Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone asked me earlier today why I seemed so angry. I mentioned to blame the case, and not me.


At this point for Blake, she’s probably freaking out about possibly having to pay JB $400million.

Oh yeah, all that money. I honestly forget that's at stake sometimes since this seems to be such a battle of reputation for me, but you're right. Getting trashed in the press and knowing very few people are on your side, you're going to be blackballed by Hollywood and lose your career, losing your friends, and you might have to pony up that kind of cash? Gotta be rough in the Reynolds household unless they're such narcissists they're deluded about that being the track they're on (particularly Blake...) which I concede is a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

Didn’t Blake try to litigate in the press with her NY Times hit piece? Or was that straight up libel at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

Not to mention they probably had someone watching pacer after all the recent filings, including the Lively letter to which Freedman was responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

[Anonymous]

lead = leak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

Daily Mail repeats and rehashes old articles. It wasn’t 40 paragraphs of new info. And fwiw they wouldn’t publish something like this involving lawyers and taylor swift without some strong back up.

There’s some truth to that piece and my bet the source is credible albeit anonymous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

What’s the problem if he did? Only Blake is allowed to go to the press?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

The irony coming from the team that allegedly did the same thing, except worse, with the nyt kicking this hole melodrama off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

What’s the problem if he did? Only Blake is allowed to go to the press?

Right… Didn’t Blake file the lawsuit on December 19 and the times article was up December 21? A deep dive long form article complete with graphics. And Internet sleuths showed they’d been working on it since at least October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

I think if anyone could, its the Daily Mail. They move quickly and play pretty fast and loose. I'm not under the impression legal review is much of a blocker to them hitting publish. It's part of the reason they should be read with a grain of salt and a cynical eye, but yeah, they get things out FAST. Plus, who even cares if Freedman gave them a heads up? There's nothing wrong with that and team Lively does that stuff too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

What’s the problem if he did? Only Blake is allowed to go to the press?

Pretty sure the problem is that Liman told them not to do that. You might be mad, still, about the NYT, but that ship has sailed and we are on The Good Ship Liman now.

[Anonymous]

Blake’s goose is cooked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esra Hudson responds for Wilkie, asking Liman to strike the letter, saying its allegations are untrue, and reserving the right to seek sanctions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.218.0.pdf

Hudson's letter also particularly notes that within minutes of the letter appearing on the docket, media outlets started reporting on it, including one 40+ paragraph story from the Daily Mail -- noting this trial by press was another reason to strike the letter.

She works for Manatt. Is she saying it implies Manatt involvement? B/c I don’t think BF says that. Maybe I’m missing something

Lively’s attorney Hudson noted in her letter motion to strike that within minutes after the letter that Baldoni’s lawyers, Freedman, wrote making the Swift allegations, a 40+ paragraph story on the material that was within Freedman’s letter was published by the Daily Mail.

She is hinting that Freedman must have leaked the story to the Daily Mail before filing his letter, because you can’t write 40+ paragraphs in 5 minutes, usually.

It's like 5 new paragraphs and the rest regurgitated background from previous articles.

You really think you could find the filing, write those new paragraphs, add it to the rest, and get it approved by your legal department in five minutes, with no advance warning? I do not but ymmv. (Isn't the Daily Mail Freedman's lead of choice?)

What’s the problem if he did? Only Blake is allowed to go to the press?

Pretty sure the problem is that Liman told them not to do that. You might be mad, still, about the NYT, but that ship has sailed and we are on The Good Ship Liman now.

And what’s liman gonna do about it tuff girl?

[Anonymous]

Just seeing this. What a crash out. So much for Taylor and Travis’s recent behavior and signals being “nothing.”

Blake and Ryan’s careers are over. My hunch is Ryan cuts bait by Christmas. Divorce. He’s always been a ruthless sociopathic striver.