Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan’s lawyers have a dc connection. Gottlieb works for Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher, which is a K street firm. Kamala’s husband works there, they’re the ones who sued Giuliani and now they just announced a 100M deal with the Trump administration (which Kamala’s husband is apparently against). There’s a few lawyers across different firms working the case, but it seems like Gottlieb and this firm are the lead attorneys.

Wilkie is actually based in New York.

[Anonymous]

Lively filed her opposition to Wallace’s motion, saying basically, inter alia, that Wallace’s bare declaration saying he didn’t do any smearing flies in the face of the texts they have saying he was doing some smearing, and the texts establish the smear for purposes of the MTD. I think Freedman’s opposition to Lively’s MTD is due tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan’s lawyers have a dc connection. Gottlieb works for Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher, which is a K street firm. Kamala’s husband works there, they’re the ones who sued Giuliani and now they just announced a 100M deal with the Trump administration (which Kamala’s husband is apparently against). There’s a few lawyers across different firms working the case, but it seems like Gottlieb and this firm are the lead attorneys.

Wilkie is actually based in New York.

I think they have offices all over the country. Gottlieb signed the response to Wallace’s MTD using a DC address for Wilkie. Just found it an interesting connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively filed her opposition to Wallace’s motion, saying basically, inter alia, that Wallace’s bare declaration saying he didn’t do any smearing flies in the face of the texts they have saying he was doing some smearing, and the texts establish the smear for purposes of the MTD. I think Freedman’s opposition to Lively’s MTD is due tomorrow.

Right, I don’t think Wallace had a reasonable expectation of getting a dismissal. His fight is really over jurisdiction. He wants his case sliced off from the group and tried in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan’s lawyers have a dc connection. Gottlieb works for Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher, which is a K street firm. Kamala’s husband works there, they’re the ones who sued Giuliani and now they just announced a 100M deal with the Trump administration (which Kamala’s husband is apparently against). There’s a few lawyers across different firms working the case, but it seems like Gottlieb and this firm are the lead attorneys.

Wilkie is actually based in New York.

I think they have offices all over the country. Gottlieb signed the response to Wallace’s MTD using a DC address for Wilkie. Just found it an interesting connection.

They do have offices all over the country but they are a NY firm. Gottlieb likely works out of the DC office.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer has responded to Blake’s MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wayfarer has responded to Blake’s MTD.

PP again. I’ve only read the beginning, but if I’m understanding correctly, Brian Freedman is calling California’s me too law unconstitutional. Says the first amendment protects their right to petition the court and at no point can Lively be awarded treble damages.

[Anonymous]

Blake directed Taylor’s new music video. That says it all for anyone who thought Taylor was hesitant about the lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake directed Taylor’s new music video. That says it all for anyone who thought Taylor was hesitant about the lawsuit

What video? I wasn’t aware she released anything recently?

[Anonymous]

Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake directed Taylor’s new music video. That says it all for anyone who thought Taylor was hesitant about the lawsuit

That video was shot two years ago. This is old news. Taylor is not shooting videos right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

It sounds like Blake apologized and Taylor took the phone call, but until I see Taylor publicly supporting Blake, I’m not buying it’s any deeper than that. It’s like when a friend burns you and you accept their apology but the relationship is never really the same after that. And why should Taylor risk her own reputation right now for someone like Blake? She’s combustible. Look what happened to the donut shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

It sounds like Blake apologized and Taylor took the phone call, but until I see Taylor publicly supporting Blake, I’m not buying it’s any deeper than that. It’s like when a friend burns you and you accept their apology but the relationship is never really the same after that. And why should Taylor risk her own reputation right now for someone like Blake? She’s combustible. Look what happened to the donut shop.

I imagine there was some sort of behind-the-scenes negotiation between the PR reps that said they can move forward with this messaging but won't do any appearances together for now. I'd say that's nominally good for Blake. Not great, but shows she's not completely done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

It sounds like Blake apologized and Taylor took the phone call, but until I see Taylor publicly supporting Blake, I’m not buying it’s any deeper than that. It’s like when a friend burns you and you accept their apology but the relationship is never really the same after that. And why should Taylor risk her own reputation right now for someone like Blake? She’s combustible. Look what happened to the donut shop.

I imagine there was some sort of behind-the-scenes negotiation between the PR reps that said they can move forward with this messaging but won't do any appearances together for now. I'd say that's nominally good for Blake. Not great, but shows she's not completely done.

You’ve read this all wrong.

Taylor is notoriously supportive of her girlfriends and she goes out of her way to use her fame to shield people she’s even tangentially friendly with. See Sophie Turner — Taylor made a big show of being seen publicly with Sophie and even let her stay in her NY townhouse. She barely knew Sophie.

Taylor is a girls girl.

Taylor Swift staying silent is equivalent to screaming in a megaphone “I am not with Blake”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

It sounds like Blake apologized and Taylor took the phone call, but until I see Taylor publicly supporting Blake, I’m not buying it’s any deeper than that. It’s like when a friend burns you and you accept their apology but the relationship is never really the same after that. And why should Taylor risk her own reputation right now for someone like Blake? She’s combustible. Look what happened to the donut shop.

I imagine there was some sort of behind-the-scenes negotiation between the PR reps that said they can move forward with this messaging but won't do any appearances together for now. I'd say that's nominally good for Blake. Not great, but shows she's not completely done.

You’ve read this all wrong.

Taylor is notoriously supportive of her girlfriends and she goes out of her way to use her fame to shield people she’s even tangentially friendly with. See Sophie Turner — Taylor made a big show of being seen publicly with Sophie and even let her stay in her NY townhouse. She barely knew Sophie.

Taylor is a girls girl.

Taylor Swift staying silent is equivalent to screaming in a megaphone “I am not with Blake”

So do you think Blake is leaking these stories without Taylor's permission? Or if you think Taylor's PR agreed, why do you think they did that? She's been silent on Blake for a while, so this represents a change. Why do you think that change is happening now? I assume it is the PR firm Blake hired.