EXTORTION Against Justin Baldoni?! Lawyer Explains Blake Lively's HUGE MISTAKES!

Summary

Blake Lively's legal team faces scrutiny after a series of questionable actions, with expert lawyer Omar (the Tilted Lawyer) offering critical analysis. From subpoena issues to potential extortion claims, the legal drama surrounding Lively’s case is heating up. The involvement of Isabella Ferrer, co-star of *It Ends With Us*, and the aggressive litigation tactics employed by both sides raise serious questions. Omar discusses the nuances of the case, including alleged harassment, indemnity issues, and the public spin in the press. The episode highlights the messy and high-stakes nature of celebrity trials.

Takeaways

• 😀 Blake Lively's team is facing significant criticism and legal challenges, particularly regarding their handling of subpoenas and press coverage.
• 😀 Isabella Ferrer, co-star of *It Ends With Us*, filed a motion to avoid being subpoenaed, claiming harassment by Justin's legal team. However, there’s no clear evidence of harassment in her complaint.
• 😀 Ferrer’s legal team has attempted to evade service of the subpoena, arguing the request is overly broad and duplicative. This has raised suspicions about whether they are intentionally dodging service.
• 😀 The legal strategy involving subpoenas is seen as part of a larger effort to gather information for the case, with some attorneys criticizing Ferrer’s legal team for unprofessionalism.
• 😀 Blake Lively’s attorneys have been accused of litigating like 'divas,' with ongoing complaints about the Wayfair parties and constant requests for sanctions against their opponents.
• 😀 There is speculation that Justin's legal team might be pushing Ferrer into a corner to force a decision between standing with Lively or opposing her, all while maintaining some level of neutrality.
• 😀 The conflict is also linked to a dispute over an indemnity clause, with Ferrer’s legal team framing the subpoena issue in this context despite it being unrelated.
• 😀 The possibility of Ferrer filing a new lawsuit or harassment claim against Baldoni is discussed, but it is uncertain whether this will materialize, especially given prior positive statements Ferrer made about him.
• 😀 The exchange of legal motions and accusations between Lively’s and Baldoni’s teams is described as a high-stakes game, with both sides using press coverage and public statements strategically.
• 😀 The judge in the case, Lyman, is urged to step in and curb what is seen as frivolous litigation, particularly surrounding constant public claims and unnecessary motions, in order to restore order to the case.

Q & A

What are the major blunders that Blake Lively's team has made, according to the discussion?

The major blunders include mishandling legal procedures, particularly around subpoenas and service of documents, and mismanaging the public perception of the case. The discussion highlights missteps in their approach to Isabella Ferrer and the larger lawsuit surrounding Blake Lively.

What role does Isabella Ferrer play in the case discussed?

Isabella Ferrer is a co-star in 'It Ends With Us' who was subpoenaed by Blake Lively's team. She has attempted to avoid being served with the subpoena and has raised complaints of harassment, which is questioned in the discussion.

Was there any evidence of harassment in Isabella Ferrer's complaints?

No, according to Omar (the Tilted Lawyer), there is no sign of harassment in Ferrer's complaints. Her legal team attempted to challenge the subpoena without proper procedural grounds, making their complaints seem unfounded.

How does the lawyer suggest the subpoena situation could have been handled more professionally?

The lawyer suggests that the proper procedure would have been for Ferrer's attorney to accept the subpoena on her behalf, which would have allowed them to challenge it legally, rather than attempting to evade service and escalate the situation.

Why is Isabella Ferrer’s potential testimony considered problematic for the case?

Ferrer’s testimony could be biased due to her indemnity issue with Wayfair, which could diminish the value of her testimony. Additionally, her prior communications, where she described the environment with Justin Baldoni as a 'safe space,' may harm her credibility.

What is the significance of the indemnity issue mentioned in the discussion?

The indemnity issue concerns whether Ferrer’s employer (likely Wayfair) should cover her legal expenses. This becomes important because it is intertwined with her refusal to accept the subpoena and her legal team's attempts to complicate the service process.

How does Justin Baldoni's team respond to Ferrer's reluctance to be involved?

Justin’s team cleverly suggests that if Ferrer does not want to be involved, they won’t use her. However, they also argue that Blake Lively's team might still push for her testimony, forcing Ferrer into a difficult position where she would have to be subpoenaed or risk further complications.

What role does public relations play in this case, as highlighted by the legal discussions?

Public relations plays a significant role, as both sides are strategically framing the narrative in the press. For example, Blake Lively’s attorneys are accused of defaming Justin Baldoni in the media, while at the same time accusing him of improper behavior and influencing public opinion.

What is the argument regarding the sanctions and the media coverage of the case?

The argument is that Blake Lively’s legal team has been excessively tattling about the Wayfair parties in the press, which is seen as unprofessional. Meanwhile, they accuse Justin Baldoni's attorney of similar misconduct. The request for sanctions is considered frivolous, as both sides have made similar statements in the media.

What does the discussion suggest about the overall handling of this legal case?

The case is portrayed as being excessively messy, with both sides engaging in petty legal maneuvers and trying to gain a media advantage. There is criticism of the way the legal teams, particularly Blake Lively's, are handling the situation by filing numerous motions and making public statements, which is slowing down the judicial process.