Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just be careful. Not your friends and all that, ha!

?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be careful. Not your friends and all that, ha!

?

The pro-Baldoni side are regularly rude and degrading to anyone who who isn’t also flat out pro-Baldoni. Look at how you attacked Po former litigator as some tag team. So now someone is asking PP former litigator if they are former big law etc. Is it a trick lol? Now you want responses like folks are your friends, wut? The pettiness has been nuts, not sure PP should provide you ammunition!

My own pettiness is mostly targeted at things Bryan Freedman does that I find highly questionable.

[Anonymous]

I believe but am not sure that there is another person who has said they are pro-Lively and is a lawyer but not a litigator, and also comments a bunch on the PR aspects of the case (like FauxMoi etc), but maybe isn’t here much today. But I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a former litigator, pro-no one, but with a strong bias for the way Lively's legal team is litigating over Bryan Freedman's style. I worked with and against lawyers like BF in my career and am not a fan, even when it's effective. I think a lot of what he does is morally borderline and some things strike me as downright unethical. I'm also familiar with him from more than this case, so some of my bias against him comes from knowing about stuff he's done in other cases that I think is really across the line.

That doesn't mean I think Lively is right about everything, or even that she's going to win. I try to be fairly balanced in my comments here and when Lively's team makes mistakes or when Freedman has a win, I will say so.

I've been accused of being pro-Lively and I've also had pro-BL people argue with things I've said. [shrug emoji]

DP. are you a big law lawyer?

I spent 3 years in big law but then went to a litigation boutique. But the retired from that 5 years ago and just do consulting and don't practice at all anymore.

[Anonymous]

So I’m the pro-Baldoni, non litigating attorney who started this hand raising action, and I must say, nice to meet you all. I support Baldoni for the reasons that others of you do. I cannot view this case from a strictly legal perspective anymore that I can look at Bryan K up in Idaho and presume innocence until the prosecution shows more proof. There was a knife and sheath. Four innocents were murdered by knife; dna left on sheath. The assailant sported bushy eyebrows. And his phone pinged, was turned off, and then pinged again near the location.

Again, have not heard the prosecution’s case, but I’m biased.

The same goes for this case and all of the rebuttals by Baldoni’s team just prove that Blake lied about several big assertions. If any of what Baldoni is saying about all of the ambushes, etc, are correct, then wow. Blake and Ryan do seem to be absolutely cruel people.

I do hope that their MTDs are not allowed and that all details from both sides do come forth to the public.

I do believe that this will settle. Another year of this will be too much.

[Anonymous]

I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

Thanks! I'm the PP above (I'm also the one who broke down what Lively and Baldoni got in the PO which was 90% in her favor) and I have appreciated your posts, especially the notes from the hearing which as it turned out were very accurate since the judge went the way you said (and I didn't think Lively was going to get as much as she did). Yep, it's definitely frustrating how people keep mixing posters up, sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

It’s quite funny that the pro Lively people think we can’t tell them apart. The ladies doth protest too much.

[Anonymous]

We now return to our regularly scheduled insult portion of the program. Never change, Team Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Also, I know for sure you cannot tell people apart because I have seen you regularly confuse me with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

Anyone?

DP. This seems pretty important, could the lawyers who are discussing the most boring parts of this case chime in with these pretty relevant questions???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be careful. Not your friends and all that, ha!

?

The pro-Baldoni side are regularly rude and degrading to anyone who who isn’t also flat out pro-Baldoni. Look at how you attacked Po former litigator as some tag team. So now someone is asking PP former litigator if they are former big law etc. Is it a trick lol? Now you want responses like folks are your friends, wut? The pettiness has been nuts, not sure PP should provide you ammunition!

My own pettiness is mostly targeted at things Bryan Freedman does that I find highly questionable.

Not even sure what you mean. I didn’t attack anyone and I find it odd you think you know who posts what. I asked if that attorney who didn’t like freedman was big law because big law lawyers tend to be buttoned down and I can see how they wouldn’t like Freedman’s show boat ways.