Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what I am thinking too. Blake/Ryan could've told Gottlieb that they talked to Taylor or team and didn't realize they actually threatened her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I dont think do. She had already knee of Steve's involvement and saw the text of Steve saying he would pour his money into stopping her

[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 follow a lot of the attorneys on TikTok that cover the case and one of them just posted.

I like her take and agree with her theory that TS has counsel that is solely focused on her best interests and strongly advised her to get out of this in spite of their friendship status

https://www.tiktok.com/@kcmccaffrey/video/7504479207586532639

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 follow a lot of the attorneys on TikTok that cover the case and one of them just posted.

I like her take and agree with her theory that TS has counsel that is solely focused on her best interests and strongly advised her to get out of this in spite of their friendship status

https://www.tiktok.com/@kcmccaffrey/video/7504479207586532639

It makes sense. Taylor was silent about this from the beginning. We have all seen the back and fourth PR articles from their team. Taylor's sources would say she's hurt while Blake would quickly follow up and say they're totes fine now. It's not out of realm that Blake got upset and jumped on Taylor for not supporting her imo. What kind of friend puts you in that position? It's better to cut the cord now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what I am thinking too. Blake/Ryan could've told Gottlieb that they talked to Taylor or team and didn't realize they actually threatened her.

This theory makes sense but that's not my read on how Freedman wrote it. He actually attributes much stronger behavior to Gottlieb. He says Lively merely requested texts be deleted, while Gottlieb demanded a statement of support (weird, he's not a PR person) and implied bad things would happen if Swift didn't do it.

For an attorney, he's using pretty strong language. He says it came from a source, but he says the source is very reliable and makes fairly declaratory statements (other than the word "intimating"). Other lawyers would probably use softer language like "A reliable source has shared concerns that Lively may have contacted Swift regarding text messages, and we have reason to believe an attorney at Venable wrote to Gottlieb regarding same."

It's also weird to me because last night when the Venable subpoena was discovered, people thought it was so vague (did not mention the client by name and neither did Venable's motion IIRC, nor did it mention what they were actually looking for) and people generally thought that was to protect Swift's privacy and not stir up a hornet's nest, and then today, bam, Swift is named and the allegations of what Lively and Gottlieb did are very specific. And I think this is the first time Swift's name has actually been mentioned in Lively v. Wayfarer, because Justin's timeline just calls her the "megacelebrity friend." So it's just a really big change in approach from Wayfarer, and maybe that's because this really happened and they are angry, or Freedman is playing games here, I don't know.

He says (i) Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;
(ii) 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what I am thinking too. Blake/Ryan could've told Gottlieb that they talked to Taylor or team and didn't realize they actually threatened her.

This theory makes sense but that's not my read on how Freedman wrote it. He actually attributes much stronger behavior to Gottlieb. He says Lively merely requested texts be deleted, while Gottlieb demanded a statement of support (weird, he's not a PR person) and implied bad things would happen if Swift didn't do it.

For an attorney, he's using pretty strong language. He says it came from a source, but he says the source is very reliable and makes fairly declaratory statements (other than the word "intimating"). Other lawyers would probably use softer language like "A reliable source has shared concerns that Lively may have contacted Swift regarding text messages, and we have reason to believe an attorney at Venable wrote to Gottlieb regarding same."

It's also weird to me because last night when the Venable subpoena was discovered, people thought it was so vague (did not mention the client by name and neither did Venable's motion IIRC, nor did it mention what they were actually looking for) and people generally thought that was to protect Swift's privacy and not stir up a hornet's nest, and then today, bam, Swift is named and the allegations of what Lively and Gottlieb did are very specific. And I think this is the first time Swift's name has actually been mentioned in Lively v. Wayfarer, because Justin's timeline just calls her the "megacelebrity friend." So it's just a really big change in approach from Wayfarer, and maybe that's because this really happened and they are angry, or Freedman is playing games here, I don't know.

He says (i) Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;
(ii) 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.

These are all good points.

Also from a legal perspective, the one thing that could happen that would most strongly confirm what Freedman is saying, is if Venable does indeed moot their motion to quash.

I do think these allegations are so explosive and damaging that the odds we will hear something from Liman tomorrow are VERY high. Whether it's requesting an evidentiary hearing on Freedman's allegations or something else.

[Anonymous]

Presumably, Freedman will have a chance to oppose the motion to strike before Liman rules and/or calls a hearing. Though personally, given Liman's somewhat low tolerance for nonsense, I think he might strike Liman's letter for the reasons Hudson gives.

I also think Venable cooperating with Freedman and "agreeing" to give him any information such as he describes in his letter, and mooting the motion to quash, doesn't mean they actually have that information. If Freedman is only asking for communications of a type they don't have, or have some email involving Gottlieb from the right time frame that does not say what Freedman says it says, it might still be to Swift's advantage to produce that information and the subpoena is fully answered and your work is done. Venable acceding to the subpoena doesn't necessarily mean that Venable has documents that say what Freedman says they say.

[Anonymous]

In one of the back and forth emails, Blake's lawyers say they know baldoni's side is trying to subpoena Venable to get emails between Gottlieb (Blake's lawyer) and Venable. It's on page 2 of the email section at the bottom. Blake's side is acknowledging the communications exist in some capacity!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Venable acceding to the subpoena doesn't necessarily mean that Venable has documents that say what Freedman says they say.

Very true. It just shows those communications exist. Doesn't mean Freedman's source was correct.

[Anonymous]

Was it only yesterday that a Blake supporter accused me of going to a Caribbean law school because I said the attorney work product privilege didn’t necessarily apply to correspondence between Gottlieb and Venable in the absence of a common interest?

I feel validated. And, spoiler alert, I went to an Ivy League law school.

[Anonymous]

Does a single Baldoni supporter revoke their support for him if Freedman is wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does a single Baldoni supporter revoke their support for him if Freedman is wrong?

lol, never change, Blake supporter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does a single Baldoni supporter revoke their support for him if Freedman is wrong?

Why would they revoke their support over this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, they are stupid and arrogant. Ari is also a stupid and arrogant puppet whose alleged genius is a wildly overblown carefully curated media creation. These detestable people are used to steamrolling victims who don’t and can’t fight back. They never could have predicted a fight like this. They stepped in it and hopefully it costs them all their careers.

[Anonymous]

I’m not basing my support for Baldoni or Lively based on attorney conduct. I’m already pretty cynical about attorney conduct, I guess. Look how big law all made deals with Trump. So much for upholding the rule of law!