Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give a summary of the issue? Why is this thread so long?

Sorry. You will have to jump in. Too much discussion on this case since January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give a summary of the issue? Why is this thread so long?

Sorry. You will have to jump in. Too much discussion on this case since January.

It’s a troll. They start posting this question when the going gets particularly tough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

Oh but your girls team issued a phony subpoena, totally abusing the court system, to obtain evidence from Abel’s phone. That Manatt lawyer and firm should be sanctioned as well. You still defend that effort, calling it “clever lawyering.”

Touché

[Anonymous]

Taylor being quiet means nothing to me at this point except that she is smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

You continuously fail to see the long game of litigation like this. Baldonis side is winning the long game.

And I’ll say again, freedman wouldn’t have offered an affidavit to the court if the source wasn’t credible, and I’ll remind everyone that I’m the one who said the Daily Mail wouldn’t have published something like this against a seasoned litigator and involving taylor Swift without some confirmation it was legit. They skirt lines of ethics but they aren’t dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If and until Taylor says it’s all BS, I’ll assume it happened.

And I will assume it didn't happen until I see the proof that Freedman alluded to, which is an email or letter from Venable to Gottlieb regarding the alleged extortionate threat. *shrugs*

If that exists then many of us have said we won't support Lively anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

Isn't this like Gottlieb won the battle but not the war though? I like the style of Gottlieb more than Freedman. I thought Freedman's letter was ridiculous and I like that the judge responded to it in a proper and correct way. But the letter made it out there and did what Freedman intended it to do, he DGAF if it was removed from the docket once it's been all over the press. He could have been sanctioned, but he wasn't. He seems shameless, so I doubt he cares about the motion. I know people like that and they are infuriating. Despite the ruling, I imagine the Wayfarer parties are yukking it up and the Lively parties are scrambling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor being quiet means nothing to me at this point except that she is smart.

Agree that Taylor is smart to keep quiet. That said, there are now headlines that Blake tried to extort her and threaten her to get her support that are just floating around and she’s not doing anything to deny them so it’s not great for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

You continuously fail to see the long game of litigation like this. Baldonis side is winning the long game.

And I’ll say again, freedman wouldn’t have offered an affidavit to the court if the source wasn’t credible, and I’ll remind everyone that I’m the one who said the Daily Mail wouldn’t have published something like this against a seasoned litigator and involving taylor Swift without some confirmation it was legit. They skirt lines of ethics but they aren’t dumb.

Spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still crickets from Taylor 7 hours later. Seems important.

Not really. Let the lawyers deal with it. The more statements she makes the more things BF can ask about in a depo.

Venable also silent.

That says a lot.

So its highly probable that what Freedman said is true, and that Blake’s team is issuing a denial which will be supported later with a misunderstanding or word salad offering by Blake that there was no threat made, and no assertion to delete communications between her and Taylor. It will be spun as the desire to have lawyers from both teams coordinate on the subpoenas, or something like that, which was mistaken for the threats and coercion.

Taylor’s lack of response STRONGLY suggests that Blake made the threats, etc. yep, they handed letter to BF who will now use it, perhaps to force settlement.

I said something similar earlier. I believe that Blake or Ryan threatened Taylor and Gottlieb sent a letter that referenced that convo in an oblique way. Gottlieb himself might not be aware how far Blake/Ryan took it. That’s my theory.

That's what I am thinking too. Blake/Ryan could've told Gottlieb that they talked to Taylor or team and didn't realize they actually threatened her.

This theory makes sense but that's not my read on how Freedman wrote it. He actually attributes much stronger behavior to Gottlieb. He says Lively merely requested texts be deleted, while Gottlieb demanded a statement of support (weird, he's not a PR person) and implied bad things would happen if Swift didn't do it.

For an attorney, he's using pretty strong language. He says it came from a source, but he says the source is very reliable and makes fairly declaratory statements (other than the word "intimating"). Other lawyers would probably use softer language like "A reliable source has shared concerns that Lively may have contacted Swift regarding text messages, and we have reason to believe an attorney at Venable wrote to Gottlieb regarding same."

It's also weird to me because last night when the Venable subpoena was discovered, people thought it was so vague (did not mention the client by name and neither did Venable's motion IIRC, nor did it mention what they were actually looking for) and people generally thought that was to protect Swift's privacy and not stir up a hornet's nest, and then today, bam, Swift is named and the allegations of what Lively and Gottlieb did are very specific. And I think this is the first time Swift's name has actually been mentioned in Lively v. Wayfarer, because Justin's timeline just calls her the "megacelebrity friend." So it's just a really big change in approach from Wayfarer, and maybe that's because this really happened and they are angry, or Freedman is playing games here, I don't know.

He says (i) Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages;
(ii) Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants,
contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a
statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text
messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.

These are all good points.

Also from a legal perspective, the one thing that could happen that would most strongly confirm what Freedman is saying, is if Venable does indeed moot their motion to quash.

I do think these allegations are so explosive and damaging that the odds we will hear something from Liman tomorrow are VERY high. Whether it's requesting an evidentiary hearing on Freedman's allegations or something else.

The lawyer above doesn't mention the possibility of Liman striking Freedman's letter, but thought he might "request[] an evidentiary hearing on Freedman's allegations," or do something else. This evidentiary hearing suggestion was what my other comment referred to, and it gives Freedman way more credit in the judge's eyes than I did. It's fine, nobody gets it right every time. But I did call it correctly, and no one else here did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor being quiet means nothing to me at this point except that she is smart.

Agree that Taylor is smart to keep quiet. That said, there are now headlines that Blake tried to extort her and threaten her to get her support that are just floating around and she’s not doing anything to deny them so it’s not great for Blake.

No it is not great but it also doesn't mean anything one way or the other to me especially when TS is actively trying to stay out of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If and until Taylor says it’s all BS, I’ll assume it happened.

And I will assume it didn't happen until I see the proof that Freedman alluded to, which is an email or letter from Venable to Gottlieb regarding the alleged extortionate threat. *shrugs*

If that exists then many of us have said we won't support Lively anymore.

Yet you support lively who has proven nothing? Weird

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I want to note that you’re minimizing Liman’s reaction here. He didn’t just strike the letter. He sua sponte struck Freedman’s opposition *and* affidavit, too. And he clearly explained that Freedman knowingly broke rules of comportment of which he was well aware. And he told him not to do it again. And he hinted at sanctions.

You think that’s not a big loss for Freedman? I hope it was worth getting his name in the headlines again, possibly because of some double hearsay unemployed PR rep. Freedman should have known better. Yet you still defend him. You guys are trash.

Oh but your girls team issued a phony subpoena, totally abusing the court system, to obtain evidence from Abel’s phone. That Manatt lawyer and firm should be sanctioned as well. You still defend that effort, calling it “clever lawyering.”

Touché

You are responding to different people here, but whatevs.

[Anonymous]

https://people.com/taylor-swift-blake-lively-halted-friendship-source-exclusive-11735539

So nothing about Freedman allegations but confirms they aren't frieneds