Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Depositions (with Lively’s scheduled for this month apparently) and arguments over discovery, which is supposed to be substantially complete by July 1. Filings and various MTCs by Lively parties suggest that Baldoni hasn’t produced much and is missing agreed upon deadlines. The Swift filing from Friday suggests he had made only three small productions so far. Seems like Lively is setting up for filing more motions to compel in early July if Baldoni’s productions aren’t substantially complete, as not having all the underlying docs will prejudice them for depositions. Lively may also move for sanctions or to hold Baldoni in contempt of court, as Gottlieb did successfully in the Guliani case involving the federal election workers. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/rudy-giuliani-contempt-of-court/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Depositions (with Lively’s scheduled for this month apparently) and arguments over discovery, which is supposed to be substantially complete by July 1. Filings and various MTCs by Lively parties suggest that Baldoni hasn’t produced much and is missing agreed upon deadlines. The Swift filing from Friday suggests he had made only three small productions so far. Seems like Lively is setting up for filing more motions to compel in early July if Baldoni’s productions aren’t substantially complete, as not having all the underlying docs will prejudice them for depositions. Lively may also move for sanctions or to hold Baldoni in contempt of court, as Gottlieb did successfully in the Guliani case involving the federal election workers. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/rudy-giuliani-contempt-of-court/

Interesting! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

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.

Because this is INSANE. No one lightly chiming in on a message board about a celebrity wants to meet up in person with anyone batshit crazy enough to propose that as a possibility.

[Anonymous]

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.

Because this is INSANE. No one lightly chiming in on a message board about a celebrity wants to meet up in person with anyone batshit crazy enough to propose that as a possibility.

DP but it doesn't seem that weird to me. My SIL met a group of true crime obsessives via an online chat group and two of the women in it became some of her closest friends. People have met spouses via online message boards. It's not "insane" if plenty of normal people have done it.

[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.

Because this is INSANE. No one lightly chiming in on a message board about a celebrity wants to meet up in person with anyone batshit crazy enough to propose that as a possibility.

DP but it doesn't seem that weird to me. My SIL met a group of true crime obsessives via an online chat group and two of the women in it became some of her closest friends. People have met spouses via online message boards. It's not "insane" if plenty of normal people have done it.

If your bar for "normal people" is avidly online "true crime obsessives" sure, maybe it's not weird to command people on DCUM to show up in a random Panera parking lot in NoVa to discuss Blake Lively but I stand by my assertion that normal people will have zero interest in that.

[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.

Dp, Add in takes notes of hearings and then repeated brags about it. So weird.

[Anonymous]

“I have been wrong about nearly every legal prediction I have made here, and I have continuously insulted people arguing against me, whose legal predictions have actually turned out to be correct. My guy is losing. Rather than acknowledge any of this, I will just insult them more.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I have been wrong about nearly every legal prediction I have made here, and I have continuously insulted people arguing against me, whose legal predictions have actually turned out to be correct. My guy is losing. Rather than acknowledge any of this, I will just insult them more.”

😭

[Anonymous]

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.

Because this is INSANE. No one lightly chiming in on a message board about a celebrity wants to meet up in person with anyone batshit crazy enough to propose that as a possibility.

DP. Thank you! I was baffled by how this poster could twist this bizarre offer into something normal

She still won’t say what kind of law she practices, but yet she claims she’ll meet in person. Got it.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't meet in person either but don't care what kind of law anyone practices. I judge based on quality of the posts. There was a poster here who was making fun of anyone who thought NYT would be dismissed as only knowing defamation 101 while she was a media law expert. But she was totally wrong. Reasonable minds can differ and I'd love to have a real analysis and discussion about the dismissal but some people only want to hurl insults. We all know that posters only want the other side to tell what type of law they practice so they can say "you couldn't possibly be a ____ lawyer!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't meet in person either but don't care what kind of law anyone practices. I judge based on quality of the posts. There was a poster here who was making fun of anyone who thought NYT would be dismissed as only knowing defamation 101 while she was a media law expert. But she was totally wrong. Reasonable minds can differ and I'd love to have a real analysis and discussion about the dismissal but some people only want to hurl insults. We all know that posters only want the other side to tell what type of law they practice so they can say "you couldn't possibly be a ____ lawyer!!!"

No, it’s because you present as fake

[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.

Because this is INSANE. No one lightly chiming in on a message board about a celebrity wants to meet up in person with anyone batshit crazy enough to propose that as a possibility.

DP. Thank you! I was baffled by how this poster could twist this bizarre offer into something normal

She still won’t say what kind of law she practices, but yet she claims she’ll meet in person. Got it.

I proposed the meetup thinking that you would be less inclined to throw insults over the internet at someone you have met in person than someone you see as faceless. This is actually the way it has worked with other message boards where I have attended meetups, though granted with those boards people had a loginID you’d recognize them from. Now that this thread has gone on for 800+ pages, though, I think I could distinguish a few different people. I’ve talked to some of you more than I’ve talked to many associates at my firm. The other reason is that I’m really from the DMV like I say I am, so meeting in DC is pretty easy and NBD.

I don’t really want to meet up anymore since I kind of feel like some of you might hurt me lol, but those were my original thoughts.

And PP is spot on re the “what area of the law” question just being code for “let me find other ways to insult and demean you.” I don’t specialize in defamation or harassment law, but I can still read a very poorly written complaint involving defamation and extortion, and oppositions to MTDs re same, and tell you they are flawed and badly written.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, over on Reddit there have been multiple posts from Baldoni supporters saying that with the dismissal order coming out, some of them are feeling defeated and that they kind of need to take a break from the case for a while, and are dropping posts on it from their feed. This is consistent with other comments I’ve seen about views from content providers who talk about the case having gone down quite a bit in the last few days/last week. Maybe they will pick up again with new Taylor Swift fodder, but I wouldn’t mind if some of the grifters had to grift elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a post from Reddit on livelys alleged Nick Shapiro PR help. Sound familiar?

Apparently the person who posted had their Reddit account disabled.

Wonder if this post here will be deleted. Somehow I think it will.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/9IUH8zxleQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fwiw, over on Reddit there have been multiple posts from Baldoni supporters saying that with the dismissal order coming out, some of them are feeling defeated and that they kind of need to take a break from the case for a while, and are dropping posts on it from their feed. This is consistent with other comments I’ve seen about views from content providers who talk about the case having gone down quite a bit in the last few days/last week. Maybe they will pick up again with new Taylor Swift fodder, but I wouldn’t mind if some of the grifters had to grift elsewhere.

Pp I haven’t seen that. Link?