Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yeah, interesting that two (or 3?) random moms who just really cared about BL and had time to listen to hours of courtlistener and post constantly on here are suddenly too busy to post a word. And it just so happens to be at the end of the month… |
Anonymous
|
Personally, you all make it nearly pointless to post here. Baldoni supporters are not participating in good faith. Nobody ever admits anything is bad or hurts Baldoni/Freedman, you just deny and deflect.
Events in Lively's favor/Baldoni/s disfavor that Baldoni supporters insisted weren't at least minor Lively wins/Baldoni losses. 1. Protective Order was issued from Lively's draft (with minor changes), not Baldoni's. (Baldoni supporters actually insisted this was a Baldoni win or that it didn't matter, though the issued PO goes well outside the norm in protection 3d party and even party confidentiality as Lively requested). 2. Liman's denial of extension to Baldoni's amended complaint request. (This was defended as Liman just denies all extensions, even Lively's where parties agreed, so it doesn't show he's getting fed up with Freedman. Yet when Liman actually granted Lively an extra day or two to file her amended complaint but not as long as she asked for, this was written about here by Baldoni defenders as a huge diss to Lively by Liman.). 3. Liman striking Freedman's letter and subsequent affidavit re Swift/Venable subpoena. (This was seen by you all as Liman being wrong and/or being prejudiced in favor of Lively or actually it was totally rational since the events pertained to a different court - no concern admitted that Liman is getting annoyed with Freedman's PR antics.) 4. Now Baldoni is arguing the CA law protecting (mostly) women from defamation suits is unconstitutional and the feminist organization filing amicus briefs supporting Lively shouldn’t even be considered by Liman. (This clearly conflicts with Baldoni’s male feminist brand/ideology but no Baldoni supporter will admit it makes him look like an absolute hypocrite.) 5. Team Baldoni on dcum includes wacky "They are tracking our IP addresses from our posts" lady (no one on your team will admit this happened or that it shows some of your people are nuts). 6. Your team copied at least one comment word for word from Reddit without attributing it (maybe more) -- this is actually the sort of bot-like Baldoni support at issue in Lively's complaint but Baldoni supporters thought this was an okay thing to do somehow.) When Lively's original overbroad subpoena was denied by Liman months ago, I admitted it wasn't a good showing by Lively's attorneys and the doc request was overbroad. When Freedman's Venable filings were made, I admitted the salacious details, if true, would make me question my support for Lively and probably even withdraw it. No similar admissions are ever made from most Baldoni supporters (I think there is one who is waiting for more details at trial). Lively supporters actually admit when rational Baldoni/Freedman points or actions taken by supporters hurt her legal arguments. Not you all, though. Your whole side is just a black hole of meaningless churn. Then you post a bunch of nonsense/gossip and wonder why there's no response. Still deciding whether to participate further when actual legal developments occur, but it seems largely pointless. You are not participating in good faith and don't really deserve my time or my own good faith participation. At this point I’m mostly discussing case with other Lively supporters. |
Anonymous
That hasn’t stopped “you” from posting nonstop for the past six months. |
Anonymous
| “Your team”, can’t make this nonsense up. |
Anonymous
|
I’m here for the drama.
I think when even Taylor Swift — the most notorious girls girl and godmother to your children thinks you’re in the wrong, then Blake Lively is probably full of s#*t. |
Anonymous
lol good, please go back to r/baldonifiles |
Anonymous
| Apparently Blake’s lawyer, Esra Hudson, is on the board of the advocacy group that filed one of the amicus briefs. It’s never simple, folks. |
Anonymous
Here's what 10 minutes of poking around on the websites of these organizations, you absolute mouthpiece for Bryan Freedman: One of the two amicus briefs filed last week was filed on behalf of three different organizations: The California Women's Law Center (CWLC), Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), and the California Employment Lawyer's Association (CELA). ERA and CELA have boards of directors composed of at least 18 members each, none of which appear to have members who have any clear connection to this case afaict. Both of these organizations were actually directly involved in either drafting or advocating to support California Assembly Bill 933 ("AB 933") at issue in this case and discussed in this amicus brief. ERA drafted and co-sponsored AB 933 and successfully advocated for its passage. CELA co-sponsored the bill and was key to its passage. Hudson isn't on the Board of either of these organizations. Esra Hudson does sit on the board of the California Women's Law Center, as do 21 other people, the majority of whom are also partners at big law firms. The CWLC advocated for adoption of AB 933, but didn't do the same major oar pulling that ERA and CELA did. I am sure that Hudson can't just impose her will on CWLC and force it (and the other two organizations which she has no special pull with) to submit an amicus brief in a cause they don't believe in. It makes absolutely no sense that Hudson might have been able to bully her way into getting these three women's organizations to write and submit an amicus brief on this issue. Two of these organizations were directly involved in drafting the bill and getting it passed -- you think Ezra Hudson is going to get them to make arguments here they don't stand behind? And there are 21 other board members on CWLC where Hudson does sit on the board -- you really think a single board member has that influence? Completely detatched from reality. But let us know which women's rights organizations Baldoni or Freedman have board memberships in, so we can keep our eyes peeled for their advocacy for male feminist/absolute hypocrite Justin Baldoni in this case, who is actually arguing Liman shouldn't even read the amicus briefs from these women's organizations and that they should effectively be silent here. A++ totally on brand male feminist. |
Anonymous
I know and that lawyer who had the relationship with her prof is a particularly complicated victim and arguably not really a victim for most of the relationship |
Anonymous
Eleven years, during which she followed him to numerous places of employment that don't otherwise hire from George Mason law school. |
Anonymous
According to BL supporters, that just makes her an "imperfect" victim. |
Anonymous
|
Blake Lively Abandons Claims Against Justin Baldoni of Infliction of Emotional Distress
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-abandons-claims-justin-baldoni-1236414177/ Isn't this a huge part of her case...? |
Anonymous
She was married also… |
Anonymous
The court will now need to decide whether to compel Lively to turn over the information on her mental health, which she has sought to avoid, or dismiss the two claims with or without prejudice. It is standard procedure in cases alleging physical or emotional injury for the defense to access the plaintiff’s medical records that would shine a light on the root and scope of alleged distress. What is unusual is for a plaintiff to abandon the claims midstream given that it is well known heading into such a lawsuit that medical records will be an unpleasant but inevitable part of the discovery process. What on Earth is she hiding about her mental health that she doesn't want to get out? |
Anonymous
She didn’t want to turn over documents to support her claim. Kind of ironic she is dropping a claim when she just filed a motion accusing him of filing unsupportable claims. |