Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think Blake is paying Nick Shapiro, her CIA connected crisis PR strategist?

She’s gotta be flipped out to hire a former CIA op to help her

Funny how the pro BL people want to analyze how much Jed Wallace was paid for pages, but have nothing to say about Nick Shapiros work for Blake. He’s a crisis PR guy supposedly connected to shady psyops tactics.

I guess legally Justin was considered Blake's employer which is why this thing is considered retaliation, but I feel like her case against Justin is so silly. She's a movie star married to another movie star with major power. It feels deeply unfair that she can say whatever she want about him in the press and hire Shapiro, but the act of Baldoni defending himself may be considered illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably BS and won't affect anything even if true, but just for fun, this content creator is claiming Vituscka is withdrawing his sworn statement. https://www.instagram.com/p/DLT0Ya5szzi/

Very interesting. As you said, probably not true, but if it was, there could be a motion for reconsideration in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Interesting, things are happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably BS and won't affect anything even if true, but just for fun, this content creator is claiming Vituscka is withdrawing his sworn statement. https://www.instagram.com/p/DLT0Ya5szzi/

This would explain Daily Mail’s recent silence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably BS and won't affect anything even if true, but just for fun, this content creator is claiming Vituscka is withdrawing his sworn statement. https://www.instagram.com/p/DLT0Ya5szzi/

Very interesting. As you said, probably not true, but if it was, there could be a motion for reconsideration in the near future.

Liman did not consider Vituscka’s declaration in deciding the dismissal, so it would not seem to be an issue for reconsideration. It might be relevant in the attorney fees motion from Sloane, were the withdrawal true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think Blake is paying Nick Shapiro, her CIA connected crisis PR strategist?

She’s gotta be flipped out to hire a former CIA op to help her

Funny how the pro BL people want to analyze how much Jed Wallace was paid for pages, but have nothing to say about Nick Shapiros work for Blake. He’s a crisis PR guy supposedly connected to shady psyops tactics. [/quote

Because there's actual documents in the case with details about Wallace being paid. I'd love to see actual documents detailing what Wallace or Shapiro do.

Oh so you’re denying and has hired this guy to do PR for her? An ex CIA employee? Seems pretty well established. I mean, maybe Wayfarer could file a sham Jane Doe lawsuit to get details about it, but I think the current incontrovertible connection is probably sufficient.

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/entertainment/article/3300853/meet-blake-livelys-crisis-pr-nick-shapiro-whos-ex-cia-it-ends-us-actress-just-hired-former-obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims. [/quote

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reviews of Blake brown products on Target are scathing. Wow

Many many like this…


Ridiculous
1 out of 5 stars
Thumbs down graphic, would not recommend
Would not recommend
RobinPacNW - 10 months ago, Verified purchaser

Not sure why I thought a B actress could develop a hair care line of products. No difference after two weeks of using this overpriced and over scented shampoo/mask in clunky oversized plastic containers. Save your money and buy elsewhere.

Will be interesting to see whether this sort of thing makes it into the damages discussion for Lively.

I know Blake has had a lot of wins but it’s going to be difficult to prove damages. I know for a fact that several beauty bloggers and industry analysts came out well before the supposed smear campaign and said there was no chance of this line succeeding. It’s excruciatingly difficult to breakthrough the market with products like this and celebrity business failures are a dime and dozen. It’s much rarer for a celebrity fashion or beauty line to actually succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

[Anonymous]

If Garofalo scores a win, I wonder if it'll be because Garofalo is a better writer or if Liman secretly despises Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aaaand Lively's reps have now released a statement to PEOPLE about the lack of amendment: "The Court dismissed the frivolous $400 million Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit in its entirety. In the days that followed, Baldoni's lawyer said the judge's decision to dismiss their case was not a big deal as they promised to amend and refile it. As per usual, that was not true. The Court's dismissal of Baldoni's sham lawsuit was a total victory after all."

Yup. Spot on.

Dp. I think it’s funny to claim ‘total victory’ when Blake has her claims out there and hasn’t proven a thing and in fact there is copious evidence that she lied through her teeth

Here, it’s Freedman who had lied about the dismissal not being a big deal at all because they would refile. Since he never did refile, and every single one of Baldoni’s claims has been dismissed, the dismissal actually was a pretty big deal despite Freedman’s lies to minimize it. Zero remaining claims does mean total victory against Baldoni’s claims.

Are you 12? I thought you claimed to be a litigator? Freedman and any other lawyer representing his client is not required to tell the public his legal strategy, nor is he required to not makd adjustments when he/his client feels they are warranted. It is not a ‘lie’ for them to make strategy changes. You need to grow up. You’re such a petty little snowflake.

You Baldoni supporters are going to defend every dumb mistake Freedman makes right to the end. It’s not a “strategy change” to get on tv and say “of course we are going to file an amended complaint” and then fail to file that complaint. That’s actually just a lie.

Here’s what would not have been a lie, since you and Freedman seem to need the help in telling lies from not lies: when you don’t yet know what will happen, get on tv and say you are “looking at the issue and considering the best options.” That is totally not a lie then! I know, it’s actually that simple. I’m not sure you see how easy it is not to lie to your own supporters, so I hope this helps you and Freedman figure that out!

Again a lot of allegations from lying from the person supporting the parties that filed sham litigation to get early access to documents.

I don’t care about the amended complaint because the defamation claim was the main one. I’m also going to wait a few weeks and see what, if any, other legal measures are taken. This isn’t a reality show and we aren’t owed 24/7 updates on this litigation.

Look, just tell that to your guy, not to me. “You don’t need to get on TV and announce a plan after every major event!” I almost noted that in my response above but I thought it was too obvious.

However, if Freedman *does* get on TV and announce a plan, and then proceeds to do the exact opposite of that plan, it is appropriate to call his announcement on TV a lie. Words have meaning and saying you will do one thing and then doing NOT that thing is lying. 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling. This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced. I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds. I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit. I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing. Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does. Good for her.