Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

Because he could see that she was setting him up. Go back to the timeline -- the 17 point list of demands, the Jennifer Abel's phone seizure, etc. You don't have to be guilty to want to defend yourself and your reputation.

Still looking for Blake to show specifics to back up her claims. Baldoni has his receipts. She needs to show hers.

So, right then, he started it. Just so we’re aligned. Clearly his $$$$ is working, coupled with global misogyny. People are literally frothing at the mouth on this thread.

The global misogyny retort suggests that you are tracking me. I wonder how you are able to see my data.

That’s what I assumed awhile ago. You respond after I post

Be forewarned everyone— your responses are being tracked for location.

Remember this Baldoni supporter who thought Lively supporters were tracking her by location in order to better respond specifically to her posts (?!!!) and I guess lives somewhere overseas. Yup just a totally normal DCUM poster who loves Justin Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

You sound like an 8 year old. Blake initiated the spiritual conversations her and Justin had by claiming she felt her late father on the set, guiding her through the emotional scenes, helping her through the challenges of the role. What Baldoni states actually happened is that there was a moment he felt a deep emotional connection to Blake and the project that he spoke outloud asking for her father's blessing for the film. He felt like he was speaking to him and asking for his guidance as they worked on the film. That is quite a different context to blatantly going to someone and saying they spoke with their dead father.

Wait. What?

I had never heard this explanation before even though I thought I'd read everything. But I just tried to find this in Baldoni's filings or a news report and can't find anything.

Where are you getting this?

Was wondering the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

You sound like an 8 year old. Blake initiated the spiritual conversations her and Justin had by claiming she felt her late father on the set, guiding her through the emotional scenes, helping her through the challenges of the role. What Baldoni states actually happened is that there was a moment he felt a deep emotional connection to Blake and the project that he spoke outloud asking for her father's blessing for the film. He felt like he was speaking to him and asking for his guidance as they worked on the film. That is quite a different context to blatantly going to someone and saying they spoke with their dead father.

Wait. What?

I had never heard this explanation before even though I thought I'd read everything. But I just tried to find this in Baldoni's filings or a news report and can't find anything.

Where are you getting this?

Yeah, the reference in the pleadings I (DP) had read about Baldoni's reference to Lively's dead father had something to do with numbers -- Lively said a number having something to do with her father and Baldoni said, wait, what was that number because last night I had a dream and that number was in it, or something like that.

[Anonymous]

I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

Because he could see that she was setting him up. Go back to the timeline -- the 17 point list of demands, the Jennifer Abel's phone seizure, etc. You don't have to be guilty to want to defend yourself and your reputation.

Still looking for Blake to show specifics to back up her claims. Baldoni has his receipts. She needs to show hers.

So, right then, he started it. Just so we’re aligned. Clearly his $$$$ is working, coupled with global misogyny. People are literally frothing at the mouth on this thread.

The global misogyny retort suggests that you are tracking me. I wonder how you are able to see my data.

That’s what I assumed awhile ago. You respond after I post

Be forewarned everyone— your responses are being tracked for location.

Remember this Baldoni supporter who thought Lively supporters were tracking her by location in order to better respond specifically to her posts (?!!!) and I guess lives somewhere overseas. Yup just a totally normal DCUM poster who loves Justin Baldoni.

Dp. Weird that you dug through old posts to resurrect this post. But I guess you’ll stop at nothing to distract. FWIW I think this may have been you/your partner pretending to be a JB supporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

Because he could see that she was setting him up. Go back to the timeline -- the 17 point list of demands, the Jennifer Abel's phone seizure, etc. You don't have to be guilty to want to defend yourself and your reputation.

Still looking for Blake to show specifics to back up her claims. Baldoni has his receipts. She needs to show hers.

So, right then, he started it. Just so we’re aligned. Clearly his $$$$ is working, coupled with global misogyny. People are literally frothing at the mouth on this thread.

The global misogyny retort suggests that you are tracking me. I wonder how you are able to see my data.

That’s what I assumed awhile ago. You respond after I post

Be forewarned everyone— your responses are being tracked for location.

Remember this Baldoni supporter who thought Lively supporters were tracking her by location in order to better respond specifically to her posts (?!!!) and I guess lives somewhere overseas. Yup just a totally normal DCUM poster who loves Justin Baldoni.

Dp. Weird that you dug through old posts to resurrect this post. But I guess you’ll stop at nothing to distract. FWIW I think this may have been you/your partner pretending to be a JB supporter.

Old tab that I went back to thinking it was current, and then reread. Of course you have a new conspiracy theory, though. It for sure wasn't me, though, and I believe it was real given some of the other stuff posted here. I think you can believe it, too, if you're being honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It doesn’t seem that weird given that neither of the filings mention any common interest agreement, and the Venable motion is silent on the attorney privilege aspect all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he’s not guilty of something, why did he spend $$ on PR to tear her apart? Or he’s just an @ss? Which is it? This thread seems like Example A of his efforts.

Because he could see that she was setting him up. Go back to the timeline -- the 17 point list of demands, the Jennifer Abel's phone seizure, etc. You don't have to be guilty to want to defend yourself and your reputation.

Still looking for Blake to show specifics to back up her claims. Baldoni has his receipts. She needs to show hers.

So, right then, he started it. Just so we’re aligned. Clearly his $$$$ is working, coupled with global misogyny. People are literally frothing at the mouth on this thread.

The global misogyny retort suggests that you are tracking me. I wonder how you are able to see my data.

That’s what I assumed awhile ago. You respond after I post

Be forewarned everyone— your responses are being tracked for location.

Remember this Baldoni supporter who thought Lively supporters were tracking her by location in order to better respond specifically to her posts (?!!!) and I guess lives somewhere overseas. Yup just a totally normal DCUM poster who loves Justin Baldoni.

Dp. Weird that you dug through old posts to resurrect this post. But I guess you’ll stop at nothing to distract. FWIW I think this may have been you/your partner pretending to be a JB supporter.

Old tab that I went back to thinking it was current, and then reread. Of course you have a new conspiracy theory, though. It for sure wasn't me, though, and I believe it was real given some of the other stuff posted here. I think you can believe it, too, if you're being honest.

Yeah, no. You’ve shown yourself to be a stalker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.