Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ferrer motion is poorly written and odd (doesn't provide proof of that AI citation, the exhibits don't seem to fully support everything alleged, it's entirely unclear why they can't just accept service) but also I'm not entirely shocked by the allegation that Freedman/Wayfarer have been trying to strong-arm her on indemnification (seems somewhat similar to the situation with Jen Abel, who really should have independent counsel and it's shocking to me that she doesn't at this point) or were refusing to pay for something they were contractually required to pay for (echoes of the disputes with their insurance companies).

I wish the lawyering here was better. Ferrer really appears to be a totally blameless third party here and has every reason to be unhappy about getting dragged into this as well as the awful vitriol that has been directed at her online (and via DMs! that's just terrible). So I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But the filing is a mess and it's making me more skeptical of the arguments. Similar to how I started to feel with Freedman, who also had filings rife with mistakes and was just very unprofessional and aggressive in a way I do not like from the start. For me, it's discrediting. If you are going to be a pitbull as a lawyer, that's fine, but you need to get the lawyering right or you just sound crazy or like a bully.

If you read the affidavit, you will see that WF agreed to pay for her lawyer back in the spring. I too would be somewhat unwilling to pay for a lawyer who is refusing to accept service for their client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ferrer motion is poorly written and odd (doesn't provide proof of that AI citation, the exhibits don't seem to fully support everything alleged, it's entirely unclear why they can't just accept service) but also I'm not entirely shocked by the allegation that Freedman/Wayfarer have been trying to strong-arm her on indemnification (seems somewhat similar to the situation with Jen Abel, who really should have independent counsel and it's shocking to me that she doesn't at this point) or were refusing to pay for something they were contractually required to pay for (echoes of the disputes with their insurance companies).

I wish the lawyering here was better. Ferrer really appears to be a totally blameless third party here and has every reason to be unhappy about getting dragged into this as well as the awful vitriol that has been directed at her online (and via DMs! that's just terrible). So I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But the filing is a mess and it's making me more skeptical of the arguments. Similar to how I started to feel with Freedman, who also had filings rife with mistakes and was just very unprofessional and aggressive in a way I do not like from the start. For me, it's discrediting. If you are going to be a pitbull as a lawyer, that's fine, but you need to get the lawyering right or you just sound crazy or like a bully.

If you read the affidavit, you will see that WF agreed to pay for her lawyer back in the spring. I too would be somewhat unwilling to pay for a lawyer who is refusing to accept service for their client.

Right but Ferrer is arguing that while they agreed to pay for the lawyer, they had not paid any bills yet. I'm still not totally clear on what actually happened, but what Ferrer is arguing is that Wayfarer was using the subpoena AND the unpaid bills as an intimidation tactic to try and force her to toe the Wayfarer line in responses to Lively's subpoena.

Again, I don't know if that can even be proven and Ferrer's filing here is really messy and hyperbolic, but their argument at least is clear to me now. Normally I'd say no, just accept service and deal with the bills later, they can always file motions for payment and if Wayfarer agreed to pay after that earlier arbitration, they aren't going to get out of it. But clearly the relationship here is extremely contentious so maybe there is something to Ferrer's intimidation argument. It's just hard to tell from the filing which is poorly written and supported.

[Anonymous]

I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ferrer motion is poorly written and odd (doesn't provide proof of that AI citation, the exhibits don't seem to fully support everything alleged, it's entirely unclear why they can't just accept service) but also I'm not entirely shocked by the allegation that Freedman/Wayfarer have been trying to strong-arm her on indemnification (seems somewhat similar to the situation with Jen Abel, who really should have independent counsel and it's shocking to me that she doesn't at this point) or were refusing to pay for something they were contractually required to pay for (echoes of the disputes with their insurance companies).

I wish the lawyering here was better. Ferrer really appears to be a totally blameless third party here and has every reason to be unhappy about getting dragged into this as well as the awful vitriol that has been directed at her online (and via DMs! that's just terrible). So I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But the filing is a mess and it's making me more skeptical of the arguments. Similar to how I started to feel with Freedman, who also had filings rife with mistakes and was just very unprofessional and aggressive in a way I do not like from the start. For me, it's discrediting. If you are going to be a pitbull as a lawyer, that's fine, but you need to get the lawyering right or you just sound crazy or like a bully.

If you read the affidavit, you will see that WF agreed to pay for her lawyer back in the spring. I too would be somewhat unwilling to pay for a lawyer who is refusing to accept service for their client.

Right but Ferrer is arguing that while they agreed to pay for the lawyer, they had not paid any bills yet. I'm still not totally clear on what actually happened, but what Ferrer is arguing is that Wayfarer was using the subpoena AND the unpaid bills as an intimidation tactic to try and force her to toe the Wayfarer line in responses to Lively's subpoena.

Again, I don't know if that can even be proven and Ferrer's filing here is really messy and hyperbolic, but their argument at least is clear to me now. Normally I'd say no, just accept service and deal with the bills later, they can always file motions for payment and if Wayfarer agreed to pay after that earlier arbitration, they aren't going to get out of it. But clearly the relationship here is extremely contentious so maybe there is something to Ferrer's intimidation argument. It's just hard to tell from the filing which is poorly written and supported.

Unpaid bills are not a reason to reject service and certainly have nothing to do with the motion for alternative service. That said, the response doesn’t identify amounts outstanding or when the bills were submitted to the mediator for payment and when they were approved. It seems there was a concern that he was doing legal work for Isabel beyond what she should be indemnified for and the mediator does seem a logical and workable response but not a route to rapid payment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the exhibits really don’t even remotely support the claims in the affidavit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

Why is she a "spineless, obnoxious loser"? What is that based on? I don't feel like I know enough about her at all to draw any conclusions about what kind of person she is, much less to have a strong reaction to her. I don't feel like I know almost anything about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Ferrer motion is poorly written and odd (doesn't provide proof of that AI citation, the exhibits don't seem to fully support everything alleged, it's entirely unclear why they can't just accept service) but also I'm not entirely shocked by the allegation that Freedman/Wayfarer have been trying to strong-arm her on indemnification (seems somewhat similar to the situation with Jen Abel, who really should have independent counsel and it's shocking to me that she doesn't at this point) or were refusing to pay for something they were contractually required to pay for (echoes of the disputes with their insurance companies).

I wish the lawyering here was better. Ferrer really appears to be a totally blameless third party here and has every reason to be unhappy about getting dragged into this as well as the awful vitriol that has been directed at her online (and via DMs! that's just terrible). So I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But the filing is a mess and it's making me more skeptical of the arguments. Similar to how I started to feel with Freedman, who also had filings rife with mistakes and was just very unprofessional and aggressive in a way I do not like from the start. For me, it's discrediting. If you are going to be a pitbull as a lawyer, that's fine, but you need to get the lawyering right or you just sound crazy or like a bully.

But Blake is the one that dragged her into this, not Justin. Blake could have followed proper protocols and filed complaints with SAG. Instead, she went running to the New York Times me to writer so that she could be the face of me too.

Justin has a right to defend himself. I don’t know if he’s sexually harassed Blake or not, but I do know that some of her claims are off base and have required additional context. Blake has alleged that the actress playing young lily we had a problem with Justin. OK, let’s see some evidence because we haven’t yet. I think it was rational for Justin to defend himself if she hadn’t actually made any complaints and this is the first he was hearing of it. He actually does have a right to defend himself against some of these allegations. I know Blake supporters expected him to read the New York Times article onto slink quietly away, and for Blake never having to be bothered about this again so she can get back to selling cocktails and hair products, but that’s not how things work in the real world.

I was the one that posted Isabella has not gotten any acting roles since the movie which is odd. It is quite likely that this has tanked her career before it started, and that is truly sad because she looked like a promising young actress this could’ve been an exciting time for her. But Justin did not drag her into this Blake did.

If we find out that she didn’t have any issues with Justin, but decided to climb on the Blake and ryan bandwagon, then in that case, I have no sympathy for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.

I don’t get it either. She could just provide them and avoid the limelight entirely. Instead, her lawyer refused to accept service and then filed a truly wackadoodle motion that put her in the spotlight. He’s not doing her any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I didn't she say she didn't. Of course I think she should be cooperative legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ferrer motion is poorly written and odd (doesn't provide proof of that AI citation, the exhibits don't seem to fully support everything alleged, it's entirely unclear why they can't just accept service) but also I'm not entirely shocked by the allegation that Freedman/Wayfarer have been trying to strong-arm her on indemnification (seems somewhat similar to the situation with Jen Abel, who really should have independent counsel and it's shocking to me that she doesn't at this point) or were refusing to pay for something they were contractually required to pay for (echoes of the disputes with their insurance companies).

I wish the lawyering here was better. Ferrer really appears to be a totally blameless third party here and has every reason to be unhappy about getting dragged into this as well as the awful vitriol that has been directed at her online (and via DMs! that's just terrible). So I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But the filing is a mess and it's making me more skeptical of the arguments. Similar to how I started to feel with Freedman, who also had filings rife with mistakes and was just very unprofessional and aggressive in a way I do not like from the start. For me, it's discrediting. If you are going to be a pitbull as a lawyer, that's fine, but you need to get the lawyering right or you just sound crazy or like a bully.

But Blake is the one that dragged her into this, not Justin. Blake could have followed proper protocols and filed complaints with SAG. Instead, she went running to the New York Times me to writer so that she could be the face of me too.

Justin has a right to defend himself. I don’t know if he’s sexually harassed Blake or not, but I do know that some of her claims are off base and have required additional context. Blake has alleged that the actress playing young lily we had a problem with Justin. OK, let’s see some evidence because we haven’t yet. I think it was rational for Justin to defend himself if she hadn’t actually made any complaints and this is the first he was hearing of it. He actually does have a right to defend himself against some of these allegations. I know Blake supporters expected him to read the New York Times article onto slink quietly away, and for Blake never having to be bothered about this again so she can get back to selling cocktails and hair products, but that’s not how things work in the real world.

I was the one that posted Isabella has not gotten any acting roles since the movie which is odd. It is quite likely that this has tanked her career before it started, and that is truly sad because she looked like a promising young actress this could’ve been an exciting time for her. But Justin did not drag her into this Blake did.

If we find out that she didn’t have any issues with Justin, but decided to climb on the Blake and ryan bandwagon, then in that case, I have no sympathy for her.

I agree, I'm so sick of Blake supporters trying to claim Justin is dragging her into this and how this is yet just another instance of DARVO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.

The Wayfarer subpoena is almost identical to the subpoena Lively served on Ferrer back in February, so Wayfarer should already have all this info since Lively will have been required to share anything she got from Ferrer. It is odd to me that they would have served a new subpoena on her in July duplicating what she produced in the spring. This does tend to back up Ferrer's argument that the subpoena and motion for alternative service are both frivolous filings intended to intimidate Ferrer, especially if it was happening during an ongoing dispute between Ferrer and Wayfarer over her attorney's fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.

The Wayfarer subpoena is almost identical to the subpoena Lively served on Ferrer back in February, so Wayfarer should already have all this info since Lively will have been required to share anything she got from Ferrer. It is odd to me that they would have served a new subpoena on her in July duplicating what she produced in the spring. This does tend to back up Ferrer's argument that the subpoena and motion for alternative service are both frivolous filings intended to intimidate Ferrer, especially if it was happening during an ongoing dispute between Ferrer and Wayfarer over her attorney's fees.

If that’s her position, she needs to accept service and file a motion to quash. She’s done neither.

[Anonymous]

Does someone have a link to the WF subpoena?