Anonymous
09/15/2025 09:49
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.
If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.
It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.
It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.
She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.
But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.
I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .
What everyone is failing to understand is that a party is required to list a to e that may have information relevant to the case. Taylor’s attendance at that meeting means that both sides have to list her. You don’t get to choose to leave off people that have information. The other side is entitled to that list. So listing her was appropriate and not an option to leave off.
The idea that Liana is corrupt is insane. What he is — is an old school imperial federal judge who is way smarter than most everyone in this case. People like him rule the courtroom. Blake’s lawyers are NY big firm lawyers and they know how to act. Frankly there are very few LA entertainment lawyers that can even function in the SDNY. The way you act and talk is different. It was a mistake to use an LA lawyer.
Part of what is required is absolute candor. Spin sure but not even the hint of a lie.
Anonymous
09/15/2025 09:18
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.
If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.
It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.
It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.
She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.
But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.
I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .
Anytime Baldoni’s team can remind the public that Taylor has left the friendship is helpful to them. Anytime they can generate headlines of Taylor’s team saying they want no part of this is a reminder that she’s not helping out her former friend.
Anonymous
09/15/2025 09:05
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.
If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.
It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.
It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.
She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.
But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.
I disagree that she has no relevant info. Both parties thought she did and included her in their Disclosures. Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .
Anonymous
09/15/2025 09:03
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Liman ruled he doesn't have jurisdiction over Wallace, right? Why didn't he rule that the does? I fully believe he's corrupt so I'm curious why he didn't bend the law further in favor of Blake.
*Why didn't he rule that he does?
Because that is one of the few issues so far that he doesn’t have discretion, would be appealable and would be overturned.
However, despite this, he allowed Blake to amend her complaint, postponed her deposition at her request pending amendents, and then waited (and still waiting) weeks to rule on Wallace’s renewed motion to dismiss despite deciding many subsequently filed motions in the interim.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 20:11
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wow, the Blake bot has been busy talking to herself again. Taylor still has her set off.
We get it, Liman was indeed in the hot tub with Gottlieb, lucky Blake.
Not a "Blake bot" if you're referring to the previous comment above yours. I am a Taylor fan and wish she would stop being pulled into this drama.
Blake pulled her into the drama. She listed her in court documents as being a person who might have some information. Why don’t Blake supporters acknowledge this?
She went all over town lying about Taylor’s involved in the movie, and she manipulated Taylor into being in a meeting where a script was discussed so she could later threaten Justin with it - we saw it with our own eyes.
The ACLU went to represent someone that Blake is suing. Let that sink in. these people are evil and manipulative.
Not disagreeing with you that Blake cause this. That's why Taylor isn't talking to her and let it be known.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 18:33
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.
If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.
It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.
It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour. Not watching casting tapes.
She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.
But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 18:15
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
Pp. I dont think it was a mistake because it would help or hurt the case. I believe Swift when she says she doesn't have information, personally. But Blake moved for a PO to not give over her texts, and Liman pointed out Blake named her as a person with information, that was a rare misstep from the Blake side. They were trying to call Freedman's bluff when he said he got everything he needed, but undermined themselves by adding Swift to their disclosures. Luckily for Swift, Wayfarer is incompetent and didn't subpoena her lol.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:59
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.
I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.
That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.
But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:52
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Liman ruled he doesn't have jurisdiction over Wallace, right? Why didn't he rule that the does? I fully believe he's corrupt so I'm curious why he didn't bend the law further in favor of Blake.
*Why didn't he rule that he does?
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:52
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Liman ruled he doesn't have jurisdiction over Wallace, right? Why didn't he rule that the does? I fully believe he's corrupt so I'm curious why he didn't bend the law further in favor of Blake.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:48
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
They’ve done a lot of things that would have hurt them with a different judge
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:30
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:29
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Allegedly she wants to take LSAT and go to law school. She wanted to go to Harvard business school few years ago. All good plans and with her money and fame, most colleges would be happy to have her enroll and give her a degree but wouldn't she need a college degree to begin with?
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/blake-lively-following-kim-kardashian-081406037.html
https://people.com/celebrity/blake-lively-wants-to-go-to-harvard-business-school/
She’s an idiot. Just like Kim K who has been talking about law school for years and is no closer to becoming a lawyer. Blake doesn’t know how to work. She will pick up one LSAT book and get 10 minutes into it be distracted.
But they may be setting this up as an excuse to why she doesn’t ever get a movie role again and her hair line folds. It might be convenient to say she’s focusing on being a lawyer lol.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:27
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wow, the Blake bot has been busy talking to herself again. Taylor still has her set off.
We get it, Liman was indeed in the hot tub with Gottlieb, lucky Blake.
Not a "Blake bot" if you're referring to the previous comment above yours. I am a Taylor fan and wish she would stop being pulled into this drama.
Blake pulled her into the drama. She listed her in court documents as being a person who might have some information. Why don’t Blake supporters acknowledge this?
She went all over town lying about Taylor’s involved in the movie, and she manipulated Taylor into being in a meeting where a script was discussed so she could later threaten Justin with it - we saw it with our own eyes.
The ACLU went to represent someone that Blake is suing. Let that sink in. these people are evil and manipulative.
Anonymous
09/14/2025 17:10
Subject: Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
Anonymous wrote:Wow, the Blake bot has been busy talking to herself again. Taylor still has her set off.
We get it, Liman was indeed in the hot tub with Gottlieb, lucky Blake.
He did manage to slip out of the silk sheets to issue an order today, actually granting Wallace's motion for reconsideration on the a/c privilege. Which was nice of him, cause I would have just said they waived it by not presenting that engagement letter sooner. Wallace and Wayfarer have until Tuesday to cite specific provisions where legal advice is being given. Part of me wonders if that's a setup, because Liman has already seen these docs and maybe already knows they don't have a good argument there. What would be funniest would be if Wayfarer manages to blow that deadline.