Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The circus never ends!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14711445/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-texts-support-justin-baldoni.html

Blake Lively allegedly threatened to leak embarrassing private texts from bestie Taylor Swift unless the pop star agreed to publicly back the actress in her feud with co-star Justin Baldoni, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

wow! And if that’s not enough…people magazine has Blake now lunching with Salma Hayek and her LVMH $$$.

Taylor who? I’m Blake Lively!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The circus never ends!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14711445/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-texts-support-justin-baldoni.html

Blake Lively allegedly threatened to leak embarrassing private texts from bestie Taylor Swift unless the pop star agreed to publicly back the actress in her feud with co-star Justin Baldoni, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

wow! And if that’s not enough…people magazine has Blake now lunching with Salma Hayek and her LVMH $$$.

Taylor who? I’m Blake Lively!

Salma's husband basically own CAA. Having her as a friend is protection in Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The circus never ends!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14711445/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-texts-support-justin-baldoni.html

Blake Lively allegedly threatened to leak embarrassing private texts from bestie Taylor Swift unless the pop star agreed to publicly back the actress in her feud with co-star Justin Baldoni, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

wow! And if that’s not enough…people magazine has Blake now lunching with Salma Hayek and her LVMH $$$.

Taylor who? I’m Blake Lively!

I would not go up against Taylor. She simply has more money and power.

This reeks of desperation and an inability to accept reality.

[Anonymous]

Did not know that he was involved with CAA as well. I’d only known about the luxury goods.

[Anonymous]

Now we have a good reason for why Kelce unfollowed Reynolds.

[Anonymous]

What us CAA?

[Anonymous]

No wonder why Travis unfollowed Ryan. Why in the world would they threaten Taylor? She knows they would comes out anyway during the discovery. All blake did was show Taylor who she really was even their friendship didn't matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The circus never ends!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14711445/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-texts-support-justin-baldoni.html

Blake Lively allegedly threatened to leak embarrassing private texts from bestie Taylor Swift unless the pop star agreed to publicly back the actress in her feud with co-star Justin Baldoni, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

wow! And if that’s not enough…people magazine has Blake now lunching with Salma Hayek and her LVMH $$$.

Taylor who? I’m Blake Lively!

I would not go up against Taylor. She simply has more money and power.

This reeks of desperation and an inability to accept reality.

And of course, the psps just happened to be there, at that very spot, at that very moment to capture the walk…and People magazine….


Staged to make Taylor jealous

[Anonymous]

‘Paps’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What us CAA?

Creative Artists Agency. One of the top Hollywood agencies. Salma's husband bought the majority stake a few years ago

[Anonymous]

Gottlieb is repudiating Freedman's witness tampering claims very strongly. From TMZ:

"This is categorically false. We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources, and completely untethered from reality. This is what we have come to expect from the Wayfarer parties’ lawyers, who appear to love nothing more than shooting first, without any evidence, and with no care for the people they are harming in the process. We will imminently file motions with the court to hold these attorneys accountable for their misconduct here."

I'm the one upthread who was being cautious because Gottlieb's not the kind of lawyer I'd expect to get caught up in something like this. He has zero motivation to risk his career for something so dumb.

I am inclined to believe him. I think this is a PR ploy/trick from Freedman. I've seen arguments on Reddit that this is Freedman trying to draw Taylor out and force her to comment publicly. If she comes out and backs up Lively and says "this is ridiculous," Freedman could use that public statement to get her drawn into the litigation ("see, she is one of Blake's dragons, look how she defends her").

I think this is bait, both for JB fans who love the red meat and for Swift who is trying very hard to stay as far from this tawdry mess as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

I agree. If Venable is negotiating with the then they are most likely also giving the names of the exact employees that work with Taylor. That way they can tailor the requests down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gottlieb is repudiating Freedman's witness tampering claims very strongly. From TMZ:

"This is categorically false. We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources, and completely untethered from reality. This is what we have come to expect from the Wayfarer parties’ lawyers, who appear to love nothing more than shooting first, without any evidence, and with no care for the people they are harming in the process. We will imminently file motions with the court to hold these attorneys accountable for their misconduct here."

I'm the one upthread who was being cautious because Gottlieb's not the kind of lawyer I'd expect to get caught up in something like this. He has zero motivation to risk his career for something so dumb.

I am inclined to believe him. I think this is a PR ploy/trick from Freedman. I've seen arguments on Reddit that this is Freedman trying to draw Taylor out and force her to comment publicly. If she comes out and backs up Lively and says "this is ridiculous," Freedman could use that public statement to get her drawn into the litigation ("see, she is one of Blake's dragons, look how she defends her").

I think this is bait, both for JB fans who love the red meat and for Swift who is trying very hard to stay as far from this tawdry mess as possible.

Disagree. Freedman is no angel and does play hardball but he wouldn’t outright lie. His letter specifically mentions working with Venable in good faith. Venable is Taylor’s legal team.

All we can do is wait and see what drops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the basis for the Venable subpoena, why did Venable file the motion to quash? Freedman is now saying he thinks it will be mooted soon because they are working together.

Curious what changed between Venables MTQ, which was pretty strongly worded, and this letter. Especially because in the meantime Lively joined the MTQ and filed the motion to intervene, and the wording of that motion seemed to indicate that Venable and Lively's team were working together.

Curious to hear from Venable here. If they moot the MTQ then we'll know, but it doesn't look like it's happened yet.

The subpoena was likely overbroad. Once Freedman indicated the specific correspondence he wanted, Venable may have become more willing to produce.

Maybe. That doesn't square with Taylor's public statement about it though. She was unequivocal that she had nothing to do with IEWU. Do we really think Taylor Swift and her advisors are so stupid as to publicly and aggressively lie that she had zero involvement with the film, if in reality there were texts back and forth with Lively about the film, AND that Lively had asked her to delete them, AND that Lively's lawyer had supposedly tried to extort Swift into issuing a public supportive statement by threatening to release embarrassing content about Swift?

It seems like if any of that had happened, Swift would have more clearly cut ties with Lively and also her attorneys would have negotiated a deal with Freedman to share just the damning communications from Lively. It doesn't make sense that if all that had really gone down, Taylor would offer a very clear "this does not concern me" statement and that her lawyers would issue a motion to quash.