Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

You make some good points.

It’s ironic that the pro BL poster on here is obsessed with making everyone believe Freedman is corrupt. Or obvious I suppose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Exactly. I despise MK but her story checked out. Blake’s does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Who is "they" in this scenario?

But in any case, these are different situations because Megyn Kelly didn't even come forward with her allegations until there were numerous allegations against Roger Ailes circulating. There was a book in 2014 that alleged he'd offered a producer a quid pro quo (a job for sleeping with him) back in the 80s, but he denied it and kept his job and it blew over. Then Gretchen Carlson sued in 2016, and multiple women came out with allegations. Megyn Kelly's allegations weren't even made public until after Ailes had been forced to resign, because Carlson's lawsuit triggered an internal investigation that resulted in Fox deciding Ailes was too much of a liability.

Kelly only came forward when people were sure to believe her, because there were other women on the record and the tide of public opinion had already turned. But what of that producer in the 80s? A lot of people didn't believe her, or simply didn't think what happened to her was a big deal, because Ailes remained one of the most powerful men in news media even after that allegation. And it took Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit to force Fox to actually investigate and oust him -- had Carlson never sued, I do not believe Kelly would ever have come forward, and I think there would still be plenty of people today who would shrug about the allegations against Ailes and say "eh, it doesn't sound like he did anything that bad, Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are awful anyway so who cares."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now.

You act neutral, but it's clear you believe Blake. Why can't you just be honest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Who is "they" in this scenario?

But in any case, these are different situations because Megyn Kelly didn't even come forward with her allegations until there were numerous allegations against Roger Ailes circulating. There was a book in 2014 that alleged he'd offered a producer a quid pro quo (a job for sleeping with him) back in the 80s, but he denied it and kept his job and it blew over. Then Gretchen Carlson sued in 2016, and multiple women came out with allegations. Megyn Kelly's allegations weren't even made public until after Ailes had been forced to resign, because Carlson's lawsuit triggered an internal investigation that resulted in Fox deciding Ailes was too much of a liability.

Kelly only came forward when people were sure to believe her, because there were other women on the record and the tide of public opinion had already turned. But what of that producer in the 80s? A lot of people didn't believe her, or simply didn't think what happened to her was a big deal, because Ailes remained one of the most powerful men in news media even after that allegation. And it took Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit to force Fox to actually investigate and oust him -- had Carlson never sued, I do not believe Kelly would ever have come forward, and I think there would still be plenty of people today who would shrug about the allegations against Ailes and say "eh, it doesn't sound like he did anything that bad, Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are awful anyway so who cares."

It's funny that your own conclusion shows why Blake's credibility is weak. Multiple survivors came out against Ailes. No one has come out against Justin. Like, yes, exactly, thank you for driving home the point that Blake -- married to one of the most powerful A-listers in Hollywood -- is supposed to have be Justin's first and only victim.

And fine then, if we go with one of Ailes' first public victims -- Gretchen Carlson -- that still proves my point since most people still believe someone who worked at Fox News, yet don't believe Blake, and it's for the simple fact that her allegations are not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Who is "they" in this scenario?

But in any case, these are different situations because Megyn Kelly didn't even come forward with her allegations until there were numerous allegations against Roger Ailes circulating. There was a book in 2014 that alleged he'd offered a producer a quid pro quo (a job for sleeping with him) back in the 80s, but he denied it and kept his job and it blew over. Then Gretchen Carlson sued in 2016, and multiple women came out with allegations. Megyn Kelly's allegations weren't even made public until after Ailes had been forced to resign, because Carlson's lawsuit triggered an internal investigation that resulted in Fox deciding Ailes was too much of a liability.

Kelly only came forward when people were sure to believe her, because there were other women on the record and the tide of public opinion had already turned. But what of that producer in the 80s? A lot of people didn't believe her, or simply didn't think what happened to her was a big deal, because Ailes remained one of the most powerful men in news media even after that allegation. And it took Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit to force Fox to actually investigate and oust him -- had Carlson never sued, I do not believe Kelly would ever have come forward, and I think there would still be plenty of people today who would shrug about the allegations against Ailes and say "eh, it doesn't sound like he did anything that bad, Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are awful anyway so who cares."

It's funny that your own conclusion shows why Blake's credibility is weak. Multiple survivors came out against Ailes. No one has come out against Justin. Like, yes, exactly, thank you for driving home the point that Blake -- married to one of the most powerful A-listers in Hollywood -- is supposed to have be Justin's first and only victim.

And fine then, if we go with one of Ailes' first public victims -- Gretchen Carlson -- that still proves my point since most people still believe someone who worked at Fox News, yet don't believe Blake, and it's for the simple fact that her allegations are not credible.

First and only victim following that classic pattern of aiming upwards. Don't harrass the underlings but shoot for the top. That fact pattern alone is hard for people to get past, the Ailes example is a tale as old as time and was not difficult to believe any of those women. The Baldoni stuff is also weird because he seems so frankly pathetic and weak in his interactions with Blake, like he's walking on eggshells to appease her which doesn't really square with what most people think of someone committing sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Who is "they" in this scenario?

But in any case, these are different situations because Megyn Kelly didn't even come forward with her allegations until there were numerous allegations against Roger Ailes circulating. There was a book in 2014 that alleged he'd offered a producer a quid pro quo (a job for sleeping with him) back in the 80s, but he denied it and kept his job and it blew over. Then Gretchen Carlson sued in 2016, and multiple women came out with allegations. Megyn Kelly's allegations weren't even made public until after Ailes had been forced to resign, because Carlson's lawsuit triggered an internal investigation that resulted in Fox deciding Ailes was too much of a liability.

Kelly only came forward when people were sure to believe her, because there were other women on the record and the tide of public opinion had already turned. But what of that producer in the 80s? A lot of people didn't believe her, or simply didn't think what happened to her was a big deal, because Ailes remained one of the most powerful men in news media even after that allegation. And it took Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit to force Fox to actually investigate and oust him -- had Carlson never sued, I do not believe Kelly would ever have come forward, and I think there would still be plenty of people today who would shrug about the allegations against Ailes and say "eh, it doesn't sound like he did anything that bad, Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are awful anyway so who cares."

It's funny that your own conclusion shows why Blake's credibility is weak. Multiple survivors came out against Ailes. No one has come out against Justin. Like, yes, exactly, thank you for driving home the point that Blake -- married to one of the most powerful A-listers in Hollywood -- is supposed to have be Justin's first and only victim.

And fine then, if we go with one of Ailes' first public victims -- Gretchen Carlson -- that still proves my point since most people still believe someone who worked at Fox News, yet don't believe Blake, and it's for the simple fact that her allegations are not credible.

First and only victim following that classic pattern of aiming upwards. Don't harrass the underlings but shoot for the top. That fact pattern alone is hard for people to get past, the Ailes example is a tale as old as time and was not difficult to believe any of those women. The Baldoni stuff is also weird because he seems so frankly pathetic and weak in his interactions with Blake, like he's walking on eggshells to appease her which doesn't really square with what most people think of someone committing sexual harassment.

lmao right

[Anonymous]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it's a little coincidental to me that during the first half of the meeting, Blake seemed to have problems with Justin every step of the way except for the plane ride with her kids. I have no doubt she would've fabricated something on there, but 1) she'd get trashed for welcoming someone into a confined space where he acted weird around her children 2) her oldest kid would have to testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it's a little coincidental to me that during the first half of the meeting, Blake seemed to have problems with Justin every step of the way except for the plane ride with her kids. I have no doubt she would've fabricated something on there, but 1) she'd get trashed for welcoming someone into a confined space where he acted weird around her children 2) her oldest kid would have to testify.

*first half of the production

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megyn Kelly is reprehensible but I don't think I saw anyone actually doubting she was sexually harassed.The fact that so many people are doubtful of Blake tells me that it's not people disbelieving her just because they don't like her. They just genuinely don't think she was harassed.

Who is "they" in this scenario?

But in any case, these are different situations because Megyn Kelly didn't even come forward with her allegations until there were numerous allegations against Roger Ailes circulating. There was a book in 2014 that alleged he'd offered a producer a quid pro quo (a job for sleeping with him) back in the 80s, but he denied it and kept his job and it blew over. Then Gretchen Carlson sued in 2016, and multiple women came out with allegations. Megyn Kelly's allegations weren't even made public until after Ailes had been forced to resign, because Carlson's lawsuit triggered an internal investigation that resulted in Fox deciding Ailes was too much of a liability.

Kelly only came forward when people were sure to believe her, because there were other women on the record and the tide of public opinion had already turned. But what of that producer in the 80s? A lot of people didn't believe her, or simply didn't think what happened to her was a big deal, because Ailes remained one of the most powerful men in news media even after that allegation. And it took Gretchen Carlson's lawsuit to force Fox to actually investigate and oust him -- had Carlson never sued, I do not believe Kelly would ever have come forward, and I think there would still be plenty of people today who would shrug about the allegations against Ailes and say "eh, it doesn't sound like he did anything that bad, Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are awful anyway so who cares."

It's funny that your own conclusion shows why Blake's credibility is weak. Multiple survivors came out against Ailes. No one has come out against Justin. Like, yes, exactly, thank you for driving home the point that Blake -- married to one of the most powerful A-listers in Hollywood -- is supposed to have be Justin's first and only victim.

And fine then, if we go with one of Ailes' first public victims -- Gretchen Carlson -- that still proves my point since most people still believe someone who worked at Fox News, yet don't believe Blake, and it's for the simple fact that her allegations are not credible.

First and only victim following that classic pattern of aiming upwards. Don't harrass the underlings but shoot for the top. That fact pattern alone is hard for people to get past, the Ailes example is a tale as old as time and was not difficult to believe any of those women. The Baldoni stuff is also weird because he seems so frankly pathetic and weak in his interactions with Blake, like he's walking on eggshells to appease her which doesn't really square with what most people think of someone committing sexual harassment.

You’re more committed to Blake’s SH narrative than she is. This is the woman who told Megan twohey “listen, I’ve experienced far worse”. Blake knows she does not meet the legal definition of SH so I think we can drop the SH shtick already. She’s focused on retaliation but it will be hard to prove because she’s a bad person with bad haircare products who caused her own damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now.

You act neutral, but it's clear you believe Blake. Why can't you just be honest?

I am always honest about my true feelings about this case when I post here. What I wrote above are my true feelings about the case. The problem is that some of you think you know the truth for sure and anyone who disagrees with you is "Team Blake." In that case, yeah, I'm "Team Blake." But in reality, where people are capable of understanding nuance, I'm actual a proponent for giving Blake her day in court and seeing if she can prove her allegations, which I believe where brought in good faith. But I'm not actually sure one way or another if they are SH or if she can prove the elements of retaliation. If it's hard for you to understand that position, you are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now.

You act neutral, but it's clear you believe Blake. Why can't you just be honest?

I am always honest about my true feelings about this case when I post here. What I wrote above are my true feelings about the case. The problem is that some of you think you know the truth for sure and anyone who disagrees with you is "Team Blake." In that case, yeah, I'm "Team Blake." But in reality, where people are capable of understanding nuance, I'm actual a proponent for giving Blake her day in court and seeing if she can prove her allegations, which I believe where brought in good faith. But I'm not actually sure one way or another if they are SH or if she can prove the elements of retaliation. If it's hard for you to understand that position, you are the problem.

I thought you got a time out??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion. The Vanzan issue is far more interesting and important than the main case. I think most reasonable people would agree at this point that Blake’s SH claims don’t meet the legal definition of SH. She’s focused on retaliation but good luck proving 1. A smear campaign existed, and 2. the proximate cause was her SH claim and not putting him in the basement, taking his face off the poster, and being a generally horrible person. That’s a long way to say you couldn’t pay me to care about Blake’s SH claims at this point. There are far more worthy causes and plaintiffs to get behind.

Now Vanzan on the other hand. Oh I’m definitely locked in. As an American, the idea that my privacy rights could be so easily and flagrantly violated is a huge problem for me, huge. Separate and apart from the main case, I think a lot of us need to see the system work here and need to see something done about this.

I feel the opposite. Vanzan is a sideshow to me, I'm mildly interested as a lawyer but don't care that much. I don't consider it a privacy issue because Abel was using her work phone to send these texts, AND they were work texts. I haven't seen any texts about Abel's private life or anything that is personally embarrassing but not related to work. That would be different. Every text I've seen that came out of the Vanzan subpoena is Abel communicating regarding a Jonesworks client, Wayfarer. Jones also says the phone itself was issued to Abel by Jonesworks. I've seen stuff saying that Abel ported her personal number onto her work phone so she thinks the texts belong to her, and it would be interesting to see if that's the case, but personally I look at that situation and I just don't see it. Work phone, work activity, firm client -- those texts belong to Jonesworks. Abel was very dumb to conducted herself as she did on that phone, she should have known better.

Regarding the SH, I view it as interesting because it's a jury question. I don't think it's possible for any of us to say whether or not there was SH at this point because we weren't there, we haven't heard from witnesses or the party, etc. I could really go either way. I really want to hear from other people on set and would like to hear both Blake and Justin explain what happened in their own words before I decide. I think it's impossible to get a sense of what the environment was like on set just from written documents. I found the video that came out to be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't sexual assault or very overt harassment, but she did look uncomfortable. I don't think it proves anything either way. The retaliation evidence looks pretty strong to me right now.

You act neutral, but it's clear you believe Blake. Why can't you just be honest?

I am always honest about my true feelings about this case when I post here. What I wrote above are my true feelings about the case. The problem is that some of you think you know the truth for sure and anyone who disagrees with you is "Team Blake." In that case, yeah, I'm "Team Blake." But in reality, where people are capable of understanding nuance, I'm actual a proponent for giving Blake her day in court and seeing if she can prove her allegations, which I believe where brought in good faith. But I'm not actually sure one way or another if they are SH or if she can prove the elements of retaliation. If it's hard for you to understand that position, you are the problem.

I thought you got a time out??

For what, the sin of having an open mind? DP.