Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

I have also wondered why there is not more effort to get positive stories of Lively out there. I wonder if it's hard because it would look so transparent at this point? Maybe it makes more sense to just focus on the legal stuff because her reputation will rise or fall based on success there to some extent.

I say this as someone who is skeptical of both Lively's claims AND Justin's. I tend to think this is a case of a toxic relationship between two kind of screwed up people (the both seem very annoying in almost directly opposing ways, which I think is the source of the problem) and they've both decided to burn it all down instead of quietly settle out of court. It makes for good entertainment but I am not really convinced that either one of them is "right." Maybe one is "less wrong." We'll see.

There has been plenty of pr stories to try and make her look good. They go under the radar because no one cares. Bake nor Ryan have ever never been a "tabloid fodder" by themselves. Think about it. It's Blake + met gala, or Blake + Taylor, or Ryan + Deadpool.

point taken!

[Anonymous]

Bad day in court for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

I have also wondered why there is not more effort to get positive stories of Lively out there. I wonder if it's hard because it would look so transparent at this point? Maybe it makes more sense to just focus on the legal stuff because her reputation will rise or fall based on success there to some extent.

I say this as someone who is skeptical of both Lively's claims AND Justin's. I tend to think this is a case of a toxic relationship between two kind of screwed up people (the both seem very annoying in almost directly opposing ways, which I think is the source of the problem) and they've both decided to burn it all down instead of quietly settle out of court. It makes for good entertainment but I am not really convinced that either one of them is "right." Maybe one is "less wrong." We'll see.

There has been plenty of pr stories to try and make her look good. They go under the radar because no one cares. Bake nor Ryan have ever never been a "tabloid fodder" by themselves. Think about it. It's Blake + met gala, or Blake + Taylor, or Ryan + Deadpool.

Did you see Ryan’s fake pap walk last week? Hired fake fans and fake paparazzi. Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

Harsh language on a thread = super bad and causes intense stress.

Ruthlessly and methodically trying to destroy an innocent man’s life for sport, power and profit = kosher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bad day in court for Blake.

Eh, sounds like a mixed bag. The protective order was always a reach -- those are rarely granted. The judge told attorneys on both sides not to try and litigate the case in the media and also threatened that if the parties try to just go at each other in the press, he could move up the court date. It's pretty much what I would have expected going in. Gag orders are very rare, especially in a civil case -- it's not like this is a mob case or something.

I am not sure anyone really thought they were going to get the protective order anyway but that's how motions practice works -- you file for the protective order so you can get the arguments against Baldoni's lawyer into the record. It gives Lively's lawyer a chance to stand up and say to the judge "oh you know this guy has been going after her character in the press." It dovetails with their narrative about Baldoni trying to smear her in the press. It also gets Baldoni's lawyer in the courtroom making his arguments which helps them preview his style and see what he does that plays with the judge or doesn't. It's a way to get the parties (well the lawyers -- Lively and Baldoni weren't there) in a room together with the judge to take a temperature. And that might help them with figuring out what tone or slant to take with the amended complaint.

Sure it would have been better if the order had been granted but I would actually assume they got most of what they hoped for out of it. The protective order is immaterial to the case itself. It's not like it was a motion to admit or bar certain evidence, or compel testimony, or an MSJ or anything.

[Anonymous]

Can both parties drop their cases and move on? Lots more important stuff in the world happening now. Like LA fires and rebuilding, plane crashes and heartaches. Lots of people losing jobs and worried about paying bills

[Anonymous]

Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

She was never going to get that. They wanted a hearing to highlight Freedman's aggressive comments about her in the press. They got it. The judge told both parties to be careful about litigating the case in the press and threatened to move up the date if they did.

Yes Lively lost the motion but I would not describe that as a "bad day in court." Sometimes you file motions just to get an argument on the record and I think this was one of those times. Gag orders are rare and they were never going to get the judge to say Freedman can't depose Lively (I've literally never heard of that happening). I doubt Lively or her lawyers expected to win this one and losing it has no bearing on the case. It doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous]

Oh and also Freedman announced they are dropping the case they filed in California and consolidating in NY where Lively filed her case. To the extent that this is more convenient for Lively/Reynolds and is their choice of venue (and a less familiar venue for Freedman) that's actually a real win.

[Anonymous]

Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

She was never going to get that. They wanted a hearing to highlight Freedman's aggressive comments about her in the press. They got it. The judge told both parties to be careful about litigating the case in the press and threatened to move up the date if they did.

Yes Lively lost the motion but I would not describe that as a "bad day in court." Sometimes you file motions just to get an argument on the record and I think this was one of those times. Gag orders are rare and they were never going to get the judge to say Freedman can't depose Lively (I've literally never heard of that happening). I doubt Lively or her lawyers expected to win this one and losing it has no bearing on the case. It doesn't change anything.

Oh please, she wanted that gag order.

[Anonymous]

The judge has already determined that Lively is a diva and denied all her motions. That is the definition of a bad day in court. Expect more of the same to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.