Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typical Hollywood transactional bs. Nobody is actually friends. Just kiss up and lock down and throw anyone under the bus to help your own career. Spare me the Godmother crap. As if Blake or Ryan are in any way religious or Christian.

But you’ve got to admit, it’s a cute narrative. They are the June and Ward Cleaver of Hollywood. 4 kids, fun, warm, engaging, rich and (some might say) good looking. And they have a superhero franchise. What more could you ask for?

Aw shucks! Everyone just wants to be like them…(emoji—).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why would they revoke their support over this?

If Freedman is lying, and he filed a letter with the court that he signed in which he accuses Gottlieb of extortion, basically, you still support Freedman and Baldoni?

Seriously???

I wouldn’t like what freedman did obviously but that doesn’t mean Baldoni doesn’t have a case, or a defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

How do people come to have such strong feelings of dislike towards certain celebrities to the point where they seem like they have a personal vendetta against them? I see this here.

I don’t think any party in this ordeal is wearing the white hat and it seems pretty ego driven all around. That said, whatevs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do people come to have such strong feelings of dislike towards certain celebrities to the point where they seem like they have a personal vendetta against them? I see this here.

I don’t think any party in this ordeal is wearing the white hat and it seems pretty ego driven all around. That said, whatevs.

Nice try

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

I don’t think this is right. Freedman filed his letter with the court so they are allowed to report what is in the letter, whether it’s true or not. You think they wouldn’t publish their story if the underlying allegations in the letter aren’t true??? I think you are giving them way too much credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

The fact had you keep trying to make this a Freedman issue when it is clearly a Team Lifely issue, says everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

The fact had you keep trying to make this a Freedman issue when it is clearly a Team Lifely issue, says everything.

Team Lively

[Anonymous]

Again. I think when the Gottlieb letter comes out, if it comes out, it will be in the gray zone. However,I am willing to bet a lot of money his clients were saying worse to Taylor at the same time. Put it together and it looks like extortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

I don’t think this is right. Freedman filed his letter with the court so they are allowed to report what is in the letter, whether it’s true or not. You think they wouldn’t publish their story if the underlying allegations in the letter aren’t true??? I think you are giving them way too much credit.

Yea, I obviously know the law here as I specifically mentioned fair report and the irony of it bc that’s what the NYT is claiming as cover for the article that started much of this mess. But again, DM is not stupid and no, they would not publish like this if they thought the allegations were false. You don’t give them enough credit. They run thousands of juicy stories a year, they’d have long ago been sued into bankruptcy if they didn’t have a very smart vetting process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again. I think when the Gottlieb letter comes out, if it comes out, it will be in the gray zone. However,I am willing to bet a lot of money his clients were saying worse to Taylor at the same time. Put it together and it looks like extortion.

m


Of course. Gottlieb wouldn’t put anything extreme in writing. But I think there was a context that was made clear, or at least that’s how TS took it. The real juice is to see what TS lawyers said in response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typical Hollywood transactional bs. Nobody is actually friends. Just kiss up and kick down and throw anyone under the bus to help your own career. Spare me the Godmother crap. As if Blake or Ryan are in any way religious or Christian.

But you’ve got to admit, it’s a cute narrative. They are the June and Ward Cleaver of Hollywood. 4 kids, fun, warm, engaging, rich and (some might say) good looking. And they have a superhero franchise. What more could you ask for?

Aw shucks! Everyone just wants to be like them…(emoji—).

What church have Blake, Ryan, and even Taylor for that matter ever been seen in? They’re all Godless frauds who eagerly sold their souls for fame and fortune.