Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the source is from Taylor or known to her and with her permission, wouldn’t Venable have known and therefore not moved to quash the original subpoena?

Yes and they still haven't moved to moot the motion to quash as Freedman said they would.

I am super curious about Venable's current position here. Let's assume this is the sequence of events:

1) Freedman subpoenas Venable, it's super broad and vague
2) Venable files motion to quash
3) Lively files motion to intervene and the letter to SDNY informing the court of MOI
4) Freedman reaches out to Venable with more specificity, perhaps revealing what he's just revealed in his affidavit
5) Venable agrees to work together and says they'll moot their motion to quash

That all makes sense to me. But did Venable know Freedman was going to go public with his letter to SDNY? And say in the letter that Venable plans to moot their motion? If not, they may have been blindsided and may have gone back to being annoyed with Freedman. Especially when you remember that was their original poster -- annoyance by Venable and Swift to be dragged into this via subpoenas at all.

If they are mad about Freedman's showboating, what's their next move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the source is from Taylor or known to her and with her permission, wouldn’t Venable have known and therefore not moved to quash the original subpoena?

Yes and they still haven't moved to moot the motion to quash as Freedman said they would.

I am super curious about Venable's current position here. Let's assume this is the sequence of events:

1) Freedman subpoenas Venable, it's super broad and vague
2) Venable files motion to quash
3) Lively files motion to intervene and the letter to SDNY informing the court of MOI
4) Freedman reaches out to Venable with more specificity, perhaps revealing what he's just revealed in his affidavit
5) Venable agrees to work together and says they'll moot their motion to quash

That all makes sense to me. But did Venable know Freedman was going to go public with his letter to SDNY? And say in the letter that Venable plans to moot their motion? If not, they may have been blindsided and may have gone back to being annoyed with Freedman. Especially when you remember that was their original poster -- annoyance by Venable and Swift to be dragged into this via subpoenas at all.

If they are mad about Freedman's showboating, what's their next move?

But wouldn't it weird this mutual friend told Freedman but didn't tell the Venable laywers what they were doing? Maybe Venable and Freedman still had disagreements over the discovery which is why it was filed regardless of them working together

[Anonymous]

This might be a dumb question, if so sorry. For the lawyers on the thread.

Do you have to use a subpoena to get evidence and information in a civil case? Or could you just... ask for it? If the person wants to give it to you?

A lot of the conflict in this case revolves around subpoenas that involve parties handing over info they were fine sharing. Like Stephanie Jones seems happy to have handed over Jennifer Abel's texts. I get that maybe she wanted a subpoena because otherwise she may have violated obligations to her former employee or client. But would Lively's team be in trouble if Jones just gave them the texts without a subpoena? Would they not be allowed to use them in court then?

It seems like I've seen other cases where parties had access to info that they got without a subpoena. Like I know someone who got custody of her kids from her ex because she had copies of emails that her former MIL had sent to her ex detailing some bad things her ex was doing. She didn't subpoena the emails, she got them off a shared device when they were still married. But she was still allowed to use them.

So when do you have to subpoena something and when can you just get it another way? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

If this 'blackmail' allegation is true, what exactly was the benefit that Blake, Ryan, attorneys, etc., thought they would get from Taylor releasing the statement they wanted her to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this source can attest to what was said on a phone call between Gottlieb and Taylor's lawyer unless they are part of the legal team or are Taylor herself.

If it's not one of those people (and I think it's very unlikely to be a member of the legal team, and I seriously doubt Taylor Swift would reach out personally to Freedman with a voicemail), then it's likely to be secondhand information about the phone call. Or third or fourth hand. Even if it's someone within Taylor's inner circle or on her PR team. A lawyer communication like that is not going to have 15 people on the call. It's going to be at most, like 5 people, and they will all be lawyers, the client, or maybe a client's family member or business partner.

So basically, if it's Tree or Scott, okay. If it's someone outside that tiny circle, I think this is probably a big exaggeration.

Well now he's directly saying someone close to Taylor flipped on Blake. Before you could argue she'll wait to respond but not now. Shes not responding because it's someone from her team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the source is from Taylor or known to her and with her permission, wouldn’t Venable have known and therefore not moved to quash the original subpoena?

Yes and they still haven't moved to moot the motion to quash as Freedman said they would.

I am super curious about Venable's current position here. Let's assume this is the sequence of events:

1) Freedman subpoenas Venable, it's super broad and vague
2) Venable files motion to quash
3) Lively files motion to intervene and the letter to SDNY informing the court of MOI
4) Freedman reaches out to Venable with more specificity, perhaps revealing what he's just revealed in his affidavit
5) Venable agrees to work together and says they'll moot their motion to quash

That all makes sense to me. But did Venable know Freedman was going to go public with his letter to SDNY? And say in the letter that Venable plans to moot their motion? If not, they may have been blindsided and may have gone back to being annoyed with Freedman. Especially when you remember that was their original poster -- annoyance by Venable and Swift to be dragged into this via subpoenas at all.

If they are mad about Freedman's showboating, what's their next move?

But wouldn't it weird this mutual friend told Freedman but didn't tell the Venable laywers what they were doing? Maybe Venable and Freedman still had disagreements over the discovery which is why it was filed regardless of them working together

They definitely didn't tell Venable what they were doing because the source spoke to Freedman in mid-February and he sat on the info for two months before issuing the subpoena to Venable. And Venable's first response was "we have no idea what you are talking about and are not involved in this case at all."

So I don't think Venable knew about Freedman's source until at least after their motion to quash was filed.

It also seems like Taylor didn't know about the source either because she responded so strongly to the subpoena directed at her and said very unflattering things about JB's legal team (the thing about accusing them of using her name for "clickbait"). If she had given tacit permission for someone to share that info with Freedman all the way back in February, wouldn't she just be complying with the subpoena? And not saying negative things about Freedman in the press?

It seems like Venable and Taylor only found out about these allegations and the source around the same time the rest of us did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This might be a dumb question, if so sorry. For the lawyers on the thread.

Do you have to use a subpoena to get evidence and information in a civil case? Or could you just... ask for it? If the person wants to give it to you?

A lot of the conflict in this case revolves around subpoenas that involve parties handing over info they were fine sharing. Like Stephanie Jones seems happy to have handed over Jennifer Abel's texts. I get that maybe she wanted a subpoena because otherwise she may have violated obligations to her former employee or client. But would Lively's team be in trouble if Jones just gave them the texts without a subpoena? Would they not be allowed to use them in court then?

It seems like I've seen other cases where parties had access to info that they got without a subpoena. Like I know someone who got custody of her kids from her ex because she had copies of emails that her former MIL had sent to her ex detailing some bad things her ex was doing. She didn't subpoena the emails, she got them off a shared device when they were still married. But she was still allowed to use them.

So when do you have to subpoena something and when can you just get it another way? I don't get it.

I’ll let other lawyers chime in, but the rules of evidence are much squishier in family court ime. And I’ll bet those emails had to be authenticated or at least conceded as real by the father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this source can attest to what was said on a phone call between Gottlieb and Taylor's lawyer unless they are part of the legal team or are Taylor herself.

If it's not one of those people (and I think it's very unlikely to be a member of the legal team, and I seriously doubt Taylor Swift would reach out personally to Freedman with a voicemail), then it's likely to be secondhand information about the phone call. Or third or fourth hand. Even if it's someone within Taylor's inner circle or on her PR team. A lawyer communication like that is not going to have 15 people on the call. It's going to be at most, like 5 people, and they will all be lawyers, the client, or maybe a client's family member or business partner.

So basically, if it's Tree or Scott, okay. If it's someone outside that tiny circle, I think this is probably a big exaggeration.

Well now he's directly saying someone close to Taylor flipped on Blake. Before you could argue she'll wait to respond but not now. Shes not responding because it's someone from her team

I just posted but: Freedman's conversation with the source happened in February.

If it was someone from Taylor's team and she gave them okay to speak to Freedman, why was Taylor criticizing Freedman's subpoena like four days ago (via a statement from Tree)?

The source had to be operating independently without Taylor's knowledge, whoever it is.

Which means Taylor's probably pretty pissed right now. Because this person not only leaked without her permission, but also got her much more involved in this litigation than she ever would have been otherwise. She's made it clear she doesn't want to be involved, but someone telling Freedman about these alleged threats almost guaranteed she's be subpoenaed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This might be a dumb question, if so sorry. For the lawyers on the thread.

Do you have to use a subpoena to get evidence and information in a civil case? Or could you just... ask for it? If the person wants to give it to you?

A lot of the conflict in this case revolves around subpoenas that involve parties handing over info they were fine sharing. Like Stephanie Jones seems happy to have handed over Jennifer Abel's texts. I get that maybe she wanted a subpoena because otherwise she may have violated obligations to her former employee or client. But would Lively's team be in trouble if Jones just gave them the texts without a subpoena? Would they not be allowed to use them in court then?

It seems like I've seen other cases where parties had access to info that they got without a subpoena. Like I know someone who got custody of her kids from her ex because she had copies of emails that her former MIL had sent to her ex detailing some bad things her ex was doing. She didn't subpoena the emails, she got them off a shared device when they were still married. But she was still allowed to use them.

So when do you have to subpoena something and when can you just get it another way? I don't get it.

I’ll let other lawyers chime in, but the rules of evidence are much squishier in family court ime. And I’ll bet those emails had to be authenticated or at least conceded as real by the father.

Her ex-MIL testified and I think verified the emails were real. It was super messy.

But couldn't the same happen here? Couldn't Stephanie Jones, or the security people who extracted the texts, or even Jennifer Abel (I guess under duress) testify to those texts being real?

Also: if you get something like that via subpoena, does that mean you don't have to "authenticate" them?

[Anonymous]

Weird that they called Freedman on Valentine’s Day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but I think you are conflating multiple posters because I think Freedman is a sleaze and have posted things to that effect, but I'm not the poster you're replying to.

Freedman is pretty out there. I've never seen something like the letter he filed yesterday. I think if you pulled a room of 100 lawyers on that letter, his Madison Square Garden statement, and this timeline exhibit he filed, you'd get a third saying it's all fine, a third saying it's crazy but hey lawyering is about zealous advocacy so don't hate the player, and a third who thinks he doesn't deserve to have a legal license. I sit right in the edge of the second and third groups. I know I'm not alone.

Weird that you keep going on and on about a timeline and have nothing to say about a party that filed sham litigation. Seems your ethical radar is way off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this source can attest to what was said on a phone call between Gottlieb and Taylor's lawyer unless they are part of the legal team or are Taylor herself.

If it's not one of those people (and I think it's very unlikely to be a member of the legal team, and I seriously doubt Taylor Swift would reach out personally to Freedman with a voicemail), then it's likely to be secondhand information about the phone call. Or third or fourth hand. Even if it's someone within Taylor's inner circle or on her PR team. A lawyer communication like that is not going to have 15 people on the call. It's going to be at most, like 5 people, and they will all be lawyers, the client, or maybe a client's family member or business partner.

So basically, if it's Tree or Scott, okay. If it's someone outside that tiny circle, I think this is probably a big exaggeration.

Well now he's directly saying someone close to Taylor flipped on Blake. Before you could argue she'll wait to respond but not now. Shes not responding because it's someone from her team

I just posted but: Freedman's conversation with the source happened in February.

If it was someone from Taylor's team and she gave them okay to speak to Freedman, why was Taylor criticizing Freedman's subpoena like four days ago (via a statement from Tree)?

The source had to be operating independently without Taylor's knowledge, whoever it is.

Which means Taylor's probably pretty pissed right now. Because this person not only leaked without her permission, but also got her much more involved in this litigation than she ever would have been otherwise. She's made it clear she doesn't want to be involved, but someone telling Freedman about these alleged threats almost guaranteed she's be subpoenaed.

Idk, they could've been working together while Freedman still refused to ease up on the discovery request. Taylor could have used it as leverage to limit her involvement as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weird that they called Freedman on Valentine’s Day.

Superbowl happened a few days before. If this is all correct then Blake's lawyer approached Taylor's lawyer around that time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now Gottlieb needs to file an affidavit I guess. Did Gottlieb demand a statement of support from Swift for not appearing at the Super Bowl, and if not granted, Lively would release “ten years” of private texts with Swift? Or anything really close to that?

If this is true or mostly true, Lively will lose lots of support, including me. Freedman is filing a sworn affidavit, so unless he’s being punk’s, which also seems possible (what steps did he take to confirm the person was who they said they were??), this seems very bad for Lively.

He says they were connected via a mutual acquaintance.

My guess is Venable was given the opportunity to review this filing before it was filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this source can attest to what was said on a phone call between Gottlieb and Taylor's lawyer unless they are part of the legal team or are Taylor herself.

If it's not one of those people (and I think it's very unlikely to be a member of the legal team, and I seriously doubt Taylor Swift would reach out personally to Freedman with a voicemail), then it's likely to be secondhand information about the phone call. Or third or fourth hand. Even if it's someone within Taylor's inner circle or on her PR team. A lawyer communication like that is not going to have 15 people on the call. It's going to be at most, like 5 people, and they will all be lawyers, the client, or maybe a client's family member or business partner.

So basically, if it's Tree or Scott, okay. If it's someone outside that tiny circle, I think this is probably a big exaggeration.

The denial continues. . .