Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The rumors that Blake/Ryan are planning to sue their lawyers for malpractice continue. But, Plot Twist! Mark Garagos (Bryan Freedman’s bestie), said Gottlieb and co made sure to conduct the settlement under California jurisdiction so that they can’t be sued. Apparently there’s a law in California precluding people from suing their lawyers for malpractice if they settle privately. Garagos said there’s a saying that you get the lawyer you deserve lol.[/quote]

Take a moment to ask yourself why "Bryan Freedman's bestie" is being interviewed about this case, and why he would be sharing info about where the settlement proceeding were held, what Lively's lawyers' strategy and motivations were, or what Lively is now personally considering. Is he a good resource for that info? What is his involvement in the case? Do we think Lively or her lawyers are confiding in him? Let's think.[/quote]

PP - Mark Garagos is a famous lawyer in his own right who happens to also be freedman’s bestie. He always discloses it when talking about Bryan so it doesn’t seem like he’s being deceptive. But Mark does a podcast with the tmz guy, has a pod with another lawyer, and is a regular guest on Megyn Kelly. Basically he’s always talking and gets paid to do so. He didn’t just come out of the woodwork to talk about lively, he’s a regular commentator. He’s retired but his daughter is a young up and coming defense attorney. She was on the diddy case and is now on the Weinstein appeal. [/quote]

And... why would he have special insight into what Lively or her lawyers are thinking? He isn't friends with them. But he has a strong motivation to imply negative things about her. So maybe it would be worth it to take the things he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he spends a lot of time gabbing with TMZ and Megyn Kelly, which both traffic in sensationalism.[/quote]

If there’s one thing we all should have learned from this case, it’s that where there’s smoke there’s fire. The blinds, tmz, they all have sources. These rumors are out there because there’s some there there. Doesn’t mean Blake will sue her lawyers, but it’s reasonable to believe she’s unhappy with them. And it’s also reasonable to believe that they would be strategic enough to inoculate themselves from a lawsuit. Just look at all the trickery they did for Blake.[/quote]

No, I do not think we have learned that, and you also didn't answer the question.

Bryan Freedman's "bff" has been making the rounds of talk shows saying that Blake is considering suing her lawyers and that her lawyers made sure to conduct settlement negotiations in CA to avoid being sued. This indicates personal, direct knowledge of private conversations between Blake and her husband, Blake and her legal team, and within her legal team. You need to ask yourself:

(1) Why would Blake, her legal team, or anyone associated with them share this information with Bryan Freedman's "bff"?

(2) Could there be another motive for Bryan Freedman's friend to spread this rumor on podcasts and talk shows? Is it possible that by speculating about these things that he could not possibly have any personal knowledge, of he gets a conversation started online that is unfavorable to Blake, which is positive for both his close friend, Bryan Freedman, and Freedman's clients?

If you've watched this entire case unfold and are still convinced that when a *clearly* biased person speculates wildly on camera, that must reflect the "real truth" that is being hidden from you by the "lame stream" media, then you have learned exactly nothing. [/quote]

Dp, but why would Brian Freedman care whether Blake is paying her lawyers or thinking about suing them?  Further, it is obvious that her lawyers made some very bad strategic calls, and that she ran up some very large bills.  Now maybe Blake and Ryan made those bad strategic calls with full warning from the lawyers of the consequences, or maybe the lawyers were hamstrung because there simply wasn't good evidence for Blake's claims, or she destroyed evidence before the legal case really got going.  Who knows?  But given how one sided the settlement was in WF's favor, how much she spent on legal fees, and the really questionable legal strategy, it isn't a reach that Blake and Ryan are looking for someone to blame.[/quote]

Either you can't even see how you are just buying into a narrative that was literally designed by Baldoni's PR team, or you are happily participating in pushing that narrative knowing what it is.

You ask why Bryan Freedman would care about whether Blake is paying her lawyers or thinking about suing them. Exactly. Why would he, or his "BFF" care about these things? They aren't relevant to the case. Yet here is his "BFF" going on Megyn Kelly of all places to wildly speculate about what Blake or her legal team are doing, to even weigh in on whether her legal team arranged to conduct settlement negotiations in a specific location in anticipation of Blake suing them? Why? Why is this a topic of conversation, why is he speculating about it at all, why is he touted and introduced as "Bryan Freedman's BFF" as though this someone qualifies him to speak intelligently on this subject that you just said yourself is not something that has anything to do with Bryan Freedman? And then you are treating his wild speculation as some kind of indication of reality even though he has no inside knowledge and no basis for the speculation. He doesn't even know Blake. He doesn't know her lawyers.

Bryan Freedman's best friend went on a podcast hosted by Bryan Freedman's client, Megyn Kelly, to speculate wildly about what Blake Lively is thinking and doing in private, and what her lawyers are thinking and doing in private, and then people who are fans of Bryan Freedman and his clients are repeating this speculation online like it's verified fact. [b]This is the slop system. None of that is real. It's just BS intended to help Bryan Freedman and his various clients make money, at the expense of truth and the reputations of the people they gossip about.[/b] And you are gleefully participating.[/quote]

You literally sound insane.  Rumors about Blake being unhappy with her lawyers appeared many places before it was discussed on Kelly's show. It's not a big conspiracy -- Lively wound up with a horrendous result.  I've been a litigator for two decades and have never seen a settlement where a plaintiff got zero dollars and no NDA.  Her lawyers chose to file in NY when they needed California law to apply, and then lost on choice of law.  Manatt filed a Doe lawsuit that was frankly unethical in the extreme.  It would be strange if we weren't hearing these rumors.[/quote]

Would the decision had been different if case had been filed in CA? I am not close to this but I thought the court ruled she wasn’t an employee so couldn’t sue for sexual harassment.  It is also crazy how long it took to get this decision and the money wasted on discovery etc.  [/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