Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the subject came up, I went ahead and checked out the aforementioned subreddit. One thread that made a solid point in that Lively has not yet presented an incriminating text message of Baldoni where he actively flirts with or propositions her. If the sexual harassment was as overtly predatory as being claimed, she should have some form of correspondence from Baldoni with no other context outside of reflecting a form of romantic or sexual interest. So far, nothing. She's the one who made inappropriate text messages alluding to blow jobs and he responded back with a quip about his wife and family. If it were the other way around, her supporters would rightfully make the assertion that he had crossed the line and that it was an incriminating damning example of his behavior and how Lively had to revert attention back to her family as a shield for his advances. If he was so predatory, why would she invite him on her private jet with her children? That'll be one to explain to the jury.

Exactly. BL lied and blew up her life all by herself. Karma.

She’s a transparent idiot who literally lacks the brainpower to read a book. Ryan ran point on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the subject came up, I went ahead and checked out the aforementioned subreddit. One thread that made a solid point in that Lively has not yet presented an incriminating text message of Baldoni where he actively flirts with or propositions her. If the sexual harassment was as overtly predatory as being claimed, she should have some form of correspondence from Baldoni with no other context outside of reflecting a form of romantic or sexual interest. So far, nothing. She's the one who made inappropriate text messages alluding to blow jobs and he responded back with a quip about his wife and family. If it were the other way around, her supporters would rightfully make the assertion that he had crossed the line and that it was an incriminating damning example of his behavior and how Lively had to revert attention back to her family as a shield for his advances. If he was so predatory, why would she invite him on her private jet with her children? That'll be one to explain to the jury.

Exactly. BL lied and blew up her life all by herself. Karma.

She’s a transparent idiot who literally lacks the brainpower to read a book. Ryan ran point on this.

Oh yeah. If she's a victim of anyone I think its her husband. She's a pawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the subject came up, I went ahead and checked out the aforementioned subreddit. One thread that made a solid point in that Lively has not yet presented an incriminating text message of Baldoni where he actively flirts with or propositions her. If the sexual harassment was as overtly predatory as being claimed, she should have some form of correspondence from Baldoni with no other context outside of reflecting a form of romantic or sexual interest. So far, nothing. She's the one who made inappropriate text messages alluding to blow jobs and he responded back with a quip about his wife and family. If it were the other way around, her supporters would rightfully make the assertion that he had crossed the line and that it was an incriminating damning example of his behavior and how Lively had to revert attention back to her family as a shield for his advances. If he was so predatory, why would she invite him on her private jet with her children? That'll be one to explain to the jury.

Exactly. BL lied and blew up her life all by herself. Karma.

She’s a transparent idiot who literally lacks the brainpower to read a book. Ryan ran point on this.

Oh yeah. If she's a victim of anyone I think its her husband. She's a pawn.

And when they divorce this argument is how she rehabs her image. It's basically the only way from a PR standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the subject came up, I went ahead and checked out the aforementioned subreddit. One thread that made a solid point in that Lively has not yet presented an incriminating text message of Baldoni where he actively flirts with or propositions her. If the sexual harassment was as overtly predatory as being claimed, she should have some form of correspondence from Baldoni with no other context outside of reflecting a form of romantic or sexual interest. So far, nothing. She's the one who made inappropriate text messages alluding to blow jobs and he responded back with a quip about his wife and family. If it were the other way around, her supporters would rightfully make the assertion that he had crossed the line and that it was an incriminating damning example of his behavior and how Lively had to revert attention back to her family as a shield for his advances. If he was so predatory, why would she invite him on her private jet with her children? That'll be one to explain to the jury.

Exactly. BL lied and blew up her life all by herself. Karma.

She’s a transparent idiot who literally lacks the brainpower to read a book. Ryan ran point on this.

Oh yeah. If she's a victim of anyone I think its her husband. She's a pawn.

It was pretty clear when Leslie Sloan was texting with Ryan about Blake’s brother-in-law’s comments… She goes through Ryan even though this is Blakes issue. The team knows Blake is too dumb to deal with any of this.

That said Blake is no innocent victim. She’s been pulling crap like this at a much smaller scale before Ryan. Turning cast against each other and bragging about it (gossip girl), getting people fired for kicks, etc., but yes, I’m sure he’s handling all the PR and liaisoning with the lawyers and I’m sure he cooked up a lot of how they entrapped Justin.

[Anonymous]

She bragged about manipulating her Gossip Girl cast mates? That was 20 years ago. If true, this is just who she is; a psycho scam artist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She bragged about manipulating her Gossip Girl cast mates? That was 20 years ago. If true, this is just who she is; a psycho scam artist.

Yes, she bragged about making up lies to turn the cast against each other on GG. She's been incredibly toxic on set for a looong time, something we are asked to ignore because not every victim is perfect. But yeah, if there were going to be someone to lie and sue and bring down metoo Blake's a pretty good candidate for it with her history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She bragged about manipulating her Gossip Girl cast mates? That was 20 years ago. If true, this is just who she is; a psycho scam artist.

Yes, she bragged about making up lies to turn the cast against each other on GG. She's been incredibly toxic on set for a looong time, something we are asked to ignore because not every victim is perfect. But yeah, if there were going to be someone to lie and sue and bring down metoo Blake's a pretty good candidate for it with her history.

Like mother like daughter. Her mom’s toxic reputation is well known.

[Anonymous]

What’s interesting about the Vituscka declaration is that it shows that Freedman had reason to believe the charges he made about Sloane in Baldoni’s complaint were untrue, but he went on and made them anyway. Freedman had access to the same messages we do where Vituscka says that back in August, Sloane had never mentioned a single thing to him about Lively having been sexually harassed or assaulted by Baldoni. Vituscka’s statement later (after Lively’s) complaint was filed, refers to “now she’s claiming he sexually assaulted her” appears to be the entire basis of Baldoni’s claim that Sloane accused him of sexual assault.

That’s a terrible basis for a defamation claim. Sloane has been stating from the beginning that she never said Baldoni assaulted Lively, and she was right.

If Freedman was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

Other news: It seems like two more motions to compel and maybe a motion to seal were filed last night around midnight, but court listener doesn’t have them yet.

Also some Baldoni fan who is not a lawyer went on livestream last night discussing the amicus brief she claims to have filed on Baldoni’s behalf last night, which someone else reported was about how the me too movement is all wrong. Her comments say her amicus brief is filed but that it may not show up on the docket for days since it was filed through the letter option. I’m not sure that’s correct though so this may all be BS — when I have filed pleadings via Pacer they show up immediately. (Maybe I haven’t filed “letter” options myself though, but when I’ve filed answers and briefs they appear basically in real time.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting about the Vituscka declaration is that it shows that Freedman had reason to believe the charges he made about Sloane in Baldoni’s complaint were untrue, but he went on and made them anyway. Freedman had access to the same messages we do where Vituscka says that back in August, Sloane had never mentioned a single thing to him about Lively having been sexually harassed or assaulted by Baldoni. Vituscka’s statement later (after Lively’s) complaint was filed, refers to “now she’s claiming he sexually assaulted her” appears to be the entire basis of Baldoni’s claim that Sloane accused him of sexual assault.

That’s a terrible basis for a defamation claim. Sloane has been stating from the beginning that she never said Baldoni assaulted Lively, and she was right.

If Freedman was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

Other news: It seems like two more motions to compel and maybe a motion to seal were filed last night around midnight, but court listener doesn’t have them yet.

Also some Baldoni fan who is not a lawyer went on livestream last night discussing the amicus brief she claims to have filed on Baldoni’s behalf last night, which someone else reported was about how the me too movement is all wrong. Her comments say her amicus brief is filed but that it may not show up on the docket for days since it was filed through the letter option. I’m not sure that’s correct though so this may all be BS — when I have filed pleadings via Pacer they show up immediately. (Maybe I haven’t filed “letter” options myself though, but when I’ve filed answers and briefs they appear basically in real time.)

Oh wait, she means she sent it through the post. Okay, this may never appear on the docket or be posted by the clerk, which is a shame as it seems like it could have had a lot of entertainment value and really shown off the absolute hypocrisy of some of Baldoni’s legal positions. Shame.

[Anonymous]

More bad news for Ryan and Blake.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14787993/Blake-Lively-new-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni.html

[Anonymous]

Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

[Anonymous]

Stay in Hawaii, Justin!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

I think it's weird you frequent his sub. On the other hand, I would never trawl through r/BaldoniFiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

Also, that sub is pro-Justin, not pro-ColonelKurtz, I'm not sure why you think it's some gotcha that "even some Baldoni" fans wouldn't like that amicus brief.

[Anonymous]

So what would be the protocol if some kook mails in an amicus brief that is clearly just a fan letter? Would it get entered on the docket and the judge denies leave to file it, or does the clerk just have discretion to determine its not bona fide and never docket the request?

How is that indigenous Canadian guy getting all these irrelevant letters in?