Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why do you keep bringing up that you listened to the PO hearing as if it's a badge of honor? We don't care.

[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.

This is not suspicious. Hudson has taken point in this case dozens of times, and is second chair, not some lowly junior. The explosive nature of Freedman's allegations necessitated immediate action by Lively's team, and Hudson writing/signing the motion to strike likely has more to do with scheduling and availability than anything else. Gottlieb may have been in court or in a deposition and not had time to review the motion before it was submitted, but as a member of the team, he fully endorsed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, meant to say ItEndsWithLawsuits sub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not suspicious. Hudson has taken point in this case dozens of times, and is second chair, not some lowly junior. The explosive nature of Freedman's allegations necessitated immediate action by Lively's team, and Hudson writing/signing the motion to strike likely has more to do with scheduling and availability than anything else. Gottlieb may have been in court or in a deposition and not had time to review the motion before it was submitted, but as a member of the team, he fully endorsed it.

The contortions continue. Almost as ridiculous as the idea that Freedman's source is a tabloid journalist. L O L.

[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.

That is not at all suspicious. Are you a lawyer? When you work at a big firm and one of your employees comes under suspicion in a case, you often have a different attorney file papers in responding to that matter. In that way, if the lawyer was dirty somehow, the subsequent filings aren’t infected with the same dirt. I’ve seen this happen once or twice before (not extortion allegations like this, but other ethical charges). You have other lawyers doing the follow up work so that if there was an ethics problem, it isn’t perpetuated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you are talking about r/ItEndsWithLawsuits. That sub was supposed to be neutral but got really bogged down. People kept (and keep) making posts using AI, or just posting insane theories that are barely related to the case. It got so bad that for a time it had no moderators at all because the old mods gave up and quit. I think it has new moderation again, and it's been way better this week.

KatOrtega is pro-Lively but she also has a lot of firsthand knowledge about Freedman because she practices in the same circles as he does and follows a lot of his litigation, so I don't know why you are putting her down. I find her posts really informative. I actually think she is more respectful of Freedman than most pro-Lively posters because she seems to appreciate that his approach to lawyering is both effective and very tailored to the type of entertainment law he practices and the venues in which he practices. I've seen her write that she admires some of his work. She's also written informatively about his representation of FKA Twigs (in her action against Shia LaBoef) and that's been really interesting.

But people can of course make their own choices bout sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not at all suspicious. Are you a lawyer? When you work at a big firm and one of your employees comes under suspicion in a case, you often have a different attorney file papers in responding to that matter. In that way, if the lawyer was dirty somehow, the subsequent filings aren’t infected with the same dirt. I’ve seen this happen once or twice before (not extortion allegations like this, but other ethical charges). You have other lawyers doing the follow up work so that if there was an ethics problem, it isn’t perpetuated.

But, to be clear, it’s not a suggestion the atty was dirty. You do it either way. It’s protection for the client and the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is nonsensical, Freedman is in the process of collecting evidence to support the allegations made by the source. We know the documents haven’t been turned over yet since they are the subject of a motion to quash. He isn’t going to file an ethical complaint until he has more documentation.

The afffidavit isn’t useless as to the public judging the truth of what BF said. The fact that he was wiling to disclose the name of the source strongly suggests it’s a name closely tied to Taylor. The judge struck the materials because he wasn’t being asked to act on the allegations, and therefore prejudicial to Lively’s counsel to keep them in docket.

In any case, this issue is going nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is nonsensical, Freedman is in the process of collecting evidence to support the allegations made by the source. We know the documents haven’t been turned over yet since they are the subject of a motion to quash. He isn’t going to file an ethical complaint until he has more documentation.

The afffidavit isn’t useless as to the public judging the truth of what BF said. The fact that he was wiling to disclose the name of the source strongly suggests it’s a name closely tied to Taylor. The judge struck the materials because he wasn’t being asked to act on the allegations, and therefore prejudicial to Lively’s counsel to keep them in docket.

In any case, this issue is going nowhere.

Sorry, last line confusing. This issue isn’t going away is what I meant.

[Anonymous]

Freedman wouldn’t have put his name on the line unless his source was credible. And since this info dates back several months ago, there has been plenty of time to weigh this.

Again, the bottom line is that TS was threatened with extortion, and was asked to delete texts. He’s willing to swear on a bible. Blake is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not at all suspicious. Are you a lawyer? When you work at a big firm and one of your employees comes under suspicion in a case, you often have a different attorney file papers in responding to that matter. In that way, if the lawyer was dirty somehow, the subsequent filings aren’t infected with the same dirt. I’ve seen this happen once or twice before (not extortion allegations like this, but other ethical charges). You have other lawyers doing the follow up work so that if there was an ethics problem, it isn’t perpetuated.

They’re not even from the same firm. They’re co-counsel from different firms on the same case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why do you keep bringing up that you listened to the PO hearing as if it's a badge of honor? We don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why do you keep bringing up that you listened to the PO hearing as if it's a badge of honor? We don't care.

It’s also not a shock that liman struck the letter but this poster will crow about it being a big loss for freedman for days

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole saga is a lesson that just because you have power and someone you don’t like appears subservient to you, that does not mean you should flex your power and influence or assume they are dumb weakling who will cower.

I suspect Blake learned to be a ruthless bully from her stage mom and Ryan from Ari, among his other "Hollywood mentors". Long time coming for these two monsters to face the music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is not at all suspicious. Are you a lawyer? When you work at a big firm and one of your employees comes under suspicion in a case, you often have a different attorney file papers in responding to that matter. In that way, if the lawyer was dirty somehow, the subsequent filings aren’t infected with the same dirt. I’ve seen this happen once or twice before (not extortion allegations like this, but other ethical charges). You have other lawyers doing the follow up work so that if there was an ethics problem, it isn’t perpetuated.

They’re not even from the same firm. They’re co-counsel from different firms on the same case.

Are you a lawyer and if so have you not ever seen this? It’s the same basic idea. Are other lawyers familiar with this? You don’t put the person accused of an ethics violation in charge of the response to the ethics violation. This is not rocket science. Though note that Freedman responded to his own ethical violation charge in essence by doubling down, and for spanked by Liman for it. That’s why you have someone else respond.