Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really find it funny tbh that Michael Gottlieb at Willkie can represent DRAKE in one of the most notorious rap battle feuds ever, where Drake was lightly accused of being a pedophile, and yet in that case the relationship between the attorneys is nowhere near as contentious as here in this case involving a kind of mid romance/DV movie.

I’m not sure Lively should be moving to transfer this beef to SDNY, I’m not sure Liman would grant this.

This whole litigation is just so wild. I have never seen anything like this before. If Freedman is actually dirty and Gottlieb can prove it, I will be elated. But I do think the chances of this being granted are low.

Dp how do you know the relationship between the attorneys for Drake and UMG is not contentious? Who are they? Are you working on one of their cases as well?

Hear me out. I know this will sound crazy to you, but I used The Google to search on the Drake case, which was last in the headlines back in April, and none of the lawyers had accused the other of extortion or was directly subpoenaing communications of the law firms, afaict.

So snotty. You know the names of Drake and UMG lawyers? Curious who they are. Please lmk

DP but many of us following Lively/Baldoni know her lawyer also represents Drake. It is one of the first things that got reported about him in entertainment press. I don't know who UMG's lawyers are but I'm sure I could find out very quickly and so could you.

PP is right that the amount of rancor between the lawyers in this case, with Freedman accusing Gottlieb of trying to extort Taylor Swift and now Lively subpoenaing Freedman's firm directly, is very unusual even for highly contentious, high profile, entertainment beefs. It's not uncommon for the parties to get into it, but it's weird for the lawyers to get dragged in like this. Like have you ever once in all these years heard about Angelina Jolie's lawyers and Brad Pitt's lawyers becoming personally embroiled in controversy? No. I don't even know who they are even though that went on for YEARS and both sides dragged each other through the mud in the press on a regular basis.

This case is for sure an outlier in this respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

It seems to me people mock your absurd posts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

The lawsuit about "how awful she's acted" was dismissed. Presently this case is exclusively about her SH and retaliation claims. If people discussing those issues feels like a distraction for you, perhaps you should start a thread about how much you hate Blake Lively because that's what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

The lawsuit about "how awful she's acted" was dismissed.

I laughed at this. That's a good point!

We're now at the point where talking about the new developments in the "Jason Baldoni"case is actually Shapiro flooding the zone, because the thread is supposed to exclusively how Blake Lively sucks. Pretty sure there are many places where that discourse can be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really find it funny tbh that Michael Gottlieb at Willkie can represent DRAKE in one of the most notorious rap battle feuds ever, where Drake was lightly accused of being a pedophile, and yet in that case the relationship between the attorneys is nowhere near as contentious as here in this case involving a kind of mid romance/DV movie.

I’m not sure Lively should be moving to transfer this beef to SDNY, I’m not sure Liman would grant this.

This whole litigation is just so wild. I have never seen anything like this before. If Freedman is actually dirty and Gottlieb can prove it, I will be elated. But I do think the chances of this being granted are low.

Dp how do you know the relationship between the attorneys for Drake and UMG is not contentious? Who are they? Are you working on one of their cases as well?

Hear me out. I know this will sound crazy to you, but I used The Google to search on the Drake case, which was last in the headlines back in April, and none of the lawyers had accused the other of extortion or was directly subpoenaing communications of the law firms, afaict.

So snotty. You know the names of Drake and UMG lawyers? Curious who they are. Please lmk

DP but many of us following Lively/Baldoni know her lawyer also represents Drake. It is one of the first things that got reported about him in entertainment press. I don't know who UMG's lawyers are but I'm sure I could find out very quickly and so could you.

PP is right that the amount of rancor between the lawyers in this case, with Freedman accusing Gottlieb of trying to extort Taylor Swift and now Lively subpoenaing Freedman's firm directly, is very unusual even for highly contentious, high profile, entertainment beefs. It's not uncommon for the parties to get into it, but it's weird for the lawyers to get dragged in like this. Like have you ever once in all these years heard about Angelina Jolie's lawyers and Brad Pitt's lawyers becoming personally embroiled in controversy? No. I don't even know who they are even though that went on for YEARS and both sides dragged each other through the mud in the press on a regular basis.

This case is for sure an outlier in this respect.

Ok so who are the lawyers for UMG and how would anyone know how they get along with Drakes lawyers? I did ‘google’ and didn’t come up with any stories that mentioned the lawyers in the Drake case by name.

Or do you mean the media coverage of the lawyers in this case is more intense?

Bc it seems to me that it’s Blake people like the ones on her who love to talk talk talk about freedman and have made the relationship seem fraught

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

The lawsuit about "how awful she's acted" was dismissed.

I laughed at this. That's a good point!

We're now at the point where talking about the new developments in the "Jason Baldoni"case is actually Shapiro flooding the zone, because the thread is supposed to exclusively how Blake Lively sucks. Pretty sure there are many places where that discourse can be found.

You do tend to flood this thread with tedious posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Well if Wayfarer would just have produced some docs like this (which confirms that Wayfarer purchased the second of the two options for $30,000 PM (per month) for three months), things might have been easier. But somehow old Jed was just monitoring communications I guess for a whopping $30K/month, even though he seems to have a whole team and he said “this is our wheelhouse and have it prioritized across all platform specialists working for me.”

Also, Jed does communicate via discord, which to me is suss.

Just repeating that according to this little old document, Wallace's firm was getting paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of just "monitoring." And I think Wallace's earlier affidavit claims that nobody worked on this project besides him, so this was $30K/month just for his own work from August through October? He must have a "very special set of skills."

Here, in paragraph 16, Wallace says he was the only one on at Street Relations working on this project for Baldoni, so that's $30K/month for Wallace's "monitoring" lol okay.

How much do you think Blake’s PR team is being paid now? Not only for regular PR but for crisis PR? Curious to hear your thoughts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

The lawsuit about "how awful she's acted" was dismissed.

I laughed at this. That's a good point!

We're now at the point where talking about the new developments in the "Jason Baldoni"case is actually Shapiro flooding the zone, because the thread is supposed to exclusively how Blake Lively sucks. Pretty sure there are many places where that discourse can be found.

I also laughed at this, as well as at the Jason Baldoni reference!

There are at least 3 of us! (I think maybe even 4 a few pages ago.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I’m sure that the reason some Baldoni supporters are shutting their feeds off for a while is all because of Nick Shapiro and has nothing to do with the fact (as they have been saying on Reddit) that they don’t like to hear about all of the losing Freedman is doing. 💯

Honestly just worried about the mental health of the Lively supporter who spams this post 24/7, often with strange conspiracy theories. But hey, if you all think that is normal and should be encouraged, continue to have no real life, Lively spammer.

I mean on the last page alone, the same person posted about Shapiro 4x; twice using the exact same sentence. I don't know why you are under the impression that only Blake posters are "flooding the zone." It's hard to know what else posting the exact same post repeatedly could be characterized as?

I’m not that poster but pretty sure her point, which remains unrebutted, is that Lively supporters want to ignore Shapiro’s presence on her team and the implications of his role. In any case, she/he posted about this for maybe half an hour. If it goes on for six months, day and night, let me know.

Wait, did Lively hire a crisis PR firm to retaliate against Baldoni, even though she signed a contract agreeing not to retaliate against him? If so, that would seem really shady.

No?

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is. I wonder what you think she should do in this situation, besides the first thing you guys always suggest which is settle the lawsuit? Seems like she needed more PR help. Is Shapiro more shady than the socials plan we saw from Nathan which had its own section dedicated to targeting feminist messages from Taylor Swift fans? I don’t know PR, so you’d have to get me up to speed on these issues.

I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.

Are you serious? You have not seen Baldoni supporters saying that Freedman is much better at the PR angle than Gottlieb? Perhaps we have been in different threads.

That’s not what you said.

You said this

I don’t know much about PR, but I thought Baldoni supporters have been mocking Lively for 800 pages now for not being as good at PR as Freedman is

I have not seen 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking anyone over PR.

Have you?

I did not mean that this thread was composed of literally 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR. I meant I have seen such mockery consistently across these last 800 pages.

But “I have not seen” 800 pages of mockery is not what you said first, either. What you said was:

“I’ve been on here a lot. I’ve never seen that. It’s curious how every fact is twisted to the extreme.”

“I’ve never seen that” doesn’t make sense as a response to “this thread is 800 pages of Baldoni supporters mocking Lively’s PR.” That sounds like you were saying you hadn’t ever seen anyone mock Lively for a bad PR response. Which clearly has happened a lot in this thread. Which is all I was trying to say in support of my statement that maybe Lively hired Shapiro to provide her with the better PR response everyone was saying she needed, sort of like Ellyn Garofalo is currently apparently taking point for Freedman in the CD. Cal. subpoena response where the coordinated legal filings and work with opposing counsel might be outside of his wheelhouse and capacities right now.

JFC. Exhibit A of why I rarely check this thread anymore.

It’s the Blake lively PR shills trying to exacerbate and argue and twist over nonsense in an effort to annoy and distract and get everyone to stop discussing how awful she’s acted. It’s a living…

The lawsuit about "how awful she's acted" was dismissed.

I laughed at this. That's a good point!

We're now at the point where talking about the new developments in the "Jason Baldoni" case is actually Shapiro flooding the zone, because the thread is supposed to exclusively how Blake Lively sucks. Pretty sure there are many places where that discourse can be found.

You do tend to flood this thread with tedious posts.

DP. Nope pretty sure that's meee!

[Anonymous]

About Drake v UMG, I actually got turned on to it from NAG's TikTok and read the pleadings like a good little nerd. It's an interesting case but there's nothing like this. They are not as deep into discovery so they're not making motions to compel/quash. Perhaps it will get more combative then, but I can't imagine there were be some of the crazy stuff like the Taylor Swift letter or the MSG deposition quote. It's just a regular lawsuit about an interesting topic, nothing like Lively v Wayfarer. I don't like Freedman but will grant some of the Lively supporters are OTT about it, and I sometimes find Lively's attorneys' motions have a whiny/tattletale quality.

I'll actually be super impressed if Gottlieb can survive MTD on actual malice for Drake while getting Wayfarer's case dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

Thanks! I had asked earlier if Lively would now subpoena Freedmans texts with DM. So I guess they are.

Seriously, that was prescient! I don't know whether they will succeed in getting this discovery. But what I appreciate about Lively's lawyers is that they do not sit on their hands when important questions are raised with them, but they figure out how to raise the issues with the respective court. Here, Lively's attys show the text from Nathan to Abel saying they will start a Signal thread between themselves and Wallace, "Just in case you need him to connect you to Bryan because they're very close" and list this as a reason why they are seeking Freedman's communications.

I think this subpoena was filed about a week after Freedman's docs were struck on the docket in Liner's case and Freedman filed his affidavit re extortion, so if this is reactionary to that, it's perhaps not so great. It's actually possible that Lively's subpoena came first, since Bender says they tried to serve Liner Freedman by email but they did not respond.

The question being asked by Lively's attorneys here is really, did Freedman help plan the smear campaign? And Garofalo is saying basically you can't ask us that, and our communications with the PR firms should be privileged.

Responding to myself here to note again that I don’t think Lively should be trying to move this back to NY tbh. Liman has said he doesn’t want this case to be about the attorneys, he has been very reluctant to require anyone to turn over privileged docs, and he struck Freedman’s affidavit accusing Gottlieb of extortion in a heartbeat. In some ways this filing isn’t much different than that, just a murkier misdeed, maybe.

I mean, they’re not totally wrong, I understand why they want and need to ask for those communications. Not sure they will get this on the evidence they have here, and would be surprised (though not shocked) if *Liman,* who seems pretty conservative in the discovery ledges he’ll walk out on, would grant this.

They’ve requested hearing in CD Cal which is set for July 10 at 8:30 am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Well if Wayfarer would just have produced some docs like this (which confirms that Wayfarer purchased the second of the two options for $30,000 PM (per month) for three months), things might have been easier. But somehow old Jed was just monitoring communications I guess for a whopping $30K/month, even though he seems to have a whole team and he said “this is our wheelhouse and have it prioritized across all platform specialists working for me.”

Also, Jed does communicate via discord, which to me is suss.

Just repeating that according to this little old document, Wallace's firm was getting paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of just "monitoring." And I think Wallace's earlier affidavit claims that nobody worked on this project besides him, so this was $30K/month just for his own work from August through October? He must have a "very special set of skills."

Here, in paragraph 16, Wallace says he was the only one on at Street Relations working on this project for Baldoni, so that's $30K/month for Wallace's "monitoring" lol okay.

How much do you think Blake’s PR team is being paid now? Not only for regular PR but for crisis PR? Curious to hear your thoughts

Millions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

Are the claims Justin can amend promising? What would he need to do to fix them? I've kinda been tuning out lately because talk has been legal heavy and it's above my understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the claims Justin can amend promising? What would he need to do to fix them? I've kinda been tuning out lately because talk has been legal heavy and it's above my understanding.

I'm not sure these remaining claims are worth that much tbh, though I defend Lively so may be biased. There is one claim remaining re Lively/Reynold's alleged tortious (or intentional) interference with Baldoni's contract with WME. My understanding was that either party could leave that contract at will, and if that's what the contract says if Wayfarer produces it (which they haven't done before), I'm not sure they can recover anything there (though I could be wrong).

The second remaining claim is breach of implied contract of good faith and fair dealing, involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer. It's not clear to me under what theory they could recover a lot of money from Lively for that, in part because the movie made such an incredible amount of money. Also, Wayfarer would need to produce their contract with Lively, which they haven't done yet, so it might not be that helpful for them. But again, I could be wrong, and I'm biased.