Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

Venable also silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Esra Hudson's letter says: "It is worth stating for the record, however, that each of the allegations in the Freedman Letter is unequivocally and demonstrably false."

That means Willkie Farr is denying all of the following allegations from Freedman's letter, and saying that none of them are true:

1. Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;

2. Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

3. A representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb.

Looking at Freedman's wording, I'm wondering whether this could be a misunderstanding related to the protective order motion? Like, did Gottlieb contact Venable asking whether they would be comfortable intervening as a third party to ask for AEO protections for third parties, because if they didn't, their text messages might get released without higher confidentiality?

That would make Freedman look like an idiot. But I am struggling to understand how Hudson can confidently say that all of the above is false. It's just weird, man.

Same people who said with a straight face that there was nothing improper about the Vanzan subpoena.

Not only that, Mannatt actually signed the VanZan sham complaint. Doesn't appear they take their ethical responsibilities very seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

What would she have to hide in a depo except that she did bad things to JB in concert with BL and RR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oy vey imagine the room temperature IQ required to try and extort Taylor Swift. Dumber than rocks.

And it begs the question: How many victims have Blake and Ryan successfully destroyed, shaken down, blackmailed and/or extorted over the last 20 years? Same question for their creep manager, Ari.

In the deleted Freakonomics podcast episode:

WME executive Ari Emanuel revealed he's “ride or die” for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

It’s a safe bet this scorched earth posture and playbook is at Ari’s advisement. He’s used to steamrolling everyone. Well that works…until it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

What would she have to hide in a depo except that she did bad things to JB in concert with BL and RR?

No depos are happening any time soon. Probably ever. But not for at least another 18+ months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Esra Hudson's letter says: "It is worth stating for the record, however, that each of the allegations in the Freedman Letter is unequivocally and demonstrably false."

That means Willkie Farr is denying all of the following allegations from Freedman's letter, and saying that none of them are true:

1. Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;

2. Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

3. A representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb.

Looking at Freedman's wording, I'm wondering whether this could be a misunderstanding related to the protective order motion? Like, did Gottlieb contact Venable asking whether they would be comfortable intervening as a third party to ask for AEO protections for third parties, because if they didn't, their text messages might get released without higher confidentiality?

That would make Freedman look like an idiot. But I am struggling to understand how Hudson can confidently say that all of the above is false. It's just weird, man.

Same people who said with a straight face that there was nothing improper about the Vanzan subpoena.

I'm a Lively defender (the PO attorney).

If #1 above is true (Lively asked Swift to delete text messages), I'm out.

If #2 above is true, and it's not some misunderstanding like Gottlieb asking for Venable to intervene as a third party on the PO motion so that third party text messages can be properly classified AEO, and Hudson flat out denied something that was true, then I'm out.

I don't think #3 matters that much because 1 and 2 are the kickers.

That said, if Freedman is mistaken here, I hope some Baldoni supporters also will be out, because their boy will have flat out lied to them.

[Anonymous]

So far ET which is usually Taylor's go to hasn't reported on the story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Esra Hudson's letter says: "It is worth stating for the record, however, that each of the allegations in the Freedman Letter is unequivocally and demonstrably false."

That means Willkie Farr is denying all of the following allegations from Freedman's letter, and saying that none of them are true:

1. Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;

2. Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

3. A representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb.

Looking at Freedman's wording, I'm wondering whether this could be a misunderstanding related to the protective order motion? Like, did Gottlieb contact Venable asking whether they would be comfortable intervening as a third party to ask for AEO protections for third parties, because if they didn't, their text messages might get released without higher confidentiality?

That would make Freedman look like an idiot. But I am struggling to understand how Hudson can confidently say that all of the above is false. It's just weird, man.

Same people who said with a straight face that there was nothing improper about the Vanzan subpoena.

I'm a Lively defender (the PO attorney).

If #1 above is true (Lively asked Swift to delete text messages), I'm out.

If #2 above is true, and it's not some misunderstanding like Gottlieb asking for Venable to intervene as a third party on the PO motion so that third party text messages can be properly classified AEO, and Hudson flat out denied something that was true, then I'm out.

I don't think #3 matters that much because 1 and 2 are the kickers.

That said, if Freedman is mistaken here, I hope some Baldoni supporters also will be out, because their boy will have flat out lied to them.

Are you the lady always trying to get this thread shut down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

What would she have to hide in a depo except that she did bad things to JB in concert with BL and RR?

Even JB doesn't allege she did bad things. Just that her being around intimidated him or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Esra Hudson's letter says: "It is worth stating for the record, however, that each of the allegations in the Freedman Letter is unequivocally and demonstrably false."

That means Willkie Farr is denying all of the following allegations from Freedman's letter, and saying that none of them are true:

1. Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;

2. Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

3. A representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb.

Looking at Freedman's wording, I'm wondering whether this could be a misunderstanding related to the protective order motion? Like, did Gottlieb contact Venable asking whether they would be comfortable intervening as a third party to ask for AEO protections for third parties, because if they didn't, their text messages might get released without higher confidentiality?

That would make Freedman look like an idiot. But I am struggling to understand how Hudson can confidently say that all of the above is false. It's just weird, man.

Same people who said with a straight face that there was nothing improper about the Vanzan subpoena.

I'm a Lively defender (the PO attorney).

If #1 above is true (Lively asked Swift to delete text messages), I'm out.

If #2 above is true, and it's not some misunderstanding like Gottlieb asking for Venable to intervene as a third party on the PO motion so that third party text messages can be properly classified AEO, and Hudson flat out denied something that was true, then I'm out.

I don't think #3 matters that much because 1 and 2 are the kickers.

That said, if Freedman is mistaken here, I hope some Baldoni supporters also will be out, because their boy will have flat out lied to them.

I don't think your last point is correct. Freedman said he was seeking proof of what he was told by a credible anonymous source. That could be true, and the correspondence could differ from what he was told.

[Anonymous]

Oh no, People posted it to their TikTok 😳

https://www.tiktok.com/@people/video/7504404740218866974

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

Venable also silent.

That says a lot.

So its highly probable that what Freedman said is true, and that Blake’s team is issuing a denial which will be supported later with a misunderstanding or word salad offering by Blake that there was no threat made, and no assertion to delete communications between her and Taylor. It will be spun as the desire to have lawyers from both teams coordinate on the subpoenas, or something like that, which was mistaken for the threats and coercion.

Taylor’s lack of response STRONGLY suggests that Blake made the threats, etc. yep, they handed letter to BF who will now use it, perhaps to force settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

Venable also silent.

That says a lot.

So its highly probable that what Freedman said is true, and that Blake’s team is issuing a denial which will be supported later with a misunderstanding or word salad offering by Blake that there was no threat made, and no assertion to delete communications between her and Taylor. It will be spun as the desire to have lawyers from both teams coordinate on the subpoenas, or something like that, which was mistaken for the threats and coercion.

Taylor’s lack of response STRONGLY suggests that Blake made the threats, etc. yep, they handed letter to BF who will now use it, perhaps to force settlement.

I said something similar earlier. I believe that Blake or Ryan threatened Taylor and Gottlieb sent a letter that referenced that convo in an oblique way. Gottlieb himself might not be aware how far Blake/Ryan took it. That’s my theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Esra Hudson's letter says: "It is worth stating for the record, however, that each of the allegations in the Freedman Letter is unequivocally and demonstrably false."

That means Willkie Farr is denying all of the following allegations from Freedman's letter, and saying that none of them are true:

1. Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;

2. Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

3. A representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb.

Looking at Freedman's wording, I'm wondering whether this could be a misunderstanding related to the protective order motion? Like, did Gottlieb contact Venable asking whether they would be comfortable intervening as a third party to ask for AEO protections for third parties, because if they didn't, their text messages might get released without higher confidentiality?

That would make Freedman look like an idiot. But I am struggling to understand how Hudson can confidently say that all of the above is false. It's just weird, man.

Same people who said with a straight face that there was nothing improper about the Vanzan subpoena.

I'm a Lively defender (the PO attorney).

If #1 above is true (Lively asked Swift to delete text messages), I'm out.

If #2 above is true, and it's not some misunderstanding like Gottlieb asking for Venable to intervene as a third party on the PO motion so that third party text messages can be properly classified AEO, and Hudson flat out denied something that was true, then I'm out.

I don't think #3 matters that much because 1 and 2 are the kickers.

That said, if Freedman is mistaken here, I hope some Baldoni supporters also will be out, because their boy will have flat out lied to them.

I don't think your last point is correct. Freedman said he was seeking proof of what he was told by a credible anonymous source. That could be true, and the correspondence could differ from what he was told.

lol. Of course.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else think Blake didn’t realize Steve Sarowitz the billionaire would back Justin? I think she miscalculated and by the time she realized it was too late because Justin countersued. For a minute I thought Justin would be ruined, a Hollywood outcast, but now there’s evidence to the contrary. He has two movies with Oscar buzz, he has his own billionaire, his own Ari (Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked his Mother’s Day post) and he’s still doing business with Sony. Blake and Ryan are more famous without a doubt and have had more influence on mainstream media, but is it possible Justin has his own dragons in the form of less famous but influential billionaires and behind the scenes power players? Food for thought.