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: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.

Omfg everyone knew that he could strike the letter. Taking back your cookie.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Gigi hadid also jumped Blake’s sinking ship. Oh my.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Similar to the PO issue, you pat yourself on the back for calling relatively minor procedural issues that ultimately do not matter or matter very little. Freedman wasn’t sanctioned, even if he was, I doubt it would be all that meaningful, the issue was kicked out of Limans court, and freedman got word out to the world that BL is a manipulative liar who went so far as to try to twist the arm of the worlds biggest pop star and her supposed BFF. So what does that say she’d do to get her way with an unknown like Baldoni?

She is losing big time. She needs to settle this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is like a fool’s bet. They will give up their support for Lively ‘only if’ Freedman brings irrefutable physical evidence (which means 1) he has to have access to it and 2) he has to get it into the docket and in front of a judge)

He may have the evidence, but the challenge might be in getting it onto the docket.

Essentially, the pp doesn’t think it can be done, so is essentially offering you a bet that you can’t win at. They’re riding and dying with Lively, like Ari.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Also says her friendship with gigi has "cooled off" too

[Anonymous]

Yep. Gigi had that huge birthday party a few weeks ago. Blake was not there. Hmmm…

Didn’t Blake say in prior interview that she borrowed clothes from IEWU from her other bestie Gigi?

[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.

Yeah, Freedman is definitely winning the long game with the actual judge who is in charge of deciding his clients’ case as opposed to TeamJustinBaldoni on Reddit who is very much in cope mode right now. “Playing the long game” definitely involves getting the judge deciding your case to excoriate your actions in a public opinion and warn you not to pull that sh!t again or else.

No judge will look at a double hearsay affidavit from a lead attorney like that and think, “this guy is a measured legal advocate who, as a judge, I can trust.” Maybe you’re saying this case will settle like many of Freedman’s cases often do. But if this goes to trial, Freedman has now burned some bridges with Liman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is like a fool’s bet. They will give up their support for Lively ‘only if’ Freedman brings irrefutable physical evidence (which means 1) he has to have access to it and 2) he has to get it into the docket and in front of a judge)

He may have the evidence, but the challenge might be in getting it onto the docket.

Essentially, the pp doesn’t think it can be done, so is essentially offering you a bet that you can’t win at. They’re riding and dying with Lively, like Ari.

Sorry but it's really very reasonable not to believe in outlandish claims (a lawyer of Gottlieb's stature extorting another lawyer for a PR statement) until proof is given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. Gigi had that huge birthday party a few weeks ago. Blake was not there. Hmmm…

Didn’t Blake say in prior interview that she borrowed clothes from IEWU from her other bestie Gigi?

Found it (or something close):

From 2023

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-jokes-about-coparenting-with-bff-gigi-hadid/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, Freedman is definitely winning the long game with the actual judge who is in charge of deciding his clients’ case as opposed to TeamJustinBaldoni on Reddit who is very much in cope mode right now. “Playing the long game” definitely involves getting the judge deciding your case to excoriate your actions in a public opinion and warn you not to pull that sh!t again or else.

No judge will look at a double hearsay affidavit from a lead attorney like that and think, “this guy is a measured legal advocate who, as a judge, I can trust.” Maybe you’re saying this case will settle like many of Freedman’s cases often do. But if this goes to trial, Freedman has now burned some bridges with Liman.

Liman may be irritated but he will follow the law. And a jury will ultimately decide what happens, if they get there.

Have you ever been on a case where the other side did something sort of bad and was chastised by the judge? Because I have. And guess what? Their client still won. This does not matter.

[Anonymous]

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

It obviously happened. It’s no coincidence both Taylor and Travis cut off all contact with Ryan and Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, Freedman is definitely winning the long game with the actual judge who is in charge of deciding his clients’ case as opposed to TeamJustinBaldoni on Reddit who is very much in cope mode right now. “Playing the long game” definitely involves getting the judge deciding your case to excoriate your actions in a public opinion and warn you not to pull that sh!t again or else.

No judge will look at a double hearsay affidavit from a lead attorney like that and think, “this guy is a measured legal advocate who, as a judge, I can trust.” Maybe you’re saying this case will settle like many of Freedman’s cases often do. But if this goes to trial, Freedman has now burned some bridges with Liman.

Liman may be irritated but he will follow the law. And a jury will ultimately decide what happens, if they get there.

Have you ever been on a case where the other side did something sort of bad and was chastised by the judge? Because I have. And guess what? Their client still won. This does not matter.

Sure. He might still decide in Baldoni's favor. But maybe he's a step closer to agreeing Freedman shouldn't take Lively's deposition now. So maybe Freedman's shooting off his mouth is also shooting himself in the foot rather than "winning the long game."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It obviously happened. It’s no coincidence both Taylor and Travis cut off all contact with Ryan and Blake.

+1. This was the time for Taylor's sources to deny Blake tried to blackmail her and they're still friends. Instead she wants no part of the "drama" which is obviously the opposite image Blake is trying to portray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is like a fool’s bet. They will give up their support for Lively ‘only if’ Freedman brings irrefutable physical evidence (which means 1) he has to have access to it and 2) he has to get it into the docket and in front of a judge)

He may have the evidence, but the challenge might be in getting it onto the docket.

Essentially, the pp doesn’t think it can be done, so is essentially offering you a bet that you can’t win at. They’re riding and dying with Lively, like Ari.

Sorry but it's really very reasonable not to believe in outlandish claims (a lawyer of Gottlieb's stature extorting another lawyer for a PR statement) until proof is given.

Agree (as a Lively supporter who said I'd be out if either that or the allegation that Lively told Swift to delete texts were shown).

[Anonymous]

They had to add insult to injury by stating even Gigi wants nothing to do with Blake? lol, oof, things are not looking good for Plantationpool.