Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A BaldoniFiles thread on this topic (not linking here because I know Baldoni supporters don't like that sub) notes that Vituscka was supposed to produce his Freedman texts on Monday, June 23rd hahaha. It's all happening at once, the amended complaint, the lively dep (maybe not), and Vituscka.

I'd be surprised if those Vituscka texts were still compelled. I guess that Vituscka made the deal in order to get out of producing additional information though, so maybe still is relevant? But that other info I thought had to do with Sloane's "statement" about assault and she's no longer in the case, so ... not relevant?

I'm a little confused tbh. Vituscka signed an agreement, so maybe the texts are still required. Sara Nathan (Melissa Nathan's siter) was able to get out because she hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet.

Responding to myself to note that to me, it had seemed that by offering up his texts with Freedman before to Sloane's attorneys to get out of producing more materials, Vituscka was going a bit rogue against Baldoni and Freedman, potentially implicating Freedman in shady operations in a way that wouldn't really reflect badly on Vituscka, but might reflect badly on Freedman (i.e., implicating that Freedman might have been part of the smear, maybe -- though I recognize that's a stretch).

By bringing in Geragos as his new attorneys, the chances of that happening seem smaller to me now. Geragos isn't going to take part in selling out Freedman. They work together. They would defend one another.

Another possibility is that Vituscka agreed to produce his texts with Freedman before because he hardly had anything and they were a nothingburger, so it wouldn't give Gottlieb any real meat to work with. In which case, I don't really understand the switch.

What does that mean? Go rogue? This guy is a journalist, no? What does he owe anyone?

And are people implying he is somehow being captured by freedman because he is hiring someone from the Garagos firm?

I'd never heard of any of these people before this week, so take this with a grain of salt, but it does seem weird he left a respected firm for a small firm that frequently works with Freedman. Like just on the surface that seems weird.

Imagine if Meghan Twohey had suddenly dropped the NYT law firm and hired a law firm closely associated with Lively's lawyers instead. People would rightly have found that very suspicious. And they were at least co-defendants in Baldoni's lawsuit, so some level of collaboration is expected. But this Vitsucka guy isn't even a party to the litigation, he's just a potential witness. It's weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

Here is a list of cases that google AI says Freedman and Mark Geragos have worked on together, and it's far more than the Menendez case that I mentioned before, which is I think just the most recent. Note that the Geragos firm is currently pretty busy with the Diddy trial (which I think Mark Geragos' daughter is taking point on more than the father Mark):

Bethenny Frankel's fight for reality star rights: They joined forces with Bethenny Frankel to investigate and advocate for the rights of reality stars who feel exploited by networks and studios, representing a significant number of individuals from various shows.

NBCUniversal Reality TV Allegations: Freedman and Geragos sent a letter to NBCUniversal regarding allegations of "grotesque and depraved mistreatment" on their reality TV shows, representing current and former cast and crew members.

Brandi Glanville's case against Bravo: They reportedly represented Brandi Glanville in her case against Bravo, in which she accused Andy Cohen of sexual harassment. However, reports suggest they may have later stopped representing her.

Additionally, I thought they were both involved in the Tom Sandoval case involving Vanderpump Rules or something, where there was a sex tape, and Sandoval lost representation?
Love Is Blind's Renee Poche Case: They represented Renee Poche, a participant on "Love is Blind", in a case involving the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and discussions about potential unionization in the unscripted industry.

Menendez Brothers Case: Freedman, alongside Geragos, is involved in a motion to recuse the District Attorney in the Menendez brothers' case, arguing a potential bias. While Geragos is the brothers' main defense attorney, Freedman represents the Menendez family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect Daily Mail is no longer paying his legal fees, thus the downgrade from Ballard Spahr. The Freedman connection ... I don't know. If Freedman really has a close relationship with the firm, that looks suspicious to me. But a lot of these smaller firms are constantly referring cases to one another -- Freedman's relationship to the new firm might be no closer than any similarly sized firm working on these sorts of cases. I will reserve judgment until we see where that goes.

Why would DM not be paying his legal fees?

I don't know but that would explain why he switched to a firm that normally would not be hired by a publication of DM's size. And DM has a longstanding relationship with Ballard Spahr. Perhaps his admissions in his affidavit made DM decide it was time to distance itself, perhaps there is concern that if Freedman's communications with him are discovered/made public, it would be better for him to have independent counsel.

If DM *is* still paying, it makes the move extremely weird, borderline nonsensical.

I wonder if V did something to violate his contract with daily mail and so they are no longer indemnifying him

Apparently he's still writing for them, though. Here's an article he wrote today on the Hailey Bieber / Selena Gomez fued and why it's all on again. (Yes, the same Hailey Bieber whose online hate campaign/takedown Baldoni said he wanted his own PR team to emulate): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14832115/hailey-bieber-selena-gomez-history-feud.html?ico=authors_pagination_desktop

[Anonymous]

Back to crazy rankings about lawyers, that didn’t take long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to crazy rankings about lawyers, that didn’t take long.

Rantings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to crazy rankings about lawyers, that didn’t take long.

Rantings

I think rankings works too, haha.

[Anonymous]

I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

Some of you need to take a deep breath and spend some time away from this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

Some of you need to take a deep breath and spend some time away from this case.

DP. Funny how this reply is never made to those who post random conspiracy TikTok videos from people wearing bunny ears.

[Anonymous]

I actually know Liz Dye irl. She isn’t a lawyer, I don’t think, but is a yoga instructor. Draw your own conclusions about how reliable her commentary is, but I would guess less reliable than some of the lawyer mom here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I actually know Liz Dye irl. She isn’t a lawyer, I don’t think, but is a yoga instructor. Draw your own conclusions about how reliable her commentary is, but I would guess less reliable than some of the lawyer mom here.

While not a lawyer (though Torrez is, right? Harvard law grad and former Covington atty?), isn't Dye a journalist who covers legal issues at pubs like Above the Law and Wonkette, and so aren't you rather minimizing this woman's resume to yoga? https://substack.com/@lizdye

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!!)

I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

Some of you need to take a deep breath and spend some time away from this case.

Lady, I am posting legal commentary about this case. If you need a break from it, please help yourself to a break.

[Anonymous]

I also frankly think it's interesting that Torrez himself has had harassment allegations against him and yet he is going in hard against Baldoni, at least on the defamation/terrible legal pleadings side.

To me this is almost a good sign for Baldoni and his potential to continue his feminist future -- i.e., you don't need to go alt-right after receiving sexual harassment allegations. (Though I do wonder whether Baldoni will inevitably appear on Candace Owens or Meghyn Kelly's shows at some point given the Freedman link and all the support they have shown him.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought that all of the sanctions motions were filed primarily to stress how unsupported many of Baldoni’s claims were and how dismissal with prejudice would therefore be appropriate.

Andrew Torrez (who is himself a bit sketchy tbh, see below) and Liz Dye, who both also correctly predicted the emaciation of Baldoni’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, think the sanctions motions have a good chance of succeeding. They also stress that Freedman’s responses to the motions were circular nonsense legal arguments that don’t offer any real defense.

https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/sanctions-for-justin

Not really familiar with this podcast. My understanding is that Torrez himself was accused of sexual harassment of some of his prior podcast listeners, and inappropriate touching of his prior podcast host, and that he has sought and received treatment for same. (But if this is the Lively side equivalent of posting Candace Owens content, let me know and I won’t do it again!
I also listen to Torrez’s prior podcast partner at Gavel Gavel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gavel-gavel/id1797928897

Some of you need to take a deep breath and spend some time away from this case.

Lady, I am posting legal commentary about this case. If you need a break from it, please help yourself to a break.

Actually you are talking about an obscure podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I actually know Liz Dye irl. She isn’t a lawyer, I don’t think, but is a yoga instructor. Draw your own conclusions about how reliable her commentary is, but I would guess less reliable than some of the lawyer mom here.

While not a lawyer (though Torrez is, right? Harvard law grad and former Covington atty?), isn't Dye a journalist who covers legal issues at pubs like Above the Law and Wonkette, and so aren't you rather minimizing this woman's resume to yoga? https://substack.com/@lizdye

Are you touting Above the Law and Wonkette as something besides online gossip sites? Honestly, no shade intended, she’s a nice person, and solidly in the dcum demographic, perhaps she posts in this thread anonymously. Her kids are the same age as mine in the same city and they don’t call that city Smalltimore for nothing. But I am a litigator and wouldn’t seek her out for legal advice, can think of many lawyer moms I’d go to first. How you spend your free time, however, is your call.