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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is anyone following stroller gate? Blake and Ryan did a pap walk with an infant stroller meanwhile their youngest kid is 2.5. These people are so gross and attention hungry. Their PR stunts keep backfiring b/c they don’t know how to be anything besides fake.[/quote]

Ha, I believe this. They seem to have put two shills who post night and day about nonsense on this thread (and from what I can tell they are shilling all over Reddit too and people notice). So what’s to stop them from a silly stroller pap walk too? [/quote]

Honestly, I'm just glad you guys are alive, I was actually a little worried about you.  I know it's been a tough week.[/quote]

[b]Not a tough week.[/b] Blake’s an idiot for bringing up the Taylor stuff again. It makes it even more clear that Taylor is completely done with her because if they’re besties, why can’t Blake ask Taylor what was told or given to freedman?! With these people, every accusation is an admission. [/quote]

Up is down.  Down is sideways.  Bad weeks are good weeks.  etc. etc. okay.

Gottlieb has known since late May that Venable didn't produce any documents to Freedman in exchange for him dropping the subpoena.  Freedman's whole affirmative case is basically gone, and Swift is no longer relevant to anything, yet even after that happened, as late as this week after the dismissal, Freedman was still bugging Gottlieb for Swift documents.  What's up with that?  Of all the things to worry about this week, why is that high on his priority list lol?

This letter motion is aimed at calling Freedman's bluff and killing the Swift story on their own timeline instead of letting Freedman run it.  If there was anytime to do it, it was probably this week.  And I love that they bugged Freedman about it like 3 hours after the dismissal came down.  Whatever Swift had, it's hardly relevant anymore, and if Freedman thinks it is, he will need to argue that now, on Gottlieb's timeline rather than on his own (while he's still struggling to figure out which two claims he's allowed to replead lol).  [/quote]

You’re mischaracterizing. WF has subpoenaed Blake’s communications with Taylor about iewu. They’re still relevant to the case and they will need to turn them over regardless of what happened with Venable. Blake’s entire motion asking for a protective order is just for PR to use Taylor’s name for clickbait b/c she already has a PO.[/quote]

I think it will be interesting to see how Freedman responds to this motion.  The last time he tried to deal with this issue before Judge Liman, he refused to discuss the issue directly with Gottlieb or his people (as he continues to do here) and then tried to file something with the judge that accused Gottlieb of extortion, which the judge struck. If Freedman is starting to figure things out and learning that winning with the judge is as important as getting salacious facts out to the people, he might try filing whatever he's going to charge Gottlieb with under seal, or request for a closed hearing.  If he pulls the same old routine, though, he might just achieve the same old dumb result.[/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