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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGE9aUfXcAADWty?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img][/quote]

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 [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Yeah, Freedman is definitely winning the long game with [u]the actual judge who is in charge of deciding his clients’ case[/u] 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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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."[/quote]

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

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 [i]not filed anything[/i], 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.[/quote]

All of the negative publicity Blake has gotten over the past few days vastly increases the pressure to settle, particularly if  Venable is indeed cooperating with Freedman.  [/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