Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

[Anonymous]

I think there's no question Freedman tipped off the Daily Mail of what he was going to file. Not making a value judgment on that, just think that's pretty obvious because of the timing. Freedman's allegations were really explosive and I can't imagine anyone would be that on the ball about reporting on it without warning.

But also I am noting that TMZ ran the Gottlieb quote super fast as well. Daily Mail and TMZ compete for headlines on this story. Freedman used to be all about TMZ but he's been using Daily Mail more and I bet TMZ was annoyed that they got this one. Would not be surprised if they saw the DM piece go up and speed dialed Gottlieb for his quote so they could get a "scoop" up quickly. Or Gottlieb got the letter and they saw the DM piece so went to TMZ to counter. Though I actually think it's more likely that TMZ saw the DM piece before Gottlieb even saw the letter, because that's how fast it happened and you know TMZ monitors DM main page continuously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP but he could sanction Freedman. He could also grant Lively's request to strike the letter. We'll see.

[Anonymous]

God, Liman and his clerks have got to be exhausted. You put out one Order on a MTC out of three that were pending on your docket, nevermind your other cases, and now a whole new giant problem has rolled into the room that's all over the tabloids etc. This judge is 65 years old and if he's not exhausted by all this, he's in better shape than any of the parties.

[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.

I hate that this gives you "signals" people credibility, hah. Y'all were right about the unfollowing.

[Anonymous]

lol @ a middle aged D list actress trying to strong-arm extort an A list global superstar. Proves how legitimately stupid these uneducated Hollywood actors and actresses are. Their entire hype, aura, and claimed business savvy is fake. These people are deluded morons. They’re just useful idiots for their puppetmasters who make the real money behind the scenes.