I am and call me names. When Baldoni fans spend hours looking into an issue its "sleuthing" and it's heroic, but if I spend 20 minutes tracking Baldoni's remaining claims its "pathological" and I'm a "deranged lunatic" (while at the same time you complain about my tone, that's rich). If you don't want me to insult you, then don't insult me. As far as my picking on Freedman specifically goes, he has done this to himself by making wild statements to the press at every opportunity. That's his MO and I think it's terrible lawyering to focus on that instead of the actual legal claims, as this week's order (and his ill-considered TMZ appearance) has shown.

I really cannot believe that less then a week after Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni's claims you are standing there lecturing me that "Your ‘analysis’ isn’t some sophisticated legal analysis, it’s primarily just one sided blustering. Yes, Lively has had some legal wins- some would argue primarily technical rather than substantive." Lady, all but two of your dude's $400M claims are gone. Sit yourself down and take the loss.

You’re kind of a joke at this point. Your huge ‘victory’ is that Lively- the woman who claimed to be a #metoo victim and wanted the entire world to view Baldoni as a serial predator - is currently not facing any multi million dollar legal claims for her obvious lying about basic facts and extortion of her best friend. That’s hardly a victory, no matter how hard you spin it. Good luck trying to convince a jury she’s a victim.

She ruined what was left of her half way decent reputation from her ‘self own’ PR blunders. And spent millions doing it, including on useless shills like you.

No one’s trying to dox you. You keep claiming to want to dox yourself by meeting in person, and I’ve just said you can use a consistent, but anonymous, sign-in here if you want to be real about how often you post. But of course you don’t. It’s all games, as always.

And freedman. You’re obsessed. Truly bizarre.

Look at all the stupid insults you threw at me, when all I said to you was it was typical of you to call me names, which ha you totally did, and now did again, and that you should stop lecturing me because I've been more right than you. But look at you telling me I'm a joke and obsessed and bizarre and a useless shill. Does that make you feel better?

‘Anyway, you can go on twisting and blustering. Any regular person on here sees it and mostly ignores you.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s possible to think Liveky sucks but also understand she has the only actionable legal issue.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ oh and if you’re a lawyer and so willing to meet to prove who you are (but won’t post from a consistent albeit anonymous user name), at least tell us what kind of law you practice. Genuinely curious what legal career gives someone 14+ hours a day to read legal filings about an unrelated case and post on social media all day long.

There is no way this person is a practicing attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster who also posts on Reddit. I mostly only go to Reddit when it’s linked here. You continuously confuse different people in this thread.

If personal and direct insults to other posters are actually allowed on DCUM I would just like to know because I will start to volley them back to you lot instead of sucking it up and trying to be the bigger person.

FWIW I really appreciate that you/your side hasn't done that. That's why I don't understand why people are so upset there are some pro-Lively posts here. Even if one finds them personally annoying, they never resort to insults and personal digs at posters or the celebrities involved, so it's really rather easy to scroll by them if one is not interested (I read them, and sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but it's always cordial).

Just a reminder that back in March, the insults in the thread were coming almost exclusively from the Baldoni supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In fact the group pleading problem is such a giant issue for Freedman that he has asked the court, if it allows him to amend the complaint to fix this problem (which it probably will), to rule on all the motions to dismiss first so that he only has to rewrite it one time lol. Sad.

Snark aside, I actually don't understand how this is going to work. I guess it means Liman can dismiss some claims with prejudice (if he agrees with any of the MTD arguments not premised on the group pleading issue) and then when Freedman refiles he won't include those claims? So like say Freedman agrees to dismiss all extortion claims against all defendants, the defamation claim agains the NYT, and all claims against Sloane, with prejudice. And then he dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice (so the defamation claims against Lively and Reynolds, the tortious interference claim against Reynolds, and the CA false light claim against the NYT). For the record, I'm not saying this is what I think Liman will do, just trying to give a mix of dismissed with prejudice and dismissed without.

So then Freedman can replead, assuming the court allows it (which I think they usually do). But he can only replead the claims dismissed without prejudice, right? So they separate out all those claims and make it clear which are being alleged by which plaintiffs against which defendants (and this will vary a lot, right, because for instance Sarowitz has no tortious interference claim, the alleged defamation by Lively in the CRD and NYT article doesn't involve Reynolds (who was not quoted in either), and so on. So the complaint is going to look way different from either of the complaints that have been filed so far and will likely have to articulate different facts to make these allegations clear. Right?

Well then with new pleadings and new facts, will the defendants be able to file a new round of MTDs? Because it's basically a new case at that point -- the claims are going to look so different. It seems unfair to force the defendants to depend on this round of MTDs for dismissal when you have this huge, glaring group pleading issue that has to be fixed before the complaint makes clear what the allegations are against each defendant. But then Liman is not going to want to have to rule on MTDs again for the corrected pleadings, right? That would be annoying.

I am a lawyer but not a litigator and have no real experience with something like this. I'm sure some of what I'm asking here sounds dumb or obvious to actual litigators and sorry for that. But I'm just struggling to wrap my head around how this works because the group pleading issue seems like a big enough problem that fixing it will essentially be a do-over for the Wayfarer parties and in that case do the defendants get a do-over too?

I think the process of amending the complaint is going to be a little painful for Baldoni’s team. Yes, the judge may dismiss some claims with prejudice and others without prejudice (or just may dismiss many without prejudice).

If for example the judge dismisses the NYT claims with prejudice, they can’t include those in the amended complaint. (That’s not per their “agreement” - that’s a court ruling they must follow ha.). At the same time, the court will likely grant Baldoni leave to amend claims dismissed without prejudice (which, in truth, could be all the claims).

If the amended claims/allegations supporting them are different enough from the original complaint, it’s possible new motions to dismiss could be filed, but I believe if they are similar enough and just cure the deficiency the judge notes in his orders, they won’t be. Baldoni will need to file a motion to enter the new amended complaint and Lively (or whoever) could oppose that, but they might prefer to file another motion to dismiss if possible because then they get to file two briefs (the motion and reply) rather than just one (the opposition).

I think the amended complaint is going to need to incorporate material from the statement of facts attachment, too, since that may be struck. This new complaint could be a whole different animal so it’s a little hard to predict how it will be treated — while amendments are pretty common, this sheer amount of editing and complete revamping that might be needed here is out of the ordinary.

Multiple amended complaints are common when the plaintiff is a person or a suit is brought as a class action, most as common when plaintiff tiff is a corporation. I have had many cases as defense counsel where plaintiffs filed three or more complaints.

+1 have been gone for a day so just catching up and it’s shocking how easily people focus on small things and make them a big deal. Comments like “the group pleading is a huge problem for freedman” and “if the judge lets him amend his complaint” and “why on earth the timeline”. Some of the statements are just so over dramatized. This is a case that could drag on for years. There will be many amendments, motions and hearings. People are acting as if BF needed to show his entire hand in one round. It’s a long process. BF did exactly what he needed to do, which was file this quickly and get the public on his clients side. He’s now being mostly professional and letting the Lively parties sink themselves with some pretty outrageous behavior (SNL, Ari, Ryan’s hugely unprofessional MTD). People keep saying BF wants to settle when actually Lively risks the most at trial. If the public is any reflection of a potential jury, they have a lot to worry about.

Going down memory lane and checking out the reasoned legal analysis from the Baldoni supporters back in March about the many, many times Freedman would be allowed to amend his complaint and how the timeline was nbd. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Just dropping in on this thread to note that it seems like Lively supporters are talking substantively about the case, and the Baldoni people on the thread are mostly attacking the Lively people for posting at all? It's giving "sore losers" after all the headlines this week about Baldoni having all his claims dismissed.

I do appreciate the poster or posters a few pages back who were posting the legal updates on current filings. I'm never going to go read the docket or filings myself, so that was useful. Thanks! I. Curious to see what happens in the next phase. That's depositions, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

Here was some considered legal analysis from a Baldoni supporter about how nothing would be dismissed with prejudice and how Ryan Reynolds being a narcissist would, I guess, keep him in the case. Oh well.