Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Huh. I think there are a BUNCH of people very defensive to Baldoni who post on here. I'm a lawyer too. I don't especially like Lively (and not employed by her team obvs) but I'm appalled by some of the yuck people are posting about her here. I don't see the same sort of stuff being posted about him here -- the very personal negative comments. The anti-Baldoni stuff seems, to me (and maybe I'm biased, because I am against men hiring PR firms to astroturf and make their coworker look bad) to be less personal and more targeted at his actual actions in the case and real events. jmho

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Any idea why Justin so thoroughly responded to many of Blake's claims yet left out others, like communicating with her dead dad and talking about his porn addiction?

2) As someone who actually does believe Blake was exaggerating at least some of her complaints, I'm curious how Baldoni supporters feeling about this part, which I feel is the most disturbing one of them all:

"During a car ride with Ms. Lively, her assistant and driver, Mr. Baldoni claimed to
Ms. Lively that he had been sexually abused by a former girlfriend (which he has since shared publicly).
At the end this story, Mr. Baldoni shared that it had caused him to reexamine his past. He then said: “ Did
I always ask for consent? No. Did I always listen when they said no? No.""

It’s very personal but this is two actors working on intimate scenes together, who have each shared personal things with each other in order to build their on screen chemistry. It is definitely not your run of the mill office cooler chatter, but this context is totally different

That's fine but I think the point is that's a disturbing thing to share at all. He's admitting to sexually assaulting women.

If they were making a movie about a murderer and he told his costar, "Did I maybe kill someone in high school? Yeah, maybe I did." That would be very alarming. Would you be enthusiastic to then go play scenes where that guy was pretending to strangle you?

That’s a bit of a stretch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like hiring that PR firm, after he had promised not to retaliate against Lively, and then egging the PR firm on to protect him, would be retaliation. Especially if it was successful. The PR form reported that Jed Wallace's team, in particular, had been successful. Wallace's team engages in astroturfing and social media manipulation. The PR firm reported that "we've started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

That sounds like retaliation. Someone else in the thread noted that Lively noticed a deposition for Wallace, maybe for tomorrow?

Seems like either Wallace was actually doing nothing (as Baldoni's team now says) but taking credit for the shift in public opinion, or was actually posting negative stuff on Lively that would seem to amount to retaliation. Guess we'll see.

Hiring PR after not-a-baller moves like having everyone unfollow Baldoni (Lively leaving “crumbs” for people to follow like her buddy Taylor Swift) does not seem retaliatory at all. It’s why that profession such as it is exists, to protect a project he developed, alone, for years.

It would be different if he hired PR simply to get him good press. In fact his PR people did do that. That's their job.

But he signed a document saying he would not retaliate against Lively. And then he hired a PR firm to take her down *in retaliation.*

The fact that her unfollowing him on socials was damaging to him is what it is. She's not required to follow him.

Hiring PR when you’re getting bad press while promoting your work is not retaliatory, and Lively is alleged to have encouraged everyone involved unfollow Baldoni at the same time. So yeah, hiring PR seems reasonable to me!

The NYT title “we can bury anyone” is spliced and stripped free from context, as cited in Baldoni’s lawsuit.

I do think there’s a contingent here, again, supporting Lively which is intensely anti-fact in terms of the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Huh. I think there are a BUNCH of people very defensive to Baldoni who post on here. I'm a lawyer too. I don't especially like Lively (and not employed by her team obvs) but I'm appalled by some of the yuck people are posting about her here. I don't see the same sort of stuff being posted about him here -- the very personal negative comments. The anti-Baldoni stuff seems, to me (and maybe I'm biased, because I am against men hiring PR firms to astroturf and make their coworker look bad) to be less personal and more targeted at his actual actions in the case and real events. jmho

“Very defensive to Baldoni” and you’re a lawyer? What’s your practice area? Your writing is not giving esquire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Huh. I think there are a BUNCH of people very defensive to Baldoni who post on here. I'm a lawyer too. I don't especially like Lively (and not employed by her team obvs) but I'm appalled by some of the yuck people are posting about her here. I don't see the same sort of stuff being posted about him here -- the very personal negative comments. The anti-Baldoni stuff seems, to me (and maybe I'm biased, because I am against men hiring PR firms to astroturf and make their coworker look bad) to be less personal and more targeted at his actual actions in the case and real events. jmho

Really? Seems like the stuff posted about her is fairly run of the mill for someone in the limelight, and also relevant in that it makes clear her reputation wasn’t so sterling before all of this.

The Lauren Sanchez posts are far harsher and she didn’t do anything to anyone (well except her ex who seems to have happily moved on).

Why do you care so much if people are snarky about a B list actress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Huh. I think there are a BUNCH of people very defensive to Baldoni who post on here. I'm a lawyer too. I don't especially like Lively (and not employed by her team obvs) but I'm appalled by some of the yuck people are posting about her here. I don't see the same sort of stuff being posted about him here -- the very personal negative comments. The anti-Baldoni stuff seems, to me (and maybe I'm biased, because I am against men hiring PR firms to astroturf and make their coworker look bad) to be less personal and more targeted at his actual actions in the case and real events. jmho

“Very defensive to Baldoni” and you’re a lawyer? What’s your practice area? Your writing is not giving esquire.

Thanks. Read the post I was responding to - I just repeated that language verbatim, switching out people. That person (who likes Baldoni) also says they are a lawyer. Take it up with her lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Huh. I think there are a BUNCH of people very defensive to Baldoni who post on here. I'm a lawyer too. I don't especially like Lively (and not employed by her team obvs) but I'm appalled by some of the yuck people are posting about her here. I don't see the same sort of stuff being posted about him here -- the very personal negative comments. The anti-Baldoni stuff seems, to me (and maybe I'm biased, because I am against men hiring PR firms to astroturf and make their coworker look bad) to be less personal and more targeted at his actual actions in the case and real events. jmho

Really? Seems like the stuff posted about her is fairly run of the mill for someone in the limelight, and also relevant in that it makes clear her reputation wasn’t so sterling before all of this.

The Lauren Sanchez posts are far harsher and she didn’t do anything to anyone (well except her ex who seems to have happily moved on).

Why do you care so much if people are snarky about a B list actress?

ITA. People are free to not like Blake Lively for god’s sake. She’s not chocolate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like hiring that PR firm, after he had promised not to retaliate against Lively, and then egging the PR firm on to protect him, would be retaliation. Especially if it was successful. The PR form reported that Jed Wallace's team, in particular, had been successful. Wallace's team engages in astroturfing and social media manipulation. The PR firm reported that "we've started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

That sounds like retaliation. Someone else in the thread noted that Lively noticed a deposition for Wallace, maybe for tomorrow?

Seems like either Wallace was actually doing nothing (as Baldoni's team now says) but taking credit for the shift in public opinion, or was actually posting negative stuff on Lively that would seem to amount to retaliation. Guess we'll see.

Hiring PR after not-a-baller moves like having everyone unfollow Baldoni (Lively leaving “crumbs” for people to follow like her buddy Taylor Swift) does not seem retaliatory at all. It’s why that profession such as it is exists, to protect a project he developed, alone, for years.

It would be different if he hired PR simply to get him good press. In fact his PR people did do that. That's their job.

But he signed a document saying he would not retaliate against Lively. And then he hired a PR firm to take her down *in retaliation.*

The fact that her unfollowing him on socials was damaging to him is what it is. She's not required to follow him.

Hiring PR when you’re getting bad press while promoting your work is not retaliatory, and Lively is alleged to have encouraged everyone involved unfollow Baldoni at the same time. So yeah, hiring PR seems reasonable to me!

The NYT title “we can bury anyone” is spliced and stripped free from context, as cited in Baldoni’s lawsuit.

I do think there’s a contingent here, again, supporting Lively which is intensely anti-fact in terms of the discussion.

DP but I disagree and agree with PP. If you sign an agreement saying you won't retailiate, and then you retaliate through a PR firm, seems like YOU are the bad guy. Note specifically that the PR work discussed wasn't specifically to make Baldoni look good but to make Lively look bad. If that bears out in the Wallace deposition and/or discovery, that seems bad for Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like hiring that PR firm, after he had promised not to retaliate against Lively, and then egging the PR firm on to protect him, would be retaliation. Especially if it was successful. The PR form reported that Jed Wallace's team, in particular, had been successful. Wallace's team engages in astroturfing and social media manipulation. The PR firm reported that "we've started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

That sounds like retaliation. Someone else in the thread noted that Lively noticed a deposition for Wallace, maybe for tomorrow?

Seems like either Wallace was actually doing nothing (as Baldoni's team now says) but taking credit for the shift in public opinion, or was actually posting negative stuff on Lively that would seem to amount to retaliation. Guess we'll see.

Hiring PR after not-a-baller moves like having everyone unfollow Baldoni (Lively leaving “crumbs” for people to follow like her buddy Taylor Swift) does not seem retaliatory at all. It’s why that profession such as it is exists, to protect a project he developed, alone, for years.

It would be different if he hired PR simply to get him good press. In fact his PR people did do that. That's their job.

But he signed a document saying he would not retaliate against Lively. And then he hired a PR firm to take her down *in retaliation.*

The fact that her unfollowing him on socials was damaging to him is what it is. She's not required to follow him.

Hiring PR when you’re getting bad press while promoting your work is not retaliatory, and Lively is alleged to have encouraged everyone involved unfollow Baldoni at the same time. So yeah, hiring PR seems reasonable to me!

The NYT title “we can bury anyone” is spliced and stripped free from context, as cited in Baldoni’s lawsuit.

I do think there’s a contingent here, again, supporting Lively which is intensely anti-fact in terms of the discussion.

He did not just "hire PR." It is normal for someone in his position to "hire PR."

He hired the crisis manager who handled Johnny Depp during the Amber Heard issues (when pad armies of posters destroyed Heard online).

This team then worked up a plan to go after Lively online. They hire Jed Wallace who specializes in astroturfing (posting fake posts/comments on social media in large numbers to push a narrative).

Baldoni texted this team with links to posts describing an actress as "hard to work with" getting lots of traction online and saying "this is what we need." Tons of posts saying the same about Lively subsequently appear all over the Internet. The crisis team then text each other that "thanks to Jed and his team" the online narrative is better.

That's not "hiring PR." And it's significantly worse than simply unfollowing a person you do not like on Instagram.

[Anonymous]

DP but hard, hard agree from me with these last two posts. Thank you for voicing my concerns better than I have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but hard, hard agree from me with these last two posts. Thank you for voicing my concerns better than I have.

What does DP mean? I’m sort of new here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

ha, that’s called “working for crazy client” something that you generally get to avoid in BigLaw. lively insisted she was mortally offended at the childbirth scene, so they had to do something to get it in there. The weird footnote is their way to avoid sanctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

I have teens and mid is the most apt description for the complaint. If I read a complaint, and it seems inconsistent with the way people actually behave or tries to gloss over the omission of very relevant details, I’m suspicious about the validity of the claims.