Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I funny argument I see Baldoni supporters making on Reddit recently that these amicus briefs are "plants" because Lively's legal team is involved with some of these non-profits.

Alternatively: Lively's legal team is filled with people who have been deeply involved in supporting survivors of sexual violence and discrimination for a long time, and they chose to represent Lively and the organizations they are affiliated are choosing to back her with these briefs. You would think that would give people pause, that maybe there is more to Lively's allegations than a lot of people seem willing to believe.

Usually people who have spent years supporting and representing real survivors would not be willing to throw that away on someone lying about harassment to try and "steal a movie." Do you just think all these people are stupid? Lively has just tricked dozens of highly educated and successful lawyers and survivor advocates?

I've seen her acting -- she's not that good!

And yet such organizations didn’t care enough to file an amicus in a timely manner and instead waited months and just happened to file after a particular low point for Blake. And both amicus briefs filed by an organization just happened to have at least one board member with a tie to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I funny argument I see Baldoni supporters making on Reddit recently that these amicus briefs are "plants" because Lively's legal team is involved with some of these non-profits.

Alternatively: Lively's legal team is filled with people who have been deeply involved in supporting survivors of sexual violence and discrimination for a long time, and they chose to represent Lively and the organizations they are affiliated are choosing to back her with these briefs. You would think that would give people pause, that maybe there is more to Lively's allegations than a lot of people seem willing to believe.

Usually people who have spent years supporting and representing real survivors would not be willing to throw that away on someone lying about harassment to try and "steal a movie." Do you just think all these people are stupid? Lively has just tricked dozens of highly educated and successful lawyers and survivor advocates?

I've seen her acting -- she's not that good!

And yet such organizations didn’t care enough to file an amicus in a timely manner and instead waited months and just happened to file after a particular low point for Blake. And both amicus briefs filed by an organization just happened to have at least one board member with a tie to Blake.

Alternatively, these organizations decided to get involved when Baldoni et al argued in response to Blake's MTD asserting 47.1 that the law was unconstitutional, and filed amicus briefs on the issue when those briefs (which could be seen as critical groundwork for the survival of 47.1 at the appellate level should the issue get pled up) as quickly as they feasibly could.

But sure, I'm sure it's more likely that Lively's lawyers demanded that these well-established survivor advocacy organizations write amicus briefs to help Blake weather some negative headlines about her friendship with Taylor Swift, and the lawyers and advocates at these orgs (who have dedicated their careers to helping survivors) decided "hmmm, okay, sounds good."

Some of y'all have truly lost it. The amicus briefs aren't even about Blake. They are about defending 47.1 against Freedman's argument that it's not constitutional. He invited these briefs by challenging the law's constitutionality in his own briefs. OF COURSE the people who wrote and advocated for the law's existence are going to fight back on that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I funny argument I see Baldoni supporters making on Reddit recently that these amicus briefs are "plants" because Lively's legal team is involved with some of these non-profits.

Alternatively: Lively's legal team is filled with people who have been deeply involved in supporting survivors of sexual violence and discrimination for a long time, and they chose to represent Lively and the organizations they are affiliated are choosing to back her with these briefs. You would think that would give people pause, that maybe there is more to Lively's allegations than a lot of people seem willing to believe.

Usually people who have spent years supporting and representing real survivors would not be willing to throw that away on someone lying about harassment to try and "steal a movie." Do you just think all these people are stupid? Lively has just tricked dozens of highly educated and successful lawyers and survivor advocates?

I've seen her acting -- she's not that good!

And yet such organizations didn’t care enough to file an amicus in a timely manner and instead waited months and just happened to file after a particular low point for Blake. And both amicus briefs filed by an organization just happened to have at least one board member with a tie to Blake.

"both amicus" lol there are 4 now. Though I'm sure male feminist Justin Baldoni will be arguing that the court should not listen to a single one of these women's and victim's groups because he really, really, really, really needs his 400 million dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

Who said that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I funny argument I see Baldoni supporters making on Reddit recently that these amicus briefs are "plants" because Lively's legal team is involved with some of these non-profits.

Alternatively: Lively's legal team is filled with people who have been deeply involved in supporting survivors of sexual violence and discrimination for a long time, and they chose to represent Lively and the organizations they are affiliated are choosing to back her with these briefs. You would think that would give people pause, that maybe there is more to Lively's allegations than a lot of people seem willing to believe.

Usually people who have spent years supporting and representing real survivors would not be willing to throw that away on someone lying about harassment to try and "steal a movie." Do you just think all these people are stupid? Lively has just tricked dozens of highly educated and successful lawyers and survivor advocates?

I've seen her acting -- she's not that good!

And yet such organizations didn’t care enough to file an amicus in a timely manner and instead waited months and just happened to file after a particular low point for Blake. And both amicus briefs filed by an organization just happened to have at least one board member with a tie to Blake.

"both amicus" lol there are 4 now. Though I'm sure male feminist Justin Baldoni will be arguing that the court should not listen to a single one of these women's and victim's groups because he really, really, really, really needs his 400 million dollars.

It really doesn’t matter, the amicus briefs add nothing new to the analysis.

Elyse Dorsey is not an organization, according to her own linked in she is a #game changer, #me too, # thought leader, and I’m sure for a small speaker’s fee, she’ll be happy to tell you why she waited over a decade to report her long time affair partner while following him from lucrative job to lucrative job. Or perhaps we could get her husband’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

Who said that?

Aren't you? You're arguing that these briefs are all "highly suspicious" and contain "literally no new arguments" that were each filed "months" after they should have been, but you also think that the judge should indeed consider them and that womens and survivor groups should continue to file them? Wait, allow me to sell you this bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

Who said that?

Aren't you? You're arguing that these briefs are all "highly suspicious" and contain "literally no new arguments" that were each filed "months" after they should have been, but you also think that the judge should indeed consider them and that womens and survivor groups should continue to file them? Wait, allow me to sell you this bridge.

Please point out the new arguments in the amicus briefs? There simply isn’t any. So, sure, let’s pretend this is anything more than a pr stunt organized by Blake’s lawyers. When your high profile best friend publicly disavows you and your claims, use your power and influence to make it look like you have a cause.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

[Anonymous]

This NOW brief is really good, imo. It really shows how accused people will commonly revert to defensiveness and total denial, and really shows the rise of defamation suits by defendants as a result:

"In 2017, one attorney who worked with campus sexual assault victims shared that 'previously only a small fraction—five percent —of her cases included a defamation lawsuit but more recently that number had jumped to about 50%.' A 2020 review by MotherJones of court records and media since 2014 found that over 100 defamation lawsuits had been brought against individuals raising sexual assault and harassment allegations, with nearly half of those filed after the #MeToo campaign that emerged in October 2017. Even more 'cases have been filed at a faster rate[]' since 2020. Advocacy groups like Know Your IX, which lobbies on behalf of student survivors of sexual violence, indicated that 23% of students who made Title IX complaints were threatened with defamation suits by their abusers."

And I've been saying for hundreds of pages now that these defamation suits are basically new tools in the abuser toolbelt to use to shut down challenges to them and keep women quiet. And to keep victims afraid of coming forward for fear of how they will be abused all over again and scorned, exactly as is happening here.

Absolutely no respect being shown by Baldoni supporters here for female victims who have come forward and fought. Denigrate, denigrate, denigrate.