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:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

Again, they’re not stupid and they know to use caution when potentially defaming a seasoned litigator and Taylor swift. These are particularly high risk potential plaintiffs. Using words like ‘Alleging’ and ‘claims’ wouldn’t fully protect them here. I personally think there is some decent back up here. But I guess we shall see

Nothing they wrote is defamatory toward Taylor Swift.

They would not make statements involving her that were easily proven as lies. Same with Gottlieb. You underestimate them, and their level of sophistication. They don’t make up wholesale lies. But again, let’s see how this plays out. Let’s see if Taylor’s side calls BS. You don’t think it’s curious they haven’t yet?

What would be their motive?

[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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Swiftie, I don't see her silence as tacit approval (yet.) Anything she says or does in this situation will invite more legal and media attention and complications, which she clearly does not want.

I don't either. Especially since if her lawyers are indeed working with Freedman to try and limit her own discovery. She'll have to respond in court so she'll may want to wait to have her say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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—).

I’ve been too many more secular godmother and godfather type of ceremonies. It doesn’t all have to be about Christianity. It can be more symbolic that you are providing your child with a special relationship. I have godparents and was not raised particularly religious. It’s fine.

They’ve been friends for a long time and it’s pretty clear that it wasn’t transactional. I feel like this is just trying to make Taylor look bad and take the heat off Blake. This was probably the last straw for Taylor, I am sure she felt really used. She probably has very few friends in her life that don’t use her name drop her and she thought Blake was one of them possibly.

Blake is deeply insecure and knew she would have no career if she wasn’t married to Ryan Reynolds. How she played Taylor all this time I will never know, I think Taylor must’ve just had a soft spot for her. But clearly that’s over now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

They care about getting sued. They are a business. What stories have they made up about Taylor? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

+2, I had to double check that we were talking about the Daily Fail here. Of course they would print untrue allegations as long they can report them as "in a federal court filing, Baldoni lawyer Bryan Freedman alleges..." They are 100% covered for defamation with that, even more than the NYT in their Blake story because there's opinion or editorializing. It's literally just "this happened."

And no tabloid is giving up the chance to run "Blake threatened Taylor!!!! (allegedly)" headlines.

[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: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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

Again, they’re not stupid and they know to use caution when potentially defaming a seasoned litigator and Taylor swift. These are particularly high risk potential plaintiffs. Using words like ‘Alleging’ and ‘claims’ wouldn’t fully protect them here. I personally think there is some decent back up here. But I guess we shall see

Nothing they wrote is defamatory toward Taylor Swift.

They would not make statements involving her that were easily proven as lies. Same with Gottlieb. You underestimate them, and their level of sophistication. They don’t make up wholesale lies. But again, let’s see how this plays out. Let’s see if Taylor’s side calls BS. You don’t think it’s curious they haven’t yet?

What would be their motive?

DM published a story that TS best friend tried to blackmail her, and claimed there’s some communication to back this up. If that were categorically false, we would have heard something from TS or V. We have not. There is some juice here.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, no news of Venable mooting that motion to quash. I thought that was imminent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

+2, I had to double check that we were talking about the Daily Fail here. Of course they would print untrue allegations as long they can report them as "in a federal court filing, Baldoni lawyer Bryan Freedman alleges..." They are 100% covered for defamation with that, even more than the NYT in their Blake story because there's opinion or editorializing. It's literally just "this happened."

And no tabloid is giving up the chance to run "Blake threatened Taylor!!!! (allegedly)" headlines.

Well, we shall see, right? We shall see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

+2, I had to double check that we were talking about the Daily Fail here. Of course they would print untrue allegations as long they can report them as "in a federal court filing, Baldoni lawyer Bryan Freedman alleges..." They are 100% covered for defamation with that, even more than the NYT in their Blake story because there's opinion or editorializing. It's literally just "this happened."

And no tabloid is giving up the chance to run "Blake threatened Taylor!!!! (allegedly)" headlines.

m

Fair report is a defense. They’d still be open to being sued. It is not 100 percent cover as you claim. They’d still have to show that they had no reason to believe it wasn’t true, and that they acted without reckless disregard for the truth/ malice.

Sorry, but this story isn’t fake as much as you want it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

+1. It's the dailymail?! They do not care about credibility LOL and have made stories up about Taylor before. In this case they simply reported on the letter that was filled in court.

+2, I had to double check that we were talking about the Daily Fail here. Of course they would print untrue allegations as long they can report them as "in a federal court filing, Baldoni lawyer Bryan Freedman alleges..." They are 100% covered for defamation with that, even more than the NYT in their Blake story because there's opinion or editorializing. It's literally just "this happened."

And no tabloid is giving up the chance to run "Blake threatened Taylor!!!! (allegedly)" headlines.

m

Fair report is a defense. They’d still be open to being sued. It is not 100 percent cover as you claim. They’d still have to show that they had no reason to believe it wasn’t true, and that they acted without reckless disregard for the truth/ malice.

Sorry, but this story isn’t fake as much as you want it to be.

Seems like you missed their point. It's about acting as if Dailymail must have some credibility because they posted it. They don't and saying they wouldn't post without some credibility in the mix is absurd. It's always better to wait until the documents are uploaded and see for yourself what it says.

The letter is obviously not fake since it was filed....Freedman is now just seeing if his source was correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

Everything you post is batshit and the authoritative tone is comical. You're on here legit 18 to 20 hours a day and you want us to believe you're a seasoned successful attorney? I hope this shilling is at least paying your rent, car note and groceries, otherwise... YIKES.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are so weirdly paranoid. I don’t have inside info. I’m not at the center of this thing lol. I’m an arlington mom!!!

I have said above that I have been defending Lively but that if Lively asked Swift to delete messages or if Gottlieb tried to extort a public statement of support from Swift in clear exchange for sensitive info not getting released that would hurt Swift, I would be done supporting Lively.

And what I do not understand is why any Baldoni people are not saying that if Freedman is all wrong about this, they would stop supporting him. I guess I can see they wouldn’t stop supporting Baldoni. But I would think that if Freedman were going to wrongly accuse Lively’s lead attorney of extortion in a public filing to the judge that he signed, why would you still support Freedman? Seems like such dishonesty and willingness to air out false accusations against counsel on the docket to the judge (if false) should change your opinion of him, at least.

Gottlieb is a well known and respected lawyer. In the last few years, he tried a case in front of Liman, I believe pro bono, where he represented poll workers who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani, and he won. This is the lawyer Freedman is putting his unverified speculation re extortion to the judge about. I find it hard to believe, but like I said, if it’s true, I’m out. But if it’s not true, why on earth would you still be on Team Freedman?

Who said I was talking to you? Anyway, I assume you’re the one who writes long diatribes about freedman and your hatred of him and gloating over minor issues like the PO?? Is that you?

Most people don’t care so much about the lawyers but if we are going to talk about questionable moves, Blake’s legal side has many more of them at this point. I personally don’t think Freedman would totally lie here, and I also don’t think DM would run this without some back up, but either way, I’m not as obsessed with freedman as you are.

Um, you did?! You responded to my comment and said “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.”

I understood those two statements to have some logical connection — you were saying that the same person on Lively’s side had set Freedman up to make a huge mistake and then coming here to say if Freedman was wrong, you should desert Baldoni.

If there was no logical connection between the statements, you are just writing indeterminate word salad and shouldn’t be surprised when it confuses people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are so weirdly paranoid. I don’t have inside info. I’m not at the center of this thing lol. I’m an arlington mom!!!

I have said above that I have been defending Lively but that if Lively asked Swift to delete messages or if Gottlieb tried to extort a public statement of support from Swift in clear exchange for sensitive info not getting released that would hurt Swift, I would be done supporting Lively.

And what I do not understand is why any Baldoni people are not saying that if Freedman is all wrong about this, they would stop supporting him. I guess I can see they wouldn’t stop supporting Baldoni. But I would think that if Freedman were going to wrongly accuse Lively’s lead attorney of extortion in a public filing to the judge that he signed, why would you still support Freedman? Seems like such dishonesty and willingness to air out false accusations against counsel on the docket to the judge (if false) should change your opinion of him, at least.

Gottlieb is a well known and respected lawyer. In the last few years, he tried a case in front of Liman, I believe pro bono, where he represented poll workers who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani, and he won. This is the lawyer Freedman is putting his unverified speculation re extortion to the judge about. I find it hard to believe, but like I said, if it’s true, I’m out. But if it’s not true, why on earth would you still be on Team Freedman?

Who said I was talking to you? Anyway, I assume you’re the one who writes long diatribes about freedman and your hatred of him and gloating over minor issues like the PO?? Is that you?

Most people don’t care so much about the lawyers but if we are going to talk about questionable moves, Blake’s legal side has many more of them at this point. I personally don’t think Freedman would totally lie here, and I also don’t think DM would run this without some back up, but either way, I’m not as obsessed with freedman as you are.

Um, you did?! You responded to my comment and said “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.”

I understood those two statements to have some logical connection — you were saying that the same person on Lively’s side had set Freedman up to make a huge mistake and then coming here to say if Freedman was wrong, you should desert Baldoni.

If there was no logical connection between the statements, you are just writing indeterminate word salad and shouldn’t be surprised when it confuses people.

So answer my questions. Are you the freedman obsessed poster or not? Again, most people don’t care much for the lawyers but you seem to be obsessed with trying to bash Freedman, while ignoring that BL’s legal team has done some verifiably unethical stuff. You’ve been bashing Freedman for weeks, desperate to have people view him as not credible.

[Anonymous]

I wonder whether Freedman ran this letter by Baldoni & Co before submitting it. Lawyers have some latitude with strategy, but are required to confer with clients. If Freedman is lying, or is twisting the truth in a really unethical way, I wonder how much Baldoni knows about it.

Just as I'd be really curious to know whether Blake and Ryan understood the degree to which the VanZan lawsuit may have been unfair to Abel and Wayfarer because they didn't have a chance to intervene on those comms.