u/JaFael_Fan365

Did anyone else glean from Freedman's interviews and statements that it was Lively who wanted to settle and reach out to the WFP to do so. Here are the excerpts I'm referencing:

"when we were presented with an opportunity, we took that opportunity." So the WFP were presented with an offer to settle, which they took. They didn't convince Lively to settle; she convince them.

In his recent interviews with CC he said the opportunity they were presented was too good to be true. This further leads me to believe that Lively wanted to settle. It's got me very curious about the opportunity that was "too good to be true". That sounds like a high monetary offer.

The other thing that stood out for me was that he said the statement regarding Blake deserving to be heard was not an admission of any guilt. He said Justin has always felt that every man or woman needs to be heard.

Lastly, he said this: "The reason this case was fought so hard was because of the sexual harassment claims, and so when summary judgment happened and all of those claims, 10 or 13 claims, were thrown out, I think that changed the nature of the case and the nature of what it was about and the effect of it." So it seems this also incentivized Justin to settle. I'm wondering if MSM will talk about it being Lively who initiated settlement talks??

The thing I'm wondering about is what made Blake all of sudden want to settle and to make an offer that was too good to be true. It seems she's been planning to go to the MET Gala for months, so it can't be that. Was it fear that the other two claims would be dropped? Is there something else in the sealed documents? Her lawyers always said they had mounds of evidence, so why reach out to settle now?

reddit.com
u/JaFael_Fan365 — 17 days ago

The pre-trial conference tomorrow will allow each side 15 minutes to discuss the admissibility of evidence with respect to the Wayfarer Parties' lawsuit as a retaliatory act, including the public statements of Bryan Freedman. In Bach's reply to Lively's Opposition to the Renewed MJOP, he said that Lively did not offer any evidence in support of her claim that the WFP's lawsuit was in retaliation for the CRD complaint. It's very convenient that tomorrow she gets to discuss the evidence she wants to admit to prove this very point. I'm not saying this is any sort of conspiracy theory or that's it's nefarious; they have to have a pretrial conference. It just so happens that the timing works to her benefit. She gets to discuss the evidence she did not include in her opposition. It's sort of a second bite at the apple. So Liman will take this into consideration when ruling on the renewed MJOP. In light of this, I do believe the CRD will be viewed as a protected act establishing nexus to CA.

reddit.com
u/JaFael_Fan365 — 25 days ago