Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And again, Baldoni supporters are already making extremely abusive comments about SA victim Elyse Dorsey for her brief over on IEWL. Those are your people. That’s what you guys are doing, and that’s the kind of behavior Freedman’s tactics are leading to and encouraging. So have fun sitting with that.

DP. If they are, that’s wrong. But with the BS I’ve seen from the ‘totally organic’ Lively supporters, I would not doubt some of them are fake and just desperately trying to make Baldoni look bad.

That's ridiculous. I invite you to go in that thread and look at all the Baldoni supporters pointing to her submission and calling her disgusting, a "driveling mess," and telling her to eff off etc. I certainly recognize several of these redditor names as regular Baldoni supporters. No respect, not very many comments to the effect of "she may be misguided here but I support her generally" etc, just general hate and complete disrespect directed at Dorsey and her position. Classy.

Why do you keep yapping about Reddit? We don’t care. Stop going there if it annoys you.

I'm curious to see how much harassment Elyse Dorsey gets for filing this amicus, as egged on by Baldoni supporting redditors and others like them. It's a similar problem that Lively has faced, but somehow Baldoni has mostly escaped it, even having open comments for his mother's day instagram. I guess all the sh!tposting Dorsey gets will be totally organic.

[Anonymous]

And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

Do you have a gut feeling on how this will shake out?

There are other avenues for Liman to dismiss the defamation claims as to Lively, if he's so inclined. As far as I can recall, almost all of the defamatory comments from Lively are sourced from the CRD, so they could be covered by the litigation privilege. He could accept Lively's argument that since she has a litigation privilege and NYT has Fair Report, her communications with the NY Times should also be covered as the go-between. And I don't think they referenced any comments she made otherwise, although they might dig up some texts in discovery.

Alternatively, if he does not want to dismiss the defamation claims, he could say that Baldoni has pled enough facts to allege that her complaint was made "with malice," and therefore does not fit within the California law. This seems to be the safest bet if he doesn't want to dip his toes into constitutionality or the merits of the law. It would support the idea that the law has provisions to protect falsely accused persons.

Will be fun to see if whoever loses that particular battle appeals and how that goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

I am also a lawyer who has worked on VAWA issues for immigrant victims of domestic violence so I match your “feminist lawyer” cred and note that i have done that work, for which I have won Bar recognition, pro bono.

I hope the law CA will survive because abusers should not be able to use defamation suits to bankrupt their victims and scare them into settling.

This matches Baldoni’s actions here. Have he and his codefendants really suffered 400M in damages? No, this is Freedman’s punitive effort to punish Lively and force a settlement, which has been clear from the beginning.

This also fully comports with Baldini’s MO during the filming and the subsequent smear. He’s a male feminist with rigid views over how all normal women give birth fully naked. (I did not, and I bet you didn’t either.) He’s a male feminist who wanted to feel fully protected by his PR team in going after Lively — no bots because that might be detectable but something alone the lines of the smear conducted against Hailey Bieber is what he was after. He a male feminist who apparently believes this California law which was passed to protect victims of sexual harassment should be struck down as unconstitutional. I guess those victims don’t need quite that much protection, right, Justin?

Justin Baldini, male feminist, fighting hard to strike down protections for sexual harassment victims that took years to pass and here hard fought and hard won.

Maybe he can do a podcast about this. Justin Baldoni: Enough.

[Anonymous]

How do we know even know Dorsey's claims are real themselves? Could she be a grifter like Blake? Feels like there's a lot of coddling going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do we know even know Dorsey's claims are real themselves? Could she be a grifter like Blake? Feels like there's a lot of coddling going on.

Wow. See? You guys are the absolute worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

I am also a lawyer who has worked on VAWA issues for immigrant victims of domestic violence so I match your “feminist lawyer” cred and note that i have done that work, for which I have won Bar recognition, pro bono.

I hope the law CA will survive because abusers should not be able to use defamation suits to bankrupt their victims and scare them into settling.

This matches Baldoni’s actions here. Have he and his codefendants really suffered 400M in damages? No, this is Freedman’s punitive effort to punish Lively and force a settlement, which has been clear from the beginning.

This also fully comports with Baldini’s MO during the filming and the subsequent smear. He’s a male feminist with rigid views over how all normal women give birth fully naked. (I did not, and I bet you didn’t either.) He’s a male feminist who wanted to feel fully protected by his PR team in going after Lively — no bots because that might be detectable but something alone the lines of the smear conducted against Hailey Bieber is what he was after. He a male feminist who apparently believes this California law which was passed to protect victims of sexual harassment should be struck down as unconstitutional. I guess those victims don’t need quite that much protection, right, Justin?

Justin Baldini, male feminist, fighting hard to strike down protections for sexual harassment victims that took years to pass and here hard fought and hard won.

Maybe he can do a podcast about this. Justin Baldoni: Enough.

Washington Mom, did you really think your writing is not entirely recognizable at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

Do you have a gut feeling on how this will shake out?

There are other avenues for Liman to dismiss the defamation claims as to Lively, if he's so inclined. As far as I can recall, almost all of the defamatory comments from Lively are sourced from the CRD, so they could be covered by the litigation privilege. He could accept Lively's argument that since she has a litigation privilege and NYT has Fair Report, her communications with the NY Times should also be covered as the go-between. And I don't think they referenced any comments she made otherwise, although they might dig up some texts in discovery.

Alternatively, if he does not want to dismiss the defamation claims, he could say that Baldoni has pled enough facts to allege that her complaint was made "with malice," and therefore does not fit within the California law. This seems to be the safest bet if he doesn't want to dip his toes into constitutionality or the merits of the law. It would support the idea that the law has provisions to protect falsely accused persons.

Will be fun to see if whoever loses that particular battle appeals and how that goes.

Not pp, but a lawyer. I agree with you he will most likely decide the defamation claims without touching the constitutionality issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we know even know Dorsey's claims are real themselves? Could she be a grifter like Blake? Feels like there's a lot of coddling going on.

Wow. See? You guys are the absolute worst.

Of course you can't come up with an answer.

[Anonymous]

Everyone's acting like Elyse Dorsey was a victim, but I'm reading the WSJ article right now and it appears it was consensual, but she got upset it wasn't exclusive. Yikes. Another grifter, just like Blake.

"He hosted Elyse Dorsey in January 2019 at a hotel in the Florida Keys during an institute training seminar. Wright had initiated a sexual relationship with her when she was a law student. He later helped her get jobs at Wilson Sonsini, the FTC and the Justice Department.

Four months after Dorsey’s Florida trip, Edwards and Wright were in Lisbon, where Wright had organized a weeklong training seminar. While Wright lectured foreign officials at the Four Seasons hotel, Edwards posted photos of herself on social media.

A Wilson Sonsini associate saw the posts and alerted Dorsey, who had believed her affair with Wright was exclusive. Dorsey texted him in Lisbon.

“You know who’s apparently not far away from you,” she wrote. “Lindsey.”

“Really weird,” Wright replied, saying it was a coincidence.

“That’s some bulls—,” Dorsey said."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And more: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

"Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively 'will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.'
...
"[Freedman and Baldoni's] position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

Dp. I posted before about well meaning laws posted by activists.

I happen to know one of the orgs quoted here fairly well.

I am pro Baldoni and someone who would likely be called a ‘feminist lawyer’ in real life… I work on gender issues and there are so many laws that started off trying to protect women, victims etc but end up being too broad, vague, etc and ultimately harmful. Happens all the time.
I can see this CA law being well meaning but ultimately not well drafted

I am also a lawyer who has worked on VAWA issues for immigrant victims of domestic violence so I match your “feminist lawyer” cred and note that i have done that work, for which I have won Bar recognition, pro bono.

I hope the law CA will survive because abusers should not be able to use defamation suits to bankrupt their victims and scare them into settling.

This matches Baldoni’s actions here. Have he and his codefendants really suffered 400M in damages? No, this is Freedman’s punitive effort to punish Lively and force a settlement, which has been clear from the beginning.

This also fully comports with Baldini’s MO during the filming and the subsequent smear. He’s a male feminist with rigid views over how all normal women give birth fully naked. (I did not, and I bet you didn’t either.) He’s a male feminist who wanted to feel fully protected by his PR team in going after Lively — no bots because that might be detectable but something alone the lines of the smear conducted against Hailey Bieber is what he was after. He a male feminist who apparently believes this California law which was passed to protect victims of sexual harassment should be struck down as unconstitutional. I guess those victims don’t need quite that much protection, right, Justin?

Justin Baldini, male feminist, fighting hard to strike down protections for sexual harassment victims that took years to pass and here hard fought and hard won.

Maybe he can do a podcast about this. Justin Baldoni: Enough.

Washington Mom, did you really think your writing is not entirely recognizable at this point.

Aw, gee, thanks, I feel like the Velveteen Rabbit who got loved into being Real to you finally. Was it only this morning that you all thought I was a bot/paid shill? *sheds single tear*

[Anonymous]

lolol. Wright was their teacher and he had affairs with multiple female law students. He was in a position of power over them and took them to conferences with him where (surprise!) there was only one bedroom and only one bed.

Newsflash: teachers, don’t sleep with your students.

His basic defense was that his students benefitted from their sexual relationship with them because he procured internships and jobs for them — well, at least until he lost interest.

Wright used to be a Commissioner on the FTC and a law professor at Scalia school of Law at George Mason. He now has none of those positions. George Mason investigated him and as a result he resigned: “ Wright resigned from George Mason following eight allegations of sexual misconduct from former students, and a determination by George Mason University that he violated university policies relating to consensual relationships and professional ethics that constituted grounds for termination.”

But please, yes, go off on how Joshua Wright is a wronged and misunderstood man just like Baldoni. I beg you to do this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_D._Wright

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone's acting like Elyse Dorsey was a victim, but I'm reading the WSJ article right now and it appears it was consensual, but she got upset it wasn't exclusive. Yikes. Another grifter, just like Blake.

"He hosted Elyse Dorsey in January 2019 at a hotel in the Florida Keys during an institute training seminar. Wright had initiated a sexual relationship with her when she was a law student. He later helped her get jobs at Wilson Sonsini, the FTC and the Justice Department.

Four months after Dorsey’s Florida trip, Edwards and Wright were in Lisbon, where Wright had organized a weeklong training seminar. While Wright lectured foreign officials at the Four Seasons hotel, Edwards posted photos of herself on social media.

A Wilson Sonsini associate saw the posts and alerted Dorsey, who had believed her affair with Wright was exclusive. Dorsey texted him in Lisbon.

“You know who’s apparently not far away from you,” she wrote. “Lindsey.”

“Really weird,” Wright replied, saying it was a coincidence.

“That’s some bulls—,” Dorsey said."

what? You think it's ok to sleep with his students in exchange for jobs? One woman (who has actual morals) posted a screenshot where he offered her a job, then asked her on a date, and the job disappeared when when she turned him down).

[Anonymous]

So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.