Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

This brings up a really interesting point. I agree that it’s insane that someone would try to sue vin diesel for something that happened 15 years ago. Where I do think these kinds of allegations from past incidents are helpful is to show a pattern of behavior. So if someone was suing Vin Diesel now for sexual harassment and that woman wanted to come forward and say this was my experience 15 years ago, I think that’s where it’s helpful. Same with Christine Ford and Brett Cavanaugh. Obviously that didn’t work out to move the needle, but she was not trying to sue him, she was trying to bring attention and patterns of behavior to light.

This is what I think Blake went wrong. I do not think what happened to her is grounds for a lawsuit. I think if there had been harassing behavior on that set, she should’ve gone through the appropriate protocols and documented it with the company, with her legal team, and with SAG, who is more third-party and unbiased.

Get it down for the record. But her coming after him like she did is crazy. She doesn’t need the money, and she claims she was protecting other women, but where are these other women? You would think that there would be a flood or at least a few women coming forward saying they had uncomfortable experiences with Justin or wayfarer and they appreciate someone as high profile as Blake coming forward. But it’s been crickets. The one thing that we’ve seen is Jenny Slate maybe, and it’s unsubstantiated but it is out there as a rumor, and her Complaint that was about Heath, and it wasn’t sexual in nature.

I think Blake would’ve been a lot more sympathetic if she had followed proper protocols. The way she went about this with an explosive New York Times article makes it just seem like she wanted to rehab her bad image and her failing product lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

My second example was from a dss finding, not a protective order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

You can’t seriously be arguing abuser use of sa laws is limited to protective orders. And if you are, that is hilariously incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

This brings up a really interesting point. I agree that it’s insane that someone would try to sue vin diesel for something that happened 15 years ago. Where I do think these kinds of allegations from past incidents are helpful is to show a pattern of behavior. So if someone was suing Vin Diesel now for sexual harassment and that woman wanted to come forward and say this was my experience 15 years ago, I think that’s where it’s helpful. Same with Christine Ford and Brett Cavanaugh. Obviously that didn’t work out to move the needle, but she was not trying to sue him, she was trying to bring attention and patterns of behavior to light.

This is what I think Blake went wrong. I do not think what happened to her is grounds for a lawsuit. I think if there had been harassing behavior on that set, she should’ve gone through the appropriate protocols and documented it with the company, with her legal team, and with SAG, who is more third-party and unbiased.

Get it down for the record. But her coming after him like she did is crazy. She doesn’t need the money, and she claims she was protecting other women, but where are these other women? You would think that there would be a flood or at least a few women coming forward saying they had uncomfortable experiences with Justin or wayfarer and they appreciate someone as high profile as Blake coming forward. But it’s been crickets. The one thing that we’ve seen is Jenny Slate maybe, and it’s unsubstantiated but it is out there as a rumor, and her Complaint that was about Heath, and it wasn’t sexual in nature.

I think Blake would’ve been a lot more sympathetic if she had followed proper protocols. The way she went about this with an explosive New York Times article makes it just seem like she wanted to rehab her bad image and her failing product lines.

Apparently the same woman suing vin diesel is also suing Disney for discrimination on the basis of her gender. It does start to look like grift at a point. Diesel I believe claims he never even met her as she only worked for his production company for two weeks. But if he were to sue for defamation he’d face 47.1 just like Justin.

[Anonymous]

PP again. The deck is stacked and that just doesn’t feel lawful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

You can’t seriously be arguing abuser use of sa laws is limited to protective orders. And if you are, that is hilariously incorrect.

Huh? No of course not. What? I was just chatting about a separate topic that arose. Relax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

You really don't need defamation in cases like those. Just like Baldoni honestly does not need a $400M defamation claim here. Just fight the allegations themselves and argue your own emotional distress if you want to. These defamation claims are being used as a tool by the people who actually created the problem in the first place, and that itsef is the problem. My next door neighbor doesn't need a defamation claim against her husband for his child abuse allegation. Just show the claim is false and get your kids. This is one million times as true when the defamation claim is for so much money as the one Baldoni brought. Just clear your name. Don't try to silence the claim itself. Fight it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

This brings up a really interesting point. I agree that it’s insane that someone would try to sue vin diesel for something that happened 15 years ago. Where I do think these kinds of allegations from past incidents are helpful is to show a pattern of behavior. So if someone was suing Vin Diesel now for sexual harassment and that woman wanted to come forward and say this was my experience 15 years ago, I think that’s where it’s helpful. Same with Christine Ford and Brett Cavanaugh. Obviously that didn’t work out to move the needle, but she was not trying to sue him, she was trying to bring attention and patterns of behavior to light.

This is what I think Blake went wrong. I do not think what happened to her is grounds for a lawsuit. I think if there had been harassing behavior on that set, she should’ve gone through the appropriate protocols and documented it with the company, with her legal team, and with SAG, who is more third-party and unbiased.

Get it down for the record. But her coming after him like she did is crazy. She doesn’t need the money, and she claims she was protecting other women, but where are these other women? You would think that there would be a flood or at least a few women coming forward saying they had uncomfortable experiences with Justin or wayfarer and they appreciate someone as high profile as Blake coming forward. But it’s been crickets. The one thing that we’ve seen is Jenny Slate maybe, and it’s unsubstantiated but it is out there as a rumor, and her Complaint that was about Heath, and it wasn’t sexual in nature.

I think Blake would’ve been a lot more sympathetic if she had followed proper protocols. The way she went about this with an explosive New York Times article makes it just seem like she wanted to rehab her bad image and her failing product lines.

Apparently the same woman suing vin diesel is also suing Disney for discrimination on the basis of her gender. It does start to look like grift at a point. Diesel I believe claims he never even met her as she only worked for his production company for two weeks. But if he were to sue for defamation he’d face 47.1 just like Justin.

It's hard to say about the grift because it does seem sus but otoh it's not that hard to believe someone in the industry faced gender discrimination twice. I would bet it happens on most sets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

My second example was from a dss finding, not a protective order.

The abuse would have had to be substantiated by 3rd parties. These social workers know how often false or exaggerated child abuse and child neglect allegations are made in cases where the parents are separating. It’s very common and they usually open and close these cases expediently.

But again, the initial point was that things like protective orders in family court that were meant to protect women and victims can be overused and abused. So we should caution against running to support new laws that interfere with due process rights without thinking through the issues carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

You really don't need defamation in cases like those. Just like Baldoni honestly does not need a $400M defamation claim here. Just fight the allegations themselves and argue your own emotional distress if you want to. These defamation claims are being used as a tool by the people who actually created the problem in the first place, and that itsef is the problem. My next door neighbor doesn't need a defamation claim against her husband for his child abuse allegation. Just show the claim is false and get your kids. This is one million times as true when the defamation claim is for so much money as the one Baldoni brought. Just clear your name. Don't try to silence the claim itself. Fight it out.

That’s not for you to determine. There are some people who will always believe Justin is an abuser even if he wins against lively, so it’s not enough to just defend against her claims. He’s owed damages for the irreparable reputational damage she’s caused him.

[Anonymous]

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Interestingly the Diddy case seems to have sprung from this. NY also opened the SOL on SA claims and IIRC Cassie filed almost at the end of the expiration and he settled with her thinking it would go away, but is now on trial for criminal charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Interestingly the Diddy case seems to have sprung from this. NY also opened the SOL on SA claims and IIRC Cassie filed almost at the end of the expiration and he settled with her thinking it would go away, but is now on trial for criminal charges.

And the Diddy case is a great example of why states are passing laws to extend the SOL on SA cases, because so often the victims are simply not in a position to come forward, or fear retribution, or don't know their rights.

Abusers like Diddy often choose and groom victims based on their vulnerabilities in these areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

That's not really true, though. His "Man Enough" Ted Talk that went viral, he calls himself a "feminist" and goes on to note problems he encountered with it for example: "here I am doing my part, trying to be a feminist, amplifying the voices of women around the world, and yet at home, I am using my louder voice to silence the woman I love the most." He talks about how men should become involved in fighting for female equality in issues like past male privilege, the glass ceiling, locker room talk, harassment, equity, etc. This was his talk -- he talked about men also, but he held himself out as a feminist who believed in these ideas of equality. And he subsequently went on to give interviews where he continued to hold himself out as a male feminist, and he talked about these same ideas on his podcast as well. You support him -- you should know all of this. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CUGtdURAnPt/

Don't just deny he has represented himself as a male feminist because it's now inconvenient for you/him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence

Pp understood. But you brought up an area I’m familiar with. Protective orders in family cases. It is fairly rare for them to be taken outside of the family court context, so I was confused by your reference to multiple appeals etc.

Here’s your original text

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

My second example was from a dss finding, not a protective order.

The abuse would have had to be substantiated by 3rd parties. These social workers know how often false or exaggerated child abuse and child neglect allegations are made in cases where the parents are separating. It’s very common and they usually open and close these cases expediently.

But again, the initial point was that things like protective orders in family court that were meant to protect women and victims can be overused and abused. So we should caution against running to support new laws that interfere with due process rights without thinking through the issues carefully.

That isn’t what occurred was why the dss decision was ultimately reversed. The father pressured one of the children to lie, which was later revealed via sworn testimony. All secondary reporters contacted by dss, including teachers and pediatrician reported no signs of abuse even during the initial investigation. It took two years to get to the right result.