Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone actually reported the comment "Liman was bought"? Ridiculous. Pro-Liveliers are getting desperate.

I reported it and I’m pro Baldoni. It’s a stupid thing to say.

Sure. Of course you are. And I'm pro-Lively and think it was a fair comment to make.

Welp, you are wrong. Also my comment at 14:13, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone actually reported the comment "Liman was bought"? Ridiculous. Pro-Liveliers are getting desperate.

I reported it and I’m pro Baldoni. It’s a stupid thing to say.

Sure. Of course you are. And I'm pro-Lively and think it was a fair comment to make.

lol. I’m a DP pro-Lively poster and I’m glad PO reported it and it’s gone. Now someone is speculating about Lively buying the judge? Come on! This is stupid. Everyone needs to deal with their rage and upset without giving in to total paranoia and conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone actually reported the comment "Liman was bought"? Ridiculous. Pro-Liveliers are getting desperate.

I reported it and I’m pro Baldoni. It’s a stupid thing to say.

+1, crying the "the refs were bribed" when a call doesn't go your team's way is petty crap.

[Anonymous]

Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone actually reported the comment "Liman was bought"? Ridiculous. Pro-Liveliers are getting desperate.

I reported it and I’m pro Baldoni. It’s a stupid thing to say.

Sure. Of course you are. And I'm pro-Lively and think it was a fair comment to make.

How is it fair? Just because it didn't go Baldoni way? The judge has been nothing but fair so far.

[Anonymous]

Besides DCUM, see references to tik tokkers having good takes on all things BL/JB. Any other good websites people going to to learn more the law and not the celebrity of it all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Besides DCUM, see references to tik tokkers having good takes on all things BL/JB. Any other good websites people going to to learn more the law and not the celebrity of it all?

Reddit can be useful. Most of the subs on this subject are focused on the parties but there is a newish sub called r/ItEndsWithCourt that is trying to be more neutral and focused on the legal pleadings and not the gossip. It's less popular than the other subs because most people want the gossip, but the conversation there tends to be a bit more nuanced and less biased toward either side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

First of all, he didn’t know about the letter until later, that’s in the affidavit. Second, there was no reason to bring it up. Third, we are talking about it because Freedman sent an affidavit seeking related documents. Fourth, Liman disavowed any jurisdiction over such subpoena, jurisdiction Lively asked him to exercise Tuesday afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

First of all, he didn’t know about the letter until later, that’s in the affidavit. Second, there was no reason to bring it up. Third, we are talking about it because Freedman sent an affidavit seeking related documents. Fourth, Liman disavowed any jurisdiction over such subpoena, jurisdiction Lively asked him to exercise Tuesday afternoon.

Sorry, sent a subpoena for documents, not an affidavit. This issue is not going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

It’s suspicious that Hudson filed the motion to strike instead of Gottlieb. I thought that was suspicious yesterday and BF adroitly pointed that out in his letter today. It’s almost like Gottlieb didn’t want to perjure himself. And while striking BF’s letter feels like a loss, it’s honestly just a slap on the wrist and a warning, he didn’t actually sanction him as Hudson requested. You cant put the cat back in the bag and now the story’s out there. The press is still reporting on BF’s allegations and no one is reporting on the strike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

It’s suspicious that Hudson filed the motion to strike instead of Gottlieb. I thought that was suspicious yesterday and BF adroitly pointed that out in his letter today. It’s almost like Gottlieb didn’t want to perjure himself. And while striking BF’s letter feels like a loss, it’s honestly just a slap on the wrist and a warning, he didn’t actually sanction him as Hudson requested. You cant put the cat back in the bag and now the story’s out there. The press is still reporting on BF’s allegations and no one is reporting on the strike.

Exactly, the ruling has nothing to do with the truth of BF’s assertions. The judge said that they are explosive and can’t be brought up as an aside.

Ironically, BF got what he wanted—the judge wants nothing to do with enforcement of the DC subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would we be mad? Nothing in the order goes to the truth of what Freedman asserted. And we now know he was willing to swear to the truth of the allegations and even name the source if directed to by the Court.

He cannot swear to the truth of allegations he has no first hand knowledge of.

His affidavit is entirely "an anonymous source told me this stuff happened." That's not evidence of anything except that back in February, someone who Freedman considers "close to Taylor Swift" (a person who is not a party to this litigation and is not named in any complaint or response) told him some stuff. That's it.

Great -- I believe that in February a person told Freedman that stuff. Do I believe what the source said? At the moment no, because it would be wildly out of character for Gottlieb and because this source could be any number of unreliable people, and because it's weird that Freedman would get this info in February (three full months ago) but sit on it until now instead of using it to amend their complaint or bringing a potential ethics violation by both Gottlieb and Lively to the court's attention.

Freedman's affidavit is totally worthless, which is why Freedman struck it.

First of all, he didn’t know about the letter until later, that’s in the affidavit. Second, there was no reason to bring it up. Third, we are talking about it because Freedman sent an affidavit seeking related documents. Fourth, Liman disavowed any jurisdiction over such subpoena, jurisdiction Lively asked him to exercise Tuesday afternoon.

1) If you are aware that your opposing counsel on a case has issued a threat of extortion against a potential fact witness, you have obligations to both your client and the court (as an officer of the court) to raise that issue promptly.

2) Lively did not ask Liman to exercise jurisdiction over the subpoena. She submitted a courtesy letter alerting Liman to the proceedings in DC federal court, where Venable filed their motion to quash and Lively filed her motion to intervene. She was properly asking the DC court for permission to intervene in their proceedings, and simply submitted a letter to Liman's court to let him know that proceedings were occurring in DC court that related to this matter. It's normal and proper.

None of what you wrote changes the fact that Freedman's affidavit proves nothing except that in February he had a phone call with a person who claimed to have personal knowledge of some things that could be relevant to the case. Unless that person comes forward and provides evidence, nothing Freedman attests to matters. His affidavit is useless which is why it did nothing to sway Liman.

[Anonymous]

I’m the Lively supporter who listened in on the PO hearing. I predicted here yesterday that the court would strike the letter. And I was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Besides DCUM, see references to tik tokkers having good takes on all things BL/JB. Any other good websites people going to to learn more the law and not the celebrity of it all?

Reddit can be useful. Most of the subs on this subject are focused on the parties but there is a newish sub called r/ItEndsWithCourt that is trying to be more neutral and focused on the legal pleadings and not the gossip. It's less popular than the other subs because most people want the gossip, but the conversation there tends to be a bit more nuanced and less biased toward either side.

lol this is flat out wrong. It's where pro-Lively folks decided to camp out in because they weren't getting their way in the ItEndsWithUs sub. It's also where a Freedman obsessed "lawyer" posts in (KatOrtega), so, uh, have fun with that.