Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't know about the subpoena thing -- seems like a tricky lawyer thing but I have no idea if it is unethical or not. Lawyers have ethics rules they are required to follow as part of being members of the bar -- would filing this lawsuit to get the subpoena violate those?

Separately, I saw that Freedman et al informed the court this week that they don't intend to file a motion for leave to amend tomorrow. I know it's been discussed here but I didn't realize it was a done deal until I saw it on Reddit. Do people think Liman will punish them for it by dismissing more claims with prejudice than he might have otherwise? I know of do. They asked for more time to file, he denied, and now they are basically saying "ok well we're going to take more time anyway, thanks." That seems like the sort of thing that would piss off a judge. If they were just going to do whatever they wanted, why ask for the extension in the first place?

Also it flies in the face of Freedman's claims way back in January or February that Wayfarer was very interested in moving things along quickly because the lawsuits were so expensive and burdensome for Baldoni. I guess that logic only applies when Lively wants more time for something? Interesting.

Verdict’s out on BF’s legal strategy, but if there’s any truth that this straw lawsuit was used to obtain evidence in a way that violated due process, I think BF probably has the upper hand and is a bit less worried about the MTD timeline. This theory would go directly to BF’s argument that BL never intended to file this lawsuit. Just think about it, I’m sure BL/RR never expected that anyone would go digging for this straw lawsuit. They thought they’d get the documents, leak them to the NYT’s and that would be the end of it. Unfortunately they didn’t expect that JB would fight back and now all their dirty laundry is coming. This may also be why BF didn’t file an MTD of his own. I see settlement in 3-2-1…

[Anonymous]

Notactuallygolden is going to be orgasmic over the subpoena news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

I don’t ever want to hear another word from team Blake about how shady Bryan Freedman is. This is giving fraud. And the icing on the cake is the straw lawsuit NEVER mentions sexual harassment. It’s all about breach of contract and reputation. I guess they came up with the SH part later when they were forum shopping and set their sights on CA 47.1.

[Anonymous]

The story’s now in daily mail and Brian freedman has commented. He said

“This appears to be an end-around, skirting the process, to be able to secretly get these documents without having to give anyone notice.

That would be an abuse of process and we intend to take all action allowable under the law.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

I don’t ever want to hear another word from team Blake about how shady Bryan Freedman is. This is giving fraud. And the icing on the cake is the straw lawsuit NEVER mentions sexual harassment. It’s all about breach of contract and reputation. I guess they came up with the SH part later when they were forum shopping and set their sights on CA 47.1.

Let's hear from the strong Lively supporter who all but called us Baldoni supporters out for not giving her credit last week. I am open to hearing her opinion about this fake subpoena, issued by none other than ...wait for it....Blake and Ryan, in a New York court nonetheless!

[Anonymous]

I still cannot believe this. They issued a fake subpoena!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still cannot believe this. They issued a fake subpoena!

And Manatt has admitted to it. Just wow. They gave a statement saying doe lawsuits are common, but other lawyers are giving comments to the media contradicting them and saying what they did was highly inappropriate. Freedman said he didn’t know about the lawsuit before DM contacted him. The internet for the win lol.

[Anonymous]

Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

I don’t ever want to hear another word from team Blake about how shady Bryan Freedman is. This is giving fraud. And the icing on the cake is the straw lawsuit NEVER mentions sexual harassment. It’s all about breach of contract and reputation. I guess they came up with the SH part later when they were forum shopping and set their sights on CA 47.1.

Let's hear from the strong Lively supporter who all but called us Baldoni supporters out for not giving her credit last week. I am open to hearing her opinion about this fake subpoena, issued by none other than ...wait for it....Blake and Ryan, in a New York court nonetheless!

I haven’t been interested in the subpoena and haven’t weighed in on it before.

Does that make you less wrong about either the PO or the extension request which you said would clearly be granted but it wasn’t? Hint: No! But suddenly Team Baldoni lawyers are back in this thread I guess. Before you ask me to weigh in on an issue I never even commented on, maybe those two attorneys can come back to say they were wrong on the extension issue they very definitely did weigh in on, since they were both smug and wrong.

You ask for accountability from me on an issue I haven’t even had an opinion on, when you take zero accountability yourselves.

[Anonymous]

All I’ve learned from all of this is that the legal profession needs to be much better monitored and regulated. Look at how much girardi got away with and for how long. These so-called prestigious lawyers and law firms are soooo shady. They violated wayfarer’s constitutional right to due process. They can try to minimize it but this is not a small thing and we should all be outraged, especially right now when our rights are under threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Internet sleuths have found the lawsuit connected to the shady subpoena. Blake and Ryan used one of their inactive companies that’s not connected to iewu to sue “doe”defendants, claiming they didn’t have enough information to name actual defendants. They withdrew the lawsuit two days before filing the CRD complaint. People are calling it a straw man lawsuit and saying it’s highly unethical. Signed by manatt.

So, since there is no link, I went to the ItEndswithLawsuits reddit and there's a thread there, linking to this as a sham lawsuit (this is their speculation)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=lSmaTr_PLUS_7kFmgh3Gs5ZAibg==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=cLYHlDEnSZweF3ZagMhrAw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

The lawsuit is very specific considering they claimed they supposedly had no idea who they were suing. Seems really clear they chose not to name any defendants to avoid having to notify the parties to the lawsuit of the subpoena. Clearly done this way to circumvent the parties ability to move to quash. It’s called an end run around the judicial process. The lawyers can be reported to the bar and wayfarer and Jenn Abel and anyone else who’s rights were violated can sue for punitive damages. There’s also potentially criminal liability, which may be why rumor has it that criminal attorneys have been added to Blake’s legal team.

I don't know what kind of liability there would be, but I did laugh at how they can claim these defendants are unknown to them, yet they claim they had written and verbal contracts with them which they breached. It all looks shady but I don't think it will actually have an effect on Lively v. Wayfarer. My uneducated guess would be Jones or the attorney who signed the subpoena would get in the most trouble.

I don’t ever want to hear another word from team Blake about how shady Bryan Freedman is. This is giving fraud. And the icing on the cake is the straw lawsuit NEVER mentions sexual harassment. It’s all about breach of contract and reputation. I guess they came up with the SH part later when they were forum shopping and set their sights on CA 47.1.

Let's hear from the strong Lively supporter who all but called us Baldoni supporters out for not giving her credit last week. I am open to hearing her opinion about this fake subpoena, issued by none other than ...wait for it....Blake and Ryan, in a New York court nonetheless!

I haven’t been interested in the subpoena and haven’t weighed in on it before.

Does that make you less wrong about either the PO or the extension request which you said would clearly be granted but it wasn’t? Hint: No! But suddenly Team Baldoni lawyers are back in this thread I guess. Before you ask me to weigh in on an issue I never even commented on, maybe those two attorneys can come back to say they were wrong on the extension issue they very definitely did weigh in on, since they were both smug and wrong.

You ask for accountability from me on an issue I haven’t even had an opinion on, when you take zero accountability yourselves.

For starters, I am not one of the pro-Baldoni attorneys that you speak of, though I am 100% pro-Baldoni. So wrong person to throw that at. I kindly asked for your opinion, since I stayed out of the PO stuff but read your comments. I thought that since you have always been so strongly supportive of Blake at every turn that you might have a perspective on this as well.

Maybe you don't, and that's okay too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Because Taylor’s publicist or ex publicist has a connection to the shell company Blake and Ryan used for the straw lawsuit. It’s in the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14618807/blake-lively-shady-legal-maneuver-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ends-us.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can people please link to what they are referencing? Statements from Feeedman and Manatt?

Also why is someone in the Taylor swift thread in here saying she's connected to the subpoena?

Why are you in the TS thread, and then bringing that discussion over here? I think if people wanted to talk about it on this thread, they will, as they have in the past. I think it might come up later, especially if these MTDs are denied.