Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

Oh, good! Baldoni supporters got the memo to stop attacking one of the two women that reported the professor who started a sexual relationship with her while she was his student. I guess this is progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and I’ll add that defamation law is the perfect tool for what happened here. Don’t file sham lawsuits and coordinate hit pieces against people in the NYT if you don’t want the heat.

Yes, I agree. $400M defamation lawsuit is “the perfect tool” for men like Justin Baldoni who were sued for harassment and retaliation.

Sorry, you forgot for the “falsely” to go with “sued.”

Amicus briefs are suppose to be filed alongside the motions they relate to. Why are the ones here being filed so late?

Is it bad when things are filed late, incomplete, or not at all, though? I thought Freedman preferred that approach for things like interrogatory responses, discovery, and amended complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

Oh, good! Baldoni supporters got the memo to stop attacking one of the two women that reported the professor who started a sexual relationship with her while she was his student. I guess this is progress.

No such memo, I still think she’s an opportunist who used her post graduation consensual relationship with him to advance her career. Now she is making me too her brand, it’s pretty gross, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

Oh, good! Baldoni supporters got the memo to stop attacking one of the two women that reported the professor who started a sexual relationship with her while she was his student. I guess this is progress.

No such memo, I still think she’s an opportunist who used her post graduation consensual relationship with him to advance her career. Now she is making me too her brand, it’s pretty gross, really.

There it is! Very on brand. Baldoners gonna Baldone.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about your memo. Just focused on the validity of Lively’s allegations and so far I’m not convinced. But this is why it’s important to have investigations and discovery. If her allegations are factual for both SH and retaliation by way of an “untraceable smear campaign” then I’ll eat my hat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

Oh, good! Baldoni supporters got the memo to stop attacking one of the two women that reported the professor who started a sexual relationship with her while she was his student. I guess this is progress.

No such memo, I still think she’s an opportunist who used her post graduation consensual relationship with him to advance her career. Now she is making me too her brand, it’s pretty gross, really.

There it is! Very on brand. Baldoners gonna Baldone.

Oh please, you love to turn every women into a victim. It’s quite sad really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

+1.

+2. I have no opinion of Dorsey but I’ll never back Lively and her false allegations.

Oh, good! Baldoni supporters got the memo to stop attacking one of the two women that reported the professor who started a sexual relationship with her while she was his student. I guess this is progress.

No such memo, I still think she’s an opportunist who used her post graduation consensual relationship with him to advance her career. Now she is making me too her brand, it’s pretty gross, really.

There it is! Very on brand. Baldoners gonna Baldone.

If this means speaks the truth rather than repeating empty platitudes ad nauseam, then yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

Right. You guys don’t like Dorsey but had she not spoken up, Wright would likely still be teaching at George Mason, might still be a commissioner at the FTC, would stop be repping and advising corporate giants like Amazon and Google in their antitrust suits.

The point is that these big dollar defamation suits against women who sue or complain about sexual harassment are a new tool in the toolbox of harassers. Freedman knew this and employed it here. It’s both a punishment and a leverage and negotiating tool.

It is completely ridiculous that the guy who signed a contract promising not to retaliate against Lively is now suing her for defamation for 400 million dollars. That’s 8 times as much as Depp sued Heard for and that involved the Pirates franchise. Baldoni, the enlightened male feminist, filed his lawsuit as a retaliatory punishment and a threat. I can’t believe you guys don’t understand this.

I don’t think that’s accurate. There was another victim who spoke up first. Dorsey was second and only after she learned that wright was involved with a romantic rival.

Again, Wright should have been fired for sexually harassing law students. But I don’t think the relationship he had with Dorsey was sexual harassment after she graduated. She had many off ramps and instead chose to use her sexual relationship with him for career gain while the rest of us relied upon our law school grades, journals, and interview skills. Her story is really yet another demonstration that there is often a lot of gray in these cases.

Dp. Look, abusive people have always been able to use the legal system to harass people. This is not a new ‘tool’ for harassers. Look at our president. Look at tons of people who use the courts. You might even consider Gottlieb and his flood of motions and activity in these cases. And of course look at Blake herself and how she avoided proper channels to file a harassment claim and instead took her one sided story to the NYT and used a Ca filing as cover.

I need to look at this CA law and how it’s written to judge fully, but as I mentioned above, I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written. There are already methods that judges have to shut down frivolous litigation but IME they are too rarely used.

“Feminist lawyer” argues CA law protecting victims of SA/SH retaliatory defamation lawsuits may be unconstitutional; should allow greater protections for male feminists/harassers/retaliators like Justin Baldoni.

Pp. Sorry, where did I say that? You are great at twisting and lying. I am a ‘feminist’ and a lawyer and I am perfectly aware of poorly written but well meaning laws. Is this one of them? Idk. But I do know BL is not a victim here.

Isn’t that where you were going, though? You said you needed to look more carefully at the law, but that “I suspect this is a well meaning but overbroad and ultimately harmful law as written.” In other words, you suspected the law was overbroad and therefore potentially unconstitutional, no? And wouldn’t the over breadth be due to the provisions relating to defamation claims? If I’m wrong, please let me know how.

I guess what I did was write a sentence that laid out where your analysis seemed to be going before you got there. But I did say “may be” unconstitutional, so it seemed relatively fair.

PP. It depends. If the law can be weaponized by people who weren’t truly SH, then yes, it’s well meaning but has unintended consequences. And if you’re the VAWA lawyer you claim you are (obvi not, but let’s pretend for kicks), you’ll know that there are a number of proposals, laws, policies etc out there that were well meaning but have back fired in certain cases.

[Anonymous]

^ I’ve now read the text of the law and personally I hope that Liman avoids the constitutional issue altogether either by saying CA doesn’t apply and/or her action was filed with malice.

I think the amicus were well intentioned but I don’t think they know who they’re siding with in terms of the facts. Fine. One can support the law, but still find it shouldn’t be weaponized inappropriately. Which is what Blake is doing here.

I’ll add that I think this was a decent PR move by Blake’s side, so congrats to you. You earned part of your fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

Except when you don't actually have proof of an alleged campaign or pervasive sexual harassment.

“We can bury anyone”. Same PR firm that repped Depp. Discovery is in progress. Freedman didn’t even try to dismiss.

Who can Blake and Ryan's "ride or die" Ari bury? I guess we can start with wildly success podcasts. He can make those disappear, after he goes on them boasting about sacking innocent men and de facto blackballing an innocent man in Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I’ve now read the text of the law and personally I hope that Liman avoids the constitutional issue altogether either by saying CA doesn’t apply and/or her action was filed with malice.

I think the amicus were well intentioned but I don’t think they know who they’re siding with in terms of the facts. Fine. One can support the law, but still find it shouldn’t be weaponized inappropriately. Which is what Blake is doing here.

I’ll add that I think this was a decent PR move by Blake’s side, so congrats to you. You earned part of your fees

Just a normal feminist lawyer who happens to disagree with you about mostly everything in this case, but please keep finding excuses for male feminist Justin Baldoni, whose ace attorney Bryan Freedman is arguing that this CA law should be overturned as unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

Except when you don't actually have proof of an alleged campaign or pervasive sexual harassment.

“We can bury anyone”. Same PR firm that repped Depp. Discovery is in progress. Freedman didn’t even try to dismiss.

Who can Blake and Ryan's "ride or die" Ari bury? I guess we can start with wildly success podcasts. He can make those disappear, after he goes on them boasting about sacking innocent men and de facto blackballing an innocent man in Hollywood.

Oh goodness, yes — what we definitely need right now are some more podcasts from Justin Baldoni. Next episode: Are You Man Enough … To Overturn Protections For Victims of Sexual Assault and Harassment? With guest Bryan Freedman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I’ve now read the text of the law and personally I hope that Liman avoids the constitutional issue altogether either by saying CA doesn’t apply and/or her action was filed with malice.

I think the amicus were well intentioned but I don’t think they know who they’re siding with in terms of the facts. Fine. One can support the law, but still find it shouldn’t be weaponized inappropriately. Which is what Blake is doing here.

I’ll add that I think this was a decent PR move by Blake’s side, so congrats to you. You earned part of your fees

Just a normal feminist lawyer who happens to disagree with you about mostly everything in this case, but please keep finding excuses for male feminist Justin Baldoni, whose ace attorney Bryan Freedman is arguing that this CA law should be overturned as unconstitutional.

Look, you’ve earned your fees for the day. Good job.

Blake is no SH victim so let’s move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

Except when you don't actually have proof of an alleged campaign or pervasive sexual harassment.

“We can bury anyone”. Same PR firm that repped Depp. Discovery is in progress. Freedman didn’t even try to dismiss.

Who can Blake and Ryan's "ride or die" Ari bury? I guess we can start with wildly success podcasts. He can make those disappear, after he goes on them boasting about sacking innocent men and de facto blackballing an innocent man in Hollywood.

Ari didn't bury Justin, nor did Ari have anything to do with Justin's podcast falling apart.

There's no evidence that Blake hired a PR team (or anyone) to bury Justin or ruin his reputation.

I also do not think he would have been "blackballed" for this if he'd just accepted the divided premiere, wrapped up press on this movie, and moved on. He has financial backing, lots of men with dodgy histories continue to work and are very successful in Hollywood.

I think Justin shot himself in the foot by freaking out so hard about this one movie, both Lively's allegations and her power moves on the set. It sounds like he did do some questionable things on this movie (proposing nudity last minute, misunderstanding what it meant to make sex scenes with the female gaze, etc.). I just think he was not the guy to direct this movie, and he got in over his head with also acting in it, and he didn't do a good job running the set. Is it SH? I don't know, some of this stuff is super sketchy and dumb and I think he should be held accountable. Other stuff it feels like just a misunderstanding. I think it's okay to hold him responsible for the stuff he did wrong. And maybe the proper consequence for it is that Blake took over the movie. Honestly, that seems okay to me. He was doing kind of a crappy job, multiple people on set were complaining, his behavior was not great. So the lead actress decided to use her leverage to take over. I don't know why this upsets people so much? It's just some dumb movie.

But had he left it there and moved on, I think he'd still have his career, even still have his podcast. The allegations would never have been public and it would just be kind of a behind the scenes thing that some people in Hollywood knew about and that some fans remembered for the weirdness with promotion.

Hiring TAG and going after not only Lively but also Reynolds was the mistake. That quote from Sarkowitz about destroying them? Unhinged. I think Wayfarer and Baldoni proved themselves to be a pretty crap organization here. The idea that Baldoni and Heath are totally blameless here is super weird -- obviously they made mistakes. Why not just admit it and move on? Casting themselves as the victims and going after Blake the way they have I think has done way more to destroy Baldoni's rep, especially this whole thing about him being a male feminist, than anything Blake has said or done.

Blake obviously messed up here too, but she's been dragged through the mud for it. Baldoni wants to come out totally clean as the "true victim" who was bullied by Blake Lively. Please. I mean really, that is ridiculous. This was his movie, he muffed it. Next time don't try to direct a movie about domestic violence, and don't try to star and direct at the same time. Like learn a lesson, dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I’ve now read the text of the law and personally I hope that Liman avoids the constitutional issue altogether either by saying CA doesn’t apply and/or her action was filed with malice.

I think the amicus were well intentioned but I don’t think they know who they’re siding with in terms of the facts. Fine. One can support the law, but still find it shouldn’t be weaponized inappropriately. Which is what Blake is doing here.

I’ll add that I think this was a decent PR move by Blake’s side, so congrats to you. You earned part of your fees

Just a normal feminist lawyer who happens to disagree with you about mostly everything in this case, but please keep finding excuses for male feminist Justin Baldoni, whose ace attorney Bryan Freedman is arguing that this CA law should be overturned as unconstitutional.

Look, you’ve earned your fees for the day. Good job.

Blake is no SH victim so let’s move on.

+1000 She's a liar and a disgrace to real SH victims.