Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

Gottlieb didn’t want to postpone the dep, but he wanted to allow two lively deps less maybe, and Fritz and Wallace could not yield to keep it to one day (in part because Fritz didn’t really want Wallace participating since he’d get more time).

In the end, unless you’re saying Hudson lied when wrote her letter to the judge yesterday representing that “the parties met and conferred and mutually agreed” to postpone the dep, literally all the parties mutually agreed to move the dep lol.

Is this a typo because where did Gottlieb say he was ok with two depositions. I thought his entire point was avoiding that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

Gottlieb didn’t want to postpone the dep, but he wanted to allow two lively deps less maybe, and Fritz and Wallace could not yield to keep it to one day (in part because Fritz didn’t really want Wallace participating since he’d get more time).

In the end, unless you’re saying Hudson lied when wrote her letter to the judge yesterday representing that “the parties met and conferred and mutually agreed” to postpone the dep, literally all the parties mutually agreed to move the dep lol.

Is this a typo because where did Gottlieb say he was ok with two depositions. I thought his entire point was avoiding that.

Sorry, that's what I meant: Gottlieb didn't want to postpone the dep, but what he wanted even less was to allow TWO Lively deps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

I said this but I was very clear it was my speculation. I think the sanctions stuff was just gamesmanahip personally. If they meant that about the expenses maybe they can offer to reimburse Baldoni lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

Gottlieb didn’t want to postpone the dep, but he wanted to allow two lively deps less maybe, and Fritz and Wallace could not yield to keep it to one day (in part because Fritz didn’t really want Wallace participating since he’d get more time).

In the end, unless you’re saying Hudson lied when wrote her letter to the judge yesterday representing that “the parties met and conferred and mutually agreed” to postpone the dep, literally all the parties mutually agreed to move the dep lol.

Is this a typo because where did Gottlieb say he was ok with two depositions. I thought his entire point was avoiding that.

Sorry, that's what I meant: Gottlieb didn't want to postpone the dep, but what he wanted even less was to allow TWO Lively deps.

That makes sense, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Reddit is reporting Blake has issued a subpoena to unmask 20 X users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reddit is reporting Blake has issued a subpoena to unmask 20 X users.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I was worried about this. She could start going after Reddit users next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reddit is reporting Blake has issued a subpoena to unmask 20 X users.

What's also depressing about this is mainstream outlets are not going to cover this and address the seriousness of this, except for DM reporters. Blake and Ryan are unhinged.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

[Anonymous]

Blake may have won her motion to dismiss but is now losing horribly on the pr front. These subpoenas were just such a horrible idea, and shouldn’t be necessary. If Wallace is paying people, then his bank records would show it. I’m sure Liman is going to love dealing with 40 motions to quash, with a good number being pro se. even his bro hood with Gottlieb has limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

In which case, there is a poster here than Freedman and Wallace should subpoena.

Lmao +1

[Anonymous]

I find it really, really disturbing that people are endorsing what Blake is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she is saying tell me who they are so I can expose their identity to everyone. I think she’s saying tell me who they are so I can figure out if they were getting paid to smear me. And I don’t mind that.

People who post shit on x and other social media are ultimately responsible forbthebshit they do post imo.

I can't speak to the first part but yes to the second part. A lot of people spread BS online and I don't have a problem with legal mechanisms that enable someone potentially defamed online to obtain info on identities via a formal court process. Free speech laws never anticipated the anonymity of social media on the internet or how easy it would become to spread lies about someone with no accountability.

There are so many people on the internet who should be held accountable for what they say ...literal white supremacists, sex pests, people who send death threats...but sure, let's go after people who snark about Blake Lively's hair care line.

There is concrete evidence that Baldoni and Wayfarer paid people (TAG and Wallace) to spread negative content about her online. I'm okay with her exploring whether and where that happened by investigating some of the negative content about her online. If it weren't for these texts and emails showing that Baldoni/Wayfarer sought this service from TAG and Wallace, I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. But some of these messages indicate that's what was happening. It's not legal to launch a retaliatory smear campaign against an employee who raised claims of harassment. So I'm okay with it in this case, especially since this info is all going to be AEO. It's not like they are going to publish these posters' identity for all to see.