Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got a notification several hours ago for an "Intervene" filing on the main docket (1:24-cv-10049) as entry 252, but nothing ever appeared there. Anyone know what is up with that?

Ah, it's a Motion to Intervene but what I think is that Dogpool guy who is accusing Reynolds of something ... stealing his ideas or attacking him on the street or something? It's weird because it's not appearing in the right order for me on Court Listener, it's buried in the middle of everything.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.252.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I mean, I'm not accusing someone who reported being sexually harassed by her law professor of being a morally corrupt grifter who only had a fully consensual relationship with that teacher. And I'm not calling myself a male feminist while encouraging my attorney to overturn a law that protects victims of sexual assault and harassment as unconstitutional. And I'm not constantly posting mean attacks about the personal appearance of Justin Baldoni on this website or other spiteful remarks about his wife or his marriage. But that's just me.

Sorry, I only pop into this thread once every few days. Who is this in reference to? The only law professor scandal I know was Amy Chua's husband Jed Rubenfeld at YLS.

It the Joshua Wright Title IX case at George Mason Law School where Wright spent his time between teaching and being an FTC Commissioner/antitrust advisor (lolol!) to Google, Amazon, etc, and also regularly got his law student who he hired as research assistants etc. to sleep with him. The school did eventually find out and he resigned before he was about to be terminated.

But I have also read the Chua/Rubenfeld story. I actually worked with Rubenfeld once on a law review article and found him lovely, but never actually met him in person.

You left out half the story, several of the women continued to have affairs with him for five to ten year afterward, and he arranged jobs for them, at Wilson Sonsoni, the FTC, and George Mason law school, which they accepted. One of those women has filed amicus brief in support of the constitutionality of Ca 47.1 and has branded herself as the face of Me Too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a notification several hours ago for an "Intervene" filing on the main docket (1:24-cv-10049) as entry 252, but nothing ever appeared there. Anyone know what is up with that?

Ah, it's a Motion to Intervene but what I think is that Dogpool guy who is accusing Reynolds of something ... stealing his ideas or attacking him on the street or something? It's weird because it's not appearing in the right order for me on Court Listener, it's buried in the middle of everything.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.252.0.pdf

I just tried to read that and all I can say is: wut.

Who is that guy, what does he have to do with Dogpool/Nicepool, why does he keep referencing the Taylor Swift stuff in DC (what does that have to do with Dogpool/Nicepool), why is his wife involved, etc. He filed this pro se but appears to have written this motion using AI which, omg as someone who used to work at a legal clinic providing legal assistance to people who couldn't afford lawyers for civil court, please do not do this. You'd be better off just explaining your situation in plain English without legal formatting or citation and then having a free legal clinic kind of tighten it up for you (laypeople tend not to understand which facts are relevant and which will just annoy the judge having to wade through them).

Anyway, interesting this case is so high profile it is apparently attracting the interest of whackadoodles wanting to someone how be involved directly. Wild times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Who cares, she was a consenting adult. White women are perfect angels and have no agency in your worldview, we get it. Doesn't change the reality that she's a #metoo grifter.

Just found out she was married too, wow. So she's not just a grifter, but she's a cheater herself. Or are cheaters exempt from being morally bankrupt because they're students?

Will the poster who wrote this comment please explain what you mean more and talk about some of the other comments you have written in this thread?

Dp. Why? This is obviously a bored troll or more likely wash or Arlington mom trying out some new material between her normal themes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Who cares, she was a consenting adult. White women are perfect angels and have no agency in your worldview, we get it. Doesn't change the reality that she's a #metoo grifter.

Just found out she was married too, wow. So she's not just a grifter, but she's a cheater herself. Or are cheaters exempt from being morally bankrupt because they're students?

Will the poster who wrote this comment please explain what you mean more and talk about some of the other comments you have written in this thread?

Pro-Lively supporters say Elyse was taken advantage of because of the student-teacher dynamic. But Elyse was married. So it's okay that she cheated on her husband because she was a student who was allegedly taken advantage of? I don't even know when she was married, so she might have already graduated when she had the affair, in which case that makes here even more pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Look, Wright was a bad dude no matter what you think of Elyse. He was engaged in blatant quid pro quo with his female students -- if you had sex with him, he would help your career and get you opportunities, and if you didn't, he wouldn't. ALL HIS STUDENTS were victims of this effed up situation because that should not be how someone in a position of power decides how to use his power to help or harm subordinates. It was bad for the women who had relationships with him because they entered into those relationships via coercion -- he used his power to convince women to sleep with him. And the women who didn't have sex with him also suffered because they're deprived of educational and work opportunities they may have earned. And heck, all his male students suffered because since Wright wasn't interested in men, his male students had no way of getting these opportunities at all.

You don't actually have to have an opinion on any of Wright's victims. You don't even have to get into it. People in power should not use their power to get sex from subordinates, the end. Everything else is just idle gossip and not really worth getting into. The dude isn't innocent of sexual harassment just because some of his victims are deeply imperfect people. And he wasn't defamed when all of this came out because he really did it! He sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, Wright was a bad dude no matter what you think of Elyse. He was engaged in blatant quid pro quo with his female students -- if you had sex with him, he would help your career and get you opportunities, and if you didn't, he wouldn't. ALL HIS STUDENTS were victims of this effed up situation because that should not be how someone in a position of power decides how to use his power to help or harm subordinates. It was bad for the women who had relationships with him because they entered into those relationships via coercion -- he used his power to convince women to sleep with him. And the women who didn't have sex with him also suffered because they're deprived of educational and work opportunities they may have earned. And heck, all his male students suffered because since Wright wasn't interested in men, his male students had no way of getting these opportunities at all.

You don't actually have to have an opinion on any of Wright's victims. You don't even have to get into it. People in power should not use their power to get sex from subordinates, the end. Everything else is just idle gossip and not really worth getting into. The dude isn't innocent of sexual harassment just because some of his victims are deeply imperfect people. And he wasn't defamed when all of this came out because he really did it! He sucks.

YES! 💯. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Who cares, she was a consenting adult. White women are perfect angels and have no agency in your worldview, we get it. Doesn't change the reality that she's a #metoo grifter.

Just found out she was married too, wow. So she's not just a grifter, but she's a cheater herself. Or are cheaters exempt from being morally bankrupt because they're students?

Will the poster who wrote this comment please explain what you mean more and talk about some of the other comments you have written in this thread?

Pro-Lively supporters say Elyse was taken advantage of because of the student-teacher dynamic. But Elyse was married. So it's okay that she cheated on her husband because she was a student who was allegedly taken advantage of? I don't even know when she was married, so she might have already graduated when she had the affair, in which case that makes here even more pathetic.

I don't think she was taken advantage of and I don't agree with calling her a victim or survivor. But she definitely experienced sexual harassment. I also don't agree with the people calling her a grifter because Wright was the one grifting off these companies and using them to get opportunities for his lovers. He came up with the scheme. The question here was should be able to sue her for defamation for telling this story. It's good that it came out, isn't it? Even though she's also an adulterer? Anyway, she has a lot more evidence of SH than Blake so it really isn't even analogous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

No question he was a predator who should have been fired. But fully three of the students, including Dorsey, had consensual relationships with him after they graduated that lasted 5 to 10 years each. He got two jobs at Wilson Sonsini and I believe two followed him to the FTC. Wright is a total scum bag, who did all kinds of inappropriate things as a FTC commissioner (basically influence peddling) and he was married throughout. And yet these former students actively competed among themselves for his attention. It would make one hell of a movie, but it certainly isn’t a textbook case of harassment.

Yeah, that was exactly his defense. "I slept with all of these students but I rewarded them all with jobz! So I did nothing wrong, and look at how they're defaming me now!"

I mean, I don't want my law school to work that way, and I am glad that the women reported this man and got him to resign, and that he lost most of the positions of power he had been privileged to hold. Am I going to blame the women because they got involved in relationships with him when they were his students and those relationships went on to last a while? Again, I don't need women who report SH to be perfect victims because I recognize that most perfect victims don't report at all. Why would they, when they could just move on? But feel free to attack these women since that seems to be where you are headed.

If we’re being honest, they should’ve reported him when he propositioned them instead of taking him up on the offer. These sorts of cases are murky, but I agree with Candace Owens when she asks where do you draw the line between sugar baby and victim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, Wright was a bad dude no matter what you think of Elyse. He was engaged in blatant quid pro quo with his female students -- if you had sex with him, he would help your career and get you opportunities, and if you didn't, he wouldn't. ALL HIS STUDENTS were victims of this effed up situation because that should not be how someone in a position of power decides how to use his power to help or harm subordinates. It was bad for the women who had relationships with him because they entered into those relationships via coercion -- he used his power to convince women to sleep with him. And the women who didn't have sex with him also suffered because they're deprived of educational and work opportunities they may have earned. And heck, all his male students suffered because since Wright wasn't interested in men, his male students had no way of getting these opportunities at all.

You don't actually have to have an opinion on any of Wright's victims. You don't even have to get into it. People in power should not use their power to get sex from subordinates, the end. Everything else is just idle gossip and not really worth getting into. The dude isn't innocent of sexual harassment just because some of his victims are deeply imperfect people. And he wasn't defamed when all of this came out because he really did it! He sucks.

Actually, they both can be bad and in this case, seem to be. He sucks but she’s not great either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Who cares, she was a consenting adult. White women are perfect angels and have no agency in your worldview, we get it. Doesn't change the reality that she's a #metoo grifter.

Just found out she was married too, wow. So she's not just a grifter, but she's a cheater herself. Or are cheaters exempt from being morally bankrupt because they're students?

Will the poster who wrote this comment please explain what you mean more and talk about some of the other comments you have written in this thread?

Pro-Lively supporters say Elyse was taken advantage of because of the student-teacher dynamic. But Elyse was married. So it's okay that she cheated on her husband because she was a student who was allegedly taken advantage of? I don't even know when she was married, so she might have already graduated when she had the affair, in which case that makes here even more pathetic.

I don't think she was taken advantage of and I don't agree with calling her a victim or survivor. But she definitely experienced sexual harassment. I also don't agree with the people calling her a grifter because Wright was the one grifting off these companies and using them to get opportunities for his lovers. He came up with the scheme. The question here was should be able to sue her for defamation for telling this story. It's good that it came out, isn't it? Even though she's also an adulterer? Anyway, she has a lot more evidence of SH than Blake so it really isn't even analogous.

They are both grifters. Maybe that was part of the attraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a notification several hours ago for an "Intervene" filing on the main docket (1:24-cv-10049) as entry 252, but nothing ever appeared there. Anyone know what is up with that?

Ah, it's a Motion to Intervene but what I think is that Dogpool guy who is accusing Reynolds of something ... stealing his ideas or attacking him on the street or something? It's weird because it's not appearing in the right order for me on Court Listener, it's buried in the middle of everything.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.252.0.pdf

I just tried to read that and all I can say is: wut.

Who is that guy, what does he have to do with Dogpool/Nicepool, why does he keep referencing the Taylor Swift stuff in DC (what does that have to do with Dogpool/Nicepool), why is his wife involved, etc. He filed this pro se but appears to have written this motion using AI which, omg as someone who used to work at a legal clinic providing legal assistance to people who couldn't afford lawyers for civil court, please do not do this. You'd be better off just explaining your situation in plain English without legal formatting or citation and then having a free legal clinic kind of tighten it up for you (laypeople tend not to understand which facts are relevant and which will just annoy the judge having to wade through them).

Anyway, interesting this case is so high profile it is apparently attracting the interest of whackadoodles wanting to someone how be involved directly. Wild times.

That motion was very hard to get through. I'm only halfway through and I'm still not really sure what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

No question he was a predator who should have been fired. But fully three of the students, including Dorsey, had consensual relationships with him after they graduated that lasted 5 to 10 years each. He got two jobs at Wilson Sonsini and I believe two followed him to the FTC. Wright is a total scum bag, who did all kinds of inappropriate things as a FTC commissioner (basically influence peddling) and he was married throughout. And yet these former students actively competed among themselves for his attention. It would make one hell of a movie, but it certainly isn’t a textbook case of harassment.

Yeah, that was exactly his defense. "I slept with all of these students but I rewarded them all with jobz! So I did nothing wrong, and look at how they're defaming me now!"

I mean, I don't want my law school to work that way, and I am glad that the women reported this man and got him to resign, and that he lost most of the positions of power he had been privileged to hold. Am I going to blame the women because they got involved in relationships with him when they were his students and those relationships went on to last a while? Again, I don't need women who report SH to be perfect victims because I recognize that most perfect victims don't report at all. Why would they, when they could just move on? But feel free to attack these women since that seems to be where you are headed.

If we’re being honest, they should’ve reported him when he propositioned them instead of taking him up on the offer. These sorts of cases are murky, but I agree with Candace Owens when she asks where do you draw the line between sugar baby and victim?

Who is actually quoting Candace Owens in this thread anymore? Are you for real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

No question he was a predator who should have been fired. But fully three of the students, including Dorsey, had consensual relationships with him after they graduated that lasted 5 to 10 years each. He got two jobs at Wilson Sonsini and I believe two followed him to the FTC. Wright is a total scum bag, who did all kinds of inappropriate things as a FTC commissioner (basically influence peddling) and he was married throughout. And yet these former students actively competed among themselves for his attention. It would make one hell of a movie, but it certainly isn’t a textbook case of harassment.

Yeah, that was exactly his defense. "I slept with all of these students but I rewarded them all with jobz! So I did nothing wrong, and look at how they're defaming me now!"

I mean, I don't want my law school to work that way, and I am glad that the women reported this man and got him to resign, and that he lost most of the positions of power he had been privileged to hold. Am I going to blame the women because they got involved in relationships with him when they were his students and those relationships went on to last a while? Again, I don't need women who report SH to be perfect victims because I recognize that most perfect victims don't report at all. Why would they, when they could just move on? But feel free to attack these women since that seems to be where you are headed.

If we’re being honest, they should’ve reported him when he propositioned them instead of taking him up on the offer. These sorts of cases are murky, but I agree with Candace Owens when she asks where do you draw the line between sugar baby and victim?

Who is actually quoting Candace Owens in this thread anymore? Are you for real?

And we will continue quoting her. Owens is intimately involved as several witnesses and parties have directly and indirectly contacted her and leaked information pivotal to the case while having their identities and careers protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

No question he was a predator who should have been fired. But fully three of the students, including Dorsey, had consensual relationships with him after they graduated that lasted 5 to 10 years each. He got two jobs at Wilson Sonsini and I believe two followed him to the FTC. Wright is a total scum bag, who did all kinds of inappropriate things as a FTC commissioner (basically influence peddling) and he was married throughout. And yet these former students actively competed among themselves for his attention. It would make one hell of a movie, but it certainly isn’t a textbook case of harassment.

Yeah, that was exactly his defense. "I slept with all of these students but I rewarded them all with jobz! So I did nothing wrong, and look at how they're defaming me now!"

I mean, I don't want my law school to work that way, and I am glad that the women reported this man and got him to resign, and that he lost most of the positions of power he had been privileged to hold. Am I going to blame the women because they got involved in relationships with him when they were his students and those relationships went on to last a while? Again, I don't need women who report SH to be perfect victims because I recognize that most perfect victims don't report at all. Why would they, when they could just move on? But feel free to attack these women since that seems to be where you are headed.

If we’re being honest, they should’ve reported him when he propositioned them instead of taking him up on the offer. These sorts of cases are murky, but I agree with Candace Owens when she asks where do you draw the line between sugar baby and victim?

Who is actually quoting Candace Owens in this thread anymore? Are you for real?

And who the hell are you, the queen of Sheba? We don't need your permission for who or what to quote.