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:

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

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

A second Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." Ladies, ladies, normally we reserve such language for the accusers themselves! How enterprising to branch it out like this!

You need intensive therapy. I wish you well.

Name the lie!

She will ignore this question.

DP but I don't even understand what y'all are arguing about, or even which side either of you are on. I see someone calling a survivor of sexual violence "low iq" which I'm gonna be a nay on, but otherwise this is just a circle jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that Blake is described as an imperfect victim, when I'd actually use that label to describe Justin. Because he wasn't the perfect director who ruled with an iron fist and didn't know how to manage a celeb with A-list ties, he deserved to be libeled in the press.

I do have a thought experiment I genuinely want to pose: if a woman's word is law, and we're supposed to believe women no matter what, how can a man prove his innocence? No, really, how will he be able to prove it? Because it feels like as long as someone's claimed she was sexually harassed, people will come up with all sorts of post-hoc justifications for why she's right.

She will ignore this question.

Oh, whatever. Look, you can choose not to believe certain women, after you have read up on the facts and decided that the odds really favor someone else here. I don't think anyone on this ridiculous thread is actually blaming any Baldoni supporter for believing Baldoni overall rather than Lively. You can choose a side and defend it.

What I absolutely do blame you for is the ridiculous misogynist tropes that nearly all of you have fallen into in defending Mssr. Baldoni from the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad hag Blake Lively. Since the first day I've been in these threads, people could not insult her hard enough. Insinuating she's mentally unstable or has various undiagnosed/diagnosed conditions, saying she was really in love with Baldoni and had been scorned and that's why she claimed SH, whatever terrible things you could dig up from her past that had nothing to do with the case, etc. etc. etc. The point was to hurt her credibility above all so that your hero Baldoni would be protected, and it was done in the most predictable misogynist ways.

If you really are just asking "how can a man prove his innocence," I suggest that he not begin with a $400 million defamation suit against the woman he promised not to retaliate against. This is textbook retaliation. Freedman designed this to bully her, and you couldn't be happier about it. I think it was a dick move. Otherwise, I would say fight the case with real lawyers and not with a PR lawyer who just wants to hurt your opponent so they settle. Why do you need to hurt Lively so much instead of letting the judge and/or jury weigh out the legal merits of both of your claims? The way Freedman is fighting this case seems more like bullying than lawyering, and it reminds me of Weinstein on the phone with Twohey et al in the film re the NYT story.

Prove your innocence by showing the truth, but not using misogynist language to describe Lively. Stop going low. Stop feeding the hate machine that grinds up women accusers and spits them out as mincemeat. Tell your fans to stop doing the same. The language you guys have been using on Lively here has been so offensive for so long that I mostly don't even ask for it to be removed anymore. Just tell the truth and don't insult her as much and it would be fine.

Responding to myself, but I actually think it would be a great move right now for Baldoni to ask fans to stop attacking Lively with misogynist language etc. It would actually build back his male feminist cred a little. But he may not want to do that because it's actually working to his benefit right now for people to hate her so much. And also, it might draw the next question of well if you believe in that, why are you saying this feminist law should be declared unconstitutional? So I actually think he will just keep hiding in Hawaii.

[Anonymous]

Boies Schiller for Sloane has requested an extension in responding to Sarah Nathan's motion to quash discovery served upon her, which would extend out both the Opposition and Nathan's reply dates by about a week (otherwise Sloane's Opposition is due this Tuesday the 10th). Both parties agree and no other extension has been requested (but I'm not sure Liman will consider this "good cause"). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.288.0.pdf

Vituscka also requested an extension of time (himself rather than through Sloane) two weeks ago, which the judge granted, but that request gave real reasons in support of the request. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.235.0.pdf

Sloane really doesn't even try to provide good cause above, saying she's trying to negotiate or explaining the scheduling issue, so I think with Liman being a stickler, he might reject, but who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

And yes, he had a lawyer who responded to Sloane's motion to compel his texts. He was asserting the journalist privilege but apparently decided to just cooperate with this statement.

Who is Vs lawyer? Anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

There is no way, even if Blake wins something in trial, that she and Ryan can come back from this. Her businesses are shutting down and I doubt she’ll get another bite of that apple of beauty products or lifestyle related brands.

It’s really telling that she just had the biggest box office success of her career - and it’s cricket in terms of her landing another role.

I’m sure Ryan will fund her some little projects here and there, but I doubt she’ll ever get a chance at making a movie that opens in theaters.

This was just such a spectacular PR crisis… It’s kind of hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see in the coming years as tell alls come out if they took their own advice and just didn’t listen to experts, or if they were just taken for a ride by supposed experts who steered them the wrong way for the grift. It’s truly baffling.

Keep underestimating Lively's ability to tolerate the pain cave at your peril. "There is no way they can come back from this..." blah blah blah blah. She seems to be doing okay actually and just released a successful film via ASF 2, whereas Baldoni is literally hiding with his family in Hawaii while his entire identity/brand as a male feminist gets more and more irretrievable every day. At some point he's going to be asked about the legal positions he allowed his team to take in this case which would kill a good law purely to protect himself and his ridiculously retributory $400M requested windfall. Hope his PR team is prepping him on what to say on that lol.

Baldoni and Blake are in two very different positions. She’s an actress. He’s the owner of a film studio. He might be hiding out in Hawaii, but his studio is still making movies. Two have Oscar buzz. He’s not as reliant on his public image one way or another because he’s transitioned to mostly behind the scenes work. The allegations against Kevin Costner are much worse but the news cycle on that has been much shorter. The only reason people are still talking about Blake and Justin is because it appears an injustice has been done against Justin and people want to see him redeemed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

And yes, he had a lawyer who responded to Sloane's motion to compel his texts. He was asserting the journalist privilege but apparently decided to just cooperate with this statement.

Who is Vs lawyer? Anyone know?

Lynn Oberlander at Ballard Spahr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

There is no way, even if Blake wins something in trial, that she and Ryan can come back from this. Her businesses are shutting down and I doubt she’ll get another bite of that apple of beauty products or lifestyle related brands.

It’s really telling that she just had the biggest box office success of her career - and it’s cricket in terms of her landing another role.

I’m sure Ryan will fund her some little projects here and there, but I doubt she’ll ever get a chance at making a movie that opens in theaters.

This was just such a spectacular PR crisis… It’s kind of hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see in the coming years as tell alls come out if they took their own advice and just didn’t listen to experts, or if they were just taken for a ride by supposed experts who steered them the wrong way for the grift. It’s truly baffling.

She has two things in pre-production and one in development per IMDB. I obviously know nothing about these projects or their status, but per IDMB one is a Liane Moriarty book and one has Richard Gere and Diane Keaton attached as well (and is a Herskovitz/Zwick project)... so it doesn't seem like she has nothing in the works. She has multiyear gaps in her CV previously, so this seems in line/busier than previously... especially given that ASF2 just came out as well.

[Anonymous]

Why the weird characterization of hiding out? Baldoni is living in Hawaii with his family because they were displaced by the Palisades fire. Maybe he’s hanging out with Mike White. Lots of Hollywood people live in Hawaii.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

There is no way, even if Blake wins something in trial, that she and Ryan can come back from this. Her businesses are shutting down and I doubt she’ll get another bite of that apple of beauty products or lifestyle related brands.

It’s really telling that she just had the biggest box office success of her career - and it’s cricket in terms of her landing another role.

I’m sure Ryan will fund her some little projects here and there, but I doubt she’ll ever get a chance at making a movie that opens in theaters.

This was just such a spectacular PR crisis… It’s kind of hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see in the coming years as tell alls come out if they took their own advice and just didn’t listen to experts, or if they were just taken for a ride by supposed experts who steered them the wrong way for the grift. It’s truly baffling.

She has two things in pre-production and one in development per IMDB. I obviously know nothing about these projects or their status, but per IDMB one is a Liane Moriarty book and one has Richard Gere and Diane Keaton attached as well (and is a Herskovitz/Zwick project)... so it doesn't seem like she has nothing in the works. She has multiyear gaps in her CV previously, so this seems in line/busier than previously... especially given that ASF2 just came out as well.

Those movies are going nowhere. The only one you can find information about - the one with Richard gear Diane Keaton - was last talked about five years ago when they announced casting. movies get announced all the time and then go nowhere. Blake will not be in that movie, if it ever gets made, as she has aged out of the role.

The other 2 have no funding or anyone else attached to them. They likely don’t even have a script yet.

IMDB is littered with pre production and in development movies they go nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boies Schiller for Sloane has requested an extension in responding to Sarah Nathan's motion to quash discovery served upon her, which would extend out both the Opposition and Nathan's reply dates by about a week (otherwise Sloane's Opposition is due this Tuesday the 10th). Both parties agree and no other extension has been requested (but I'm not sure Liman will consider this "good cause"). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.288.0.pdf

Vituscka also requested an extension of time (himself rather than through Sloane) two weeks ago, which the judge granted, but that request gave real reasons in support of the request. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.235.0.pdf

Sloane really doesn't even try to provide good cause above, saying she's trying to negotiate or explaining the scheduling issue, so I think with Liman being a stickler, he might reject, but who knows?

Liman granted this extension motion (not available for free yet though).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Blake and Ryan pissing some of their fortune away because they’re gullible with big egos doesn’t mean a thing. Lawyers on both sides are posturing and throwing shit at the wall. PR hacks milking both sides. The play-by-play inside baseball is Zzzzzz. This will settle, like nearly all civil suits, just before jury selection. Blake and Ryan were exposed quickly for this hoax and have been on their heels since January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why the weird characterization of hiding out? Baldoni is living in Hawaii with his family because they were displaced by the Palisades fire. Maybe he’s hanging out with Mike White. Lots of Hollywood people live in Hawaii.

It's totally an excuse, though. Bryan Freedman's home also burned down in the fire and yet he has not conveniently escaped to Hawaii. Baldoni has gone completely off the grid and is just pretending not to exist, in manner of Homer Simpson in shrubbery. All the way to Hawaii?! Are we sure that's far enough away? Seems a bit cowardly when Lively is out and about and taking her lumps. Public schools in Palisades reopened a while ago by rezoning kids or moving schools temporarily to commercial buildings and privates have no doubt found workarounds by now, so his kids are probably missing their friends. It's been more than four full months since the fire ended but he's still MIA so he very conveniently doesn't have to answer any questions I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

And yes, he had a lawyer who responded to Sloane's motion to compel his texts. He was asserting the journalist privilege but apparently decided to just cooperate with this statement.

Who is Vs lawyer? Anyone know?

Lynn Oberlander at Ballard Spahr.

Why was my post about Ballard Spahr removed? People can bash freedman and Baldoni side lawyers all day but one stray comment about a female lawyer gets reported to Jeff? Lame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the weird characterization of hiding out? Baldoni is living in Hawaii with his family because they were displaced by the Palisades fire. Maybe he’s hanging out with Mike White. Lots of Hollywood people live in Hawaii.

It's totally an excuse, though. Bryan Freedman's home also burned down in the fire and yet he has not conveniently escaped to Hawaii. Baldoni has gone completely off the grid and is just pretending not to exist, in manner of Homer Simpson in shrubbery. All the way to Hawaii?! Are we sure that's far enough away? Seems a bit cowardly when Lively is out and about and taking her lumps. Public schools in Palisades reopened a while ago by rezoning kids or moving schools temporarily to commercial buildings and privates have no doubt found workarounds by now, so his kids are probably missing their friends. It's been more than four full months since the fire ended but he's still MIA so he very conveniently doesn't have to answer any questions I guess.

If he's doing that to avoid commenting then he's showing good discretion IMO. I have no problem with Lively doing her promotions either. If he used the fires as an excuse to stay more out of the public eye, that's smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. Does this reporter have a lawyer?

So he’s saying he meant to say harassed not assaulted?

And yes, he had a lawyer who responded to Sloane's motion to compel his texts. He was asserting the journalist privilege but apparently decided to just cooperate with this statement.

Who is Vs lawyer? Anyone know?

Lynn Oberlander at Ballard Spahr.

Why was my post about Ballard Spahr removed? People can bash freedman and Baldoni side lawyers all day but one stray comment about a female lawyer gets reported to Jeff? Lame

Perhaps just refrain from bashing lawyers entirely, most aren’t public figures.