Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ohhh, strike the letter, when it's already out there. This really sucks for Lively if Freedman is lying. And if he's not lying, she's done. So really sucks for her either way. I feel like her attorneys can't compete. Maybe the CIA guy knows what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would love to be a clerk on this though lol. So fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ohhh, strike the letter, when it's already out there. This really sucks for Lively if Freedman is lying. And if he's not lying, she's done. So really sucks for her either way. I feel like her attorneys can't compete. Maybe the CIA guy knows what to do.

CIA guy was a giant waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ironically, this headline is much more favorable to Lively than the Daily Mail or People mag headlines on their original stories.

But here's another turn: People now has a much more favorable story up top: "Blake Lively's Lawyer Denies She Threatened Taylor Swift, Calls Justin Baldoni's Team 'Completely Untethered from Reality'" https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946

And Daily Mail, amazingly, has placed this puff piece on Lively's mother that they published shortly before the Freedman bombshell at the top of their Showbiz page: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14712103/Blake-Lively-mother-stunning-model.html

They did an update on the mom piece later in the day too. If you go to their Blake Lively coverage, the original story about the Freedman allegations is still #1, but if you just go to Showbiz, it's the mom story.

Interesting to me because we know how much effort goes into this on the part of the PR folks. I don't think any of that is accidental -- the initial headlines were very anti-Lively (except TMZ) but they've all rebalanced in the last couple hours, presumably as Blake's people have called in favors (or made threats! I don't know!).

[Anonymous]

After the inevitable cash settlement, tabloid photos moving forward “Disgraced former actors Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively spotted…”

These two are radioactive. Enjoy a boring life in upstate New York for the next 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would love to be a clerk on this though lol. So fun.

Same! It would be super fun to wind up with a case like this on your judge's docket -- reading the briefs would be like reading celeb gossip for work, and if this thing goes to trial you get to see all these celebs in court with a front row seat. This one would be a sheer delight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After the inevitable cash settlement, tabloid photos moving forward “Disgraced former actors Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively spotted…”

These two are radioactive. Enjoy a boring life in upstate New York for the next 30 years.

What Blake lively and Ryan Reynolds did is criminal. They shouldn’t even get the boring life in upstate NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ironically, this headline is much more favorable to Lively than the Daily Mail or People mag headlines on their original stories.

But here's another turn: People now has a much more favorable story up top: "Blake Lively's Lawyer Denies She Threatened Taylor Swift, Calls Justin Baldoni's Team 'Completely Untethered from Reality'" https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946

And Daily Mail, amazingly, has placed this puff piece on Lively's mother that they published shortly before the Freedman bombshell at the top of their Showbiz page: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14712103/Blake-Lively-mother-stunning-model.html

They did an update on the mom piece later in the day too. If you go to their Blake Lively coverage, the original story about the Freedman allegations is still #1, but if you just go to Showbiz, it's the mom story.

Interesting to me because we know how much effort goes into this on the part of the PR folks. I don't think any of that is accidental -- the initial headlines were very anti-Lively (except TMZ) but they've all rebalanced in the last couple hours, presumably as Blake's people have called in favors (or made threats! I don't know!).

This inside baseball tabloid trash breakdown and how much they continue to blow on PR doesn’t really matter. The crisis PR and strategy grifters are just stealing millions from them because it’s all futile. The masses, easily 90+ % of casual observers, know they’re both compulsive lying scammers and nothing will change anyone’s mind. It’s over. Blake and Ryan must be in denial and/or have a team of self-serving vultures around them who only seek to milk them while their ship sinks. Should have settled this months ago. It’s obviously getting worse for them and the number they’re going to have to wire grows by the day.

[Anonymous]

I find it more believable that Blake's team would do something underhanded like this than Freedman outright lying about something this serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ohhh, strike the letter, when it's already out there. This really sucks for Lively if Freedman is lying. And if he's not lying, she's done. So really sucks for her either way. I feel like her attorneys can't compete. Maybe the CIA guy knows what to do.

I disagree it will suck for her if he's lying. If he is proven wrong here, they will have the pull to get everyone to run a bunch of stories about it, plus I think if they can control that narrative in the mainstream coverage, especially the industry outlets like Variety and THR, it helps them with the audience they care the most about (other celebs, directors/producers, agents). Yes, the pro-JB crowd on social media will ignore it if Freedman winds up doing a "my bad, I guess my source was wrong." But she's not getting them anyway.

Obviously if he's not lying (or, as might be the case here, is lying *less* than Blake's side is lying), this is horrific for her. I am one of those people who thinks almost any PR crisis is recoverable though. But it could be enough to force a settlement and a long break from the public eye before trying to mount a come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the inevitable cash settlement, tabloid photos moving forward “Disgraced former actors Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively spotted…”

These two are radioactive. Enjoy a boring life in upstate New York for the next 30 years.

What Blake lively and Ryan Reynolds did is criminal. They shouldn’t even get the boring life in upstate NY.

+1. Very true. It really should be a criminal investigation in addition to the civil suits.

[Anonymous]

Once again Taylor Swift is silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ohhh, strike the letter, when it's already out there. This really sucks for Lively if Freedman is lying. And if he's not lying, she's done. So really sucks for her either way. I feel like her attorneys can't compete. Maybe the CIA guy knows what to do.

CIA guy was a giant waste of money.

Another grifter who smelled blood in the water and two rich low IQ easy marks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it more believable that Blake's team would do something underhanded like this than Freedman outright lying about something this serious.

It's one thing to believe this of "Blake's team" (her, her husband, some of her lawyers, her PR folks). To me it's totally different to believe it of Gottlieb who is actually named. That is WILD to me.

[Anonymous]

So, why didn't Mitchell Schuster from the Meister Seelig firm, co-counsel to Wayfarer etc. with Freedman, co-sign Freedman's letter as he usually does as co-counsel?