Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

+2

[Anonymous]

I think the attitude Judge Liman has toward this case is the same attitude Jeff has toward this thread. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But…. Taylor staying out of this is a PR nightmare for Blake. Taylor is supposedly her best friend and clearly does not believe in the sexual harassment claim or she would come out and support her in some small way. Being seen with her, or at the least, issuing as part of this statement, I don’t have anything to do with this case other than supporting my friend. Or hell, at an MINIMUM not throwing in a dig about not seeing the movie for weeks.

Taylor has stayed silent, but the one time she did speak up, it was to directly contradict Blake, who has said Taylor was with her every step of the way and was intimately involved in this movie.

So her statement is essentially saying, Blake lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support Lively, and I think it's good for Swift to stay out of it as much as possible, because saying something supportive re Lively (1) rewards someone who invoked you as your dragon before, which was a sh!tty thing to say about a friend; and (2) it's just going to make you more relevant to the litigation; and (3) you don't want "the Swifties" to come out in support of Lively and start sleuthing on her behalf, when you don't necessarily know yourself whether Lively may be at fault in this case. Don't stand behind a friend who may have done wrong but isn't admitting it. Like, how would Swift know what the real truth is?

It also leaves the possibility that Swift knows Lively is wrong and isn't openly supporting her for that reason, though. I agree that Swift's lack of open support for Lively could mean that. In which case, you guys are right and I'm wrong. But I think it doesn't necessarily mean that, which is what I think you are basically saying.

[Anonymous]

The Lively posters will try to argue otherwise, but Freedman’s affidavit was quite significant, he put in a good bit of detail under oath and penalty of perjury.

Also, I don’t think Liman is biased but I also don’t think he belongs on the Mount Rushmore of the federal judiciary. He is a Trump appointee after all , which is a bit of stigma as Trump isn’t known for appointing the most qualified judges. And he is the trial court judge, significant decisions can be appealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the attitude Judge Liman has toward this case is the same attitude Jeff has toward this thread. LOL.

Good one! If we don't behave, Jeff will "strike" our thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It would go to a jury. And again, freedman not taking her depo DOES NOT MATTER in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Jeff is not going to strike this thread. If he wouldn’t strike it 400 pages ago, why would he strike it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Lively posters will try to argue otherwise, but Freedman’s affidavit was quite significant, he put in a good bit of detail under oath and penalty of perjury.

Also, I don’t think Liman is biased but I also don’t think he belongs on the Mount Rushmore of the federal judiciary. He is a Trump appointee after all , which is a bit of stigma as Trump isn’t known for appointing the most qualified judges. And he is the trial court judge, significant decisions can be appealed.

It would be legit hilarious if Freedman ran to appeal the ruling on the motion to strike, just to fan the flames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is not going to strike this thread. If he wouldn’t strike it 400 pages ago, why would he strike it now?

Well, then he can issue us sanctions, or at least a stern admonition about the professional rules of conduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It would go to a jury. And again, freedman not taking her depo DOES NOT MATTER in the long run.

Freedman seemed ready to fight to the death about this two months ago, and clearly personally thought it mattered very much. That was probably just his ego, though.

You seem to be saying that Freedman making the special effort to file all of these spurious details on Liman' docket is going to help him with public opinion, even if it causes the judge to sanction him, prevent him from taking Lively's deposition (or any depositions), take away his pro hac vice status, be more prone to making future filings on the docket AEO or under seal, closing off court hearings to the public, etc, etc. When instead of doing this, Freedman could have just not filed anything, and attempted to work things out with Venable, and raised the issue in D.D.C. as needed (where Venable hasn't mooted that MTQ yet like Freedman said they would; I think they have until midnight tonight if they're gonna) instead? I guess we'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Lively posters will try to argue otherwise, but Freedman’s affidavit was quite significant, he put in a good bit of detail under oath and penalty of perjury.

Also, I don’t think Liman is biased but I also don’t think he belongs on the Mount Rushmore of the federal judiciary. He is a Trump appointee after all , which is a bit of stigma as Trump isn’t known for appointing the most qualified judges. And he is the trial court judge, significant decisions can be appealed.

It was very significant as was TSs sides statement today which did NOT object to freedman’s letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support Lively, and I think it's good for Swift to stay out of it as much as possible, because saying something supportive re Lively (1) rewards someone who invoked you as your dragon before, which was a sh!tty thing to say about a friend; and (2) it's just going to make you more relevant to the litigation; and (3) you don't want "the Swifties" to come out in support of Lively and start sleuthing on her behalf, when you don't necessarily know yourself whether Lively may be at fault in this case. Don't stand behind a friend who may have done wrong but isn't admitting it. Like, how would Swift know what the real truth is?

It also leaves the possibility that Swift knows Lively is wrong and isn't openly supporting her for that reason, though. I agree that Swift's lack of open support for Lively could mean that. In which case, you guys are right and I'm wrong. But I think it doesn't necessarily mean that, which is what I think you are basically saying.

Leaves the possibility? I really don’t understand the level of delusion or denial or why you’re trying to convince us otherwise. Taylor Swift has been silent for nine months which speaks volumes, and the one thing that she does say completely contradicts Blake and takes the opportunity to twist the knife in further. There’s 100 different ways she could soften this and she chose not to - in fact she chose to go the other way.

She and most of the public don’t support Blake. Oh well. She had a good run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It would go to a jury. And again, freedman not taking her depo DOES NOT MATTER in the long run.

Freedman seemed ready to fight to the death about this two months ago, and clearly personally thought it mattered very much. That was probably just his ego, though.

You seem to be saying that Freedman making the special effort to file all of these spurious details on Liman' docket is going to help him with public opinion, even if it causes the judge to sanction him, prevent him from taking Lively's deposition (or any depositions), take away his pro hac vice status, be more prone to making future filings on the docket AEO or under seal, closing off court hearings to the public, etc, etc. When instead of doing this, Freedman could have just not filed anything, and attempted to work things out with Venable, and raised the issue in D.D.C. as needed (where Venable hasn't mooted that MTQ yet like Freedman said they would; I think they have until midnight tonight if they're gonna) instead? I guess we'll see.

Fight to the death? Huh? You clearly don’t understand advocacy. Lawyers argue issues. They win or lose them in some form, and then they move on.

Wasn’t it lively who raised this issue in the SDNY? Either way, none of the things you listed above happened, and freedman appears to have a credible source for his claims, so again, this is a win for him. But again, these are all steps in a long game.

[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.

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.

I support Lively, and I think it's good for Swift to stay out of it as much as possible, because saying something supportive re Lively (1) rewards someone who invoked you as your dragon before, which was a sh!tty thing to say about a friend; and (2) it's just going to make you more relevant to the litigation; and (3) you don't want "the Swifties" to come out in support of Lively and start sleuthing on her behalf, when you don't necessarily know yourself whether Lively may be at fault in this case. Don't stand behind a friend who may have done wrong but isn't admitting it. Like, how would Swift know what the real truth is?

It also leaves the possibility that Swift knows Lively is wrong and isn't openly supporting her for that reason, though. I agree that Swift's lack of open support for Lively could mean that. In which case, you guys are right and I'm wrong. But I think it doesn't necessarily mean that, which is what I think you are basically saying.

Leaves the possibility? I really don’t understand the level of delusion or denial or why you’re trying to convince us otherwise. Taylor Swift has been silent for nine months which speaks volumes, and the one thing that she does say completely contradicts Blake and takes the opportunity to twist the knife in further. There’s 100 different ways she could soften this and she chose not to - in fact she chose to go the other way.

She and most of the public don’t support Blake. Oh well. She had a good run.

+1 I gave Taylor the benefit of doubt by saying she could be waiting to respond in court but this was a pretty clear stance from her side. Now I actually think Taylor is a bully herself and things were going Blake's way she would without a doubt publicly with standing with her. That's not the case and Taylor imo is saving herself ownself.