Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Also, I thought it was interesting that both Lively and Liman specifically made a point of not mentioning Taylor Swift's name in any of their filings on the Motion to Strike issue.  It was only Freedman who kept invoking Swift over and over and over again, basically doing what the judge was accusing him of doing, and using her name for publicity and ego gratification.  [/quote]

Blake is the one who dragged Taylor into this. Used her name because she knows she has no clout. 
[/quote]

Just days ago Blake’s lawyers made a statement to the press invoking Taylor’s name after the subpoena went out. Nice try though. [/quote]

Fwiw, Gottlieb's statement itself (what was quoted of it in People) doesn't specifically invoke Swift's name.  People magazine supplies that context, but Gottlieb doesn't throw Swift's name around.  [url]https://people.com/blake-lively-lawyer-denies-claim-threatened-taylor-swift-11734946[/url] Also, what's interesting about that public statement from Gottlieb is that by making it directly to the press and not on the docket, he opens himself up to defamation claims if it's not true.  He released one statement noting the issue and the fact that the claims were not true.  The only time his docket filings invoked Swift's name were, I think, in citing the crazy Daily Mail Ruth Gordon article released 5 minutes after Freedman's letter (now struck) was filed on the docket.

Afaict, Freedman hasn't done the same, but has completely his behind the litigation privilege in his docket filings, where he used Swift's name over and over.  So:  One party makes headlines by putting Taylor Swift's name all over the docket via multiple court filings.  The other party and the judge keeps Swift's name out of their filings in response as much as possible, and Gottlieb makes one statement to the press denying the truth of Freedman's allegations (while also still not using Swift's name in that statement afaict).

One party is clearly trying to pull Swift into the case despite Tree's statements that she would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, while the other party tries to keep her out as much as they can.  It's weird because I don't think they're friends anymore, but at least Lively's attorneys are trying to respect Swift's boundaries.  However, if Freedman's affidavit is true, then wtf?  What would the point of trying to respect Swift's boundaries at this point even be?  I guess to try to keep her out of the case as much as possible so that whatever bad info involving Gottlieb and Venable exists doesn't come to light.  Very interested to see what happens with the Motion to Quash in DC.  [/quote]

Earlier last week after news came out that Taylor had been subpoenaed, Blake’s rep made a statement denouncing the subpoena and calling Taylor a woman who has given a voice to many. This was before Freedman’s court letter about witness tampering. Taylor’s team had clearly been foaming at the mouth waiting for an opportunity to capitalize on Taylor’s name and they saw the subpoena as their moment.

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/10/celebrity-news/blake-livelys-rep-slams-justin-baldonis-team-for-subpoenaing-taylor-swift/[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics