Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason I think Lively may have a stronger case than some people give her credit for is that Baldoni filed a $400 million complaint with no legal basis in order to try and combat it. This indicates to me that he's pretty scared of her claims getting to a jury.

I don't know if that fear is merited, but I do think it will come down, in large part, to witness testimony, including testimony of other members of the cast and crew, Sony producers, and other witnesses to the events Lively alleges in her complaint.

And on that point, I will note that Liz Plank, who worked closely with Baldoni and Heath on their podcast for multiple years, today replied to a comment on her Instagram about today's dismissal with "lmfaooo." Plank may be a material witness in the case as it is suspected that she is the "mutual friend" who Lively texted during the early weeks of filming about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior and how she was going home crying at night because of it.

I think some JB supporters may be surprised when third parties who were there start to weigh in on what happened here.

Is t Liz Plank the one Ryan Reynolds started financing?

To answer my own question, yes, she shares a business address with VanZan, has known Reynolds longer than she has known Baldoni, and allegedly played a role in Blake being cast in the the movie.

Which one of those is "financing"?

Liz launched a production company in November. People did some digging and the person that she launched with is Ryan Reynolds long time business partner, and the address of the production company is Ryan Reynolds’s either apartment address or the vanzan address. So yes, he’s paying for her production company, which I would call financing.

Liz is in a funny position because she had this feminist brand but if it comes to light she knew about Blake’s allegations in spring and summer 2024 and she gleefully hosted a podcast with him where week after week they tackled feminist issues and then she acted shocked when the article came out and dramatically quit, she’s going to look opportunistic and stupid.

She not a big enough name that she can weather that.

She's already weathering it. Her new podcast is sponsored by Katie Couric Media. Katie is doing promos for it.

And no, you are incorrect on the "financing" issue. Her podcast is financed through Katie Couric's company. You have to understand something about how shows get produced to understand this, but Liz's own production company is likely just a pass through or loan out company through which she is getting paid by Katie Couric. There are tax reasons why people set it up this way. Yes Ryan's business partner is her registered agent. This is not actually weird -- this is the kind of thing he does for a living. Plank is likely paying him, not the other way around, and Ryan has nothing to do with it.

If she were to testify (and I don’t think she has any relevant, first hand knowledge) this would be explored. There is no question that she has appeared on the red carpet with Ryan, he wrote a blurb praising her book, and she also appeared with him in a documentary about his soccer team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason I think Lively may have a stronger case than some people give her credit for is that Baldoni filed a $400 million complaint with no legal basis in order to try and combat it. This indicates to me that he's pretty scared of her claims getting to a jury.

I don't know if that fear is merited, but I do think it will come down, in large part, to witness testimony, including testimony of other members of the cast and crew, Sony producers, and other witnesses to the events Lively alleges in her complaint.

And on that point, I will note that Liz Plank, who worked closely with Baldoni and Heath on their podcast for multiple years, today replied to a comment on her Instagram about today's dismissal with "lmfaooo." Plank may be a material witness in the case as it is suspected that she is the "mutual friend" who Lively texted during the early weeks of filming about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior and how she was going home crying at night because of it.

I think some JB supporters may be surprised when third parties who were there start to weigh in on what happened here.

Is t Liz Plank the one Ryan Reynolds started financing?

To answer my own question, yes, she shares a business address with VanZan, has known Reynolds longer than she has known Baldoni, and allegedly played a role in Blake being cast in the the movie.

Which one of those is "financing"?

None of them. Plank's new podcast is being produced by Katie Couric's production company and has nothing to do with Reynolds. Plank registered her own production company at some point and because she shares a business agent with Reynolds, her company and VanZan have the same registered address. That's not as weird as people seem to think it is. Registered agents often have lots of companies registered to the same address, it's just an address to put on legal and tax paperwork when you form a company, it's not a real office.

Her podcast has all of three reviews and she is begging for paid subscribers.

It hasn't come out yet. Those reviews are based on a 2 minute trailer.

There are a half dozen episodes available on Spotify, most more than 30 minutes long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason I think Lively may have a stronger case than some people give her credit for is that Baldoni filed a $400 million complaint with no legal basis in order to try and combat it. This indicates to me that he's pretty scared of her claims getting to a jury.

I don't know if that fear is merited, but I do think it will come down, in large part, to witness testimony, including testimony of other members of the cast and crew, Sony producers, and other witnesses to the events Lively alleges in her complaint.

And on that point, I will note that Liz Plank, who worked closely with Baldoni and Heath on their podcast for multiple years, today replied to a comment on her Instagram about today's dismissal with "lmfaooo." Plank may be a material witness in the case as it is suspected that she is the "mutual friend" who Lively texted during the early weeks of filming about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior and how she was going home crying at night because of it.

I think some JB supporters may be surprised when third parties who were there start to weigh in on what happened here.

Who is Liz plank again? Is she an adult? Who says ‘lmfaoooo’? I’d expect something like that of a middle schooler

My introduction to Liz Plank was last fall when she did a lesbian porn mock Eucharist while kneeling and dressed like a Catholic school girl with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), when Whitmer was stumping for the Harris campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason I think Lively may have a stronger case than some people give her credit for is that Baldoni filed a $400 million complaint with no legal basis in order to try and combat it. This indicates to me that he's pretty scared of her claims getting to a jury.

I don't know if that fear is merited, but I do think it will come down, in large part, to witness testimony, including testimony of other members of the cast and crew, Sony producers, and other witnesses to the events Lively alleges in her complaint.

And on that point, I will note that Liz Plank, who worked closely with Baldoni and Heath on their podcast for multiple years, today replied to a comment on her Instagram about today's dismissal with "lmfaooo." Plank may be a material witness in the case as it is suspected that she is the "mutual friend" who Lively texted during the early weeks of filming about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior and how she was going home crying at night because of it.

I think some JB supporters may be surprised when third parties who were there start to weigh in on what happened here.

Who is Liz plank again? Is she an adult? Who says ‘lmfaoooo’? I’d expect something like that of a middle schooler

My introduction to Liz Plank was last fall when she did a lesbian porn mock Eucharist while kneeling and dressed like a Catholic school girl with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), when Whitmer was stumping for the Harris campaign.

Looks like a very serious and very trustworthy person. Totally not someone who would sell their soul for money.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean that Baldoni's legal case has been sufficiently disabled such that I don't really need to track his supporters' IP addresses anymore? Let me know asap please.

[Anonymous]

(That was a joke)

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Agree - she’s got to prove her claims to win. Will she gamble on a trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason I think Lively may have a stronger case than some people give her credit for is that Baldoni filed a $400 million complaint with no legal basis in order to try and combat it. This indicates to me that he's pretty scared of her claims getting to a jury.

I don't know if that fear is merited, but I do think it will come down, in large part, to witness testimony, including testimony of other members of the cast and crew, Sony producers, and other witnesses to the events Lively alleges in her complaint.

And on that point, I will note that Liz Plank, who worked closely with Baldoni and Heath on their podcast for multiple years, today replied to a comment on her Instagram about today's dismissal with "lmfaooo." Plank may be a material witness in the case as it is suspected that she is the "mutual friend" who Lively texted during the early weeks of filming about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior and how she was going home crying at night because of it.

I think some JB supporters may be surprised when third parties who were there start to weigh in on what happened here.

Is t Liz Plank the one Ryan Reynolds started financing?

To answer my own question, yes, she shares a business address with VanZan, has known Reynolds longer than she has known Baldoni, and allegedly played a role in Blake being cast in the the movie.

Which one of those is "financing"?

None of them. Plank's new podcast is being produced by Katie Couric's production company and has nothing to do with Reynolds. Plank registered her own production company at some point and because she shares a business agent with Reynolds, her company and VanZan have the same registered address. That's not as weird as people seem to think it is. Registered agents often have lots of companies registered to the same address, it's just an address to put on legal and tax paperwork when you form a company, it's not a real office.

Her podcast has all of three reviews and she is begging for paid subscribers.

It hasn't come out yet. Those reviews are based on a 2 minute trailer.

There are a half dozen episodes available on Spotify, most more than 30 minutes long.

... no there aren't? It was only announced in mid May and it's an advice podcast, they've been soliciting people to write in with problems and are presumably in the process of recording the first few episodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

[Anonymous]

I'm not taking a victory lap as a Blake Lively fan, I'm taking a victory lap as a lawyer who read Baldoni's complaint, timeline, the MTDs, and the responses to the MTDs, and concluded in this thread that most of Baldoni's claims would be dismissed with prejudice. And was told repeatedly that I was wrong, that he had a strong case, that I didn't know what I was talking about, that I couldn't possibly be a litigator, that I only understood "Defamation 101", etc

I was right. You were wrong.

[Anonymous]

Has Freedman said anything about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t take a victory lap just yet if I were BL supporters. She still has to prove her own case, and let’s face it, she can’t. When she either withdraws her claims or loses in court, Justin will look like a victim of her abuse who was neutered by all of the privileges lively and others took advantage of. And it will be true because that’s exactly what happened here.

The judge didn’t say Baldoni’s case was frivolous. The judge even acknowledged that there was powerful inference that the NYT had the story months before the CRD complaint. He simply said litigation privilege prevents Justin from suing Blake and fair report privilege prevents Justin from suing NYT. This is a case where the law protected the abusers. If you want it changed, you’ll have to take it up with state legislatures or the Supreme Court. I said this earlier and no lively supporters have commented because they know it’s true. Baldoni was the victim of bad laws that stacked the deck against him.

Does anyone think Baldoni et al will appeal? I think that there will be a number of 3rd parties who might want to help appeal the decision against the NYT.

I don’t know but I don’t understand how the judge was able to rule on malice. That’s a question of fact that’s meant for a jury and seems like overreach for Liman to rule on it at this stage. It also wasn’t the standard for most of the plaintiffs, as they were private people. I think the judge kicked the defamation claim so he wouldn’t have to deal with 47.1, which is ridiculous imo. WF might actually win an appeal, but the question is do they have the stomach to risk opening up the 47.1 issue again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not taking a victory lap as a Blake Lively fan, I'm taking a victory lap as a lawyer who read Baldoni's complaint, timeline, the MTDs, and the responses to the MTDs, and concluded in this thread that most of Baldoni's claims would be dismissed with prejudice. And was told repeatedly that I was wrong, that he had a strong case, that I didn't know what I was talking about, that I couldn't possibly be a litigator, that I only understood "Defamation 101", etc

I was right. You were wrong.

Preach, sister. I never said “most” but thought a lot would be dismissed and would be dismissed with prejudice, and was told the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Freedman said anything about this?

I believe that, similar to Lively, he also cried when he heard the decision.