Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

Why the casual religious bigotry dropped in here? Your description is also true of Catholicism, btw.

Catholicism certainly has its own host of problems which has caused people to leave, though you're right that people aren't calling it a cult. There are other problems with Bahai that I didn't mention such as no alcohol/drug use allowed ever and strict review of writings about the faith to make sure that no negative information about it is disseminated to the wider public, which is very Scientology-ish. People were having discussions about the Bahai religion being cultish long before this movie ever happened fwiw: https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/l94a8y/the_bahai_faith_is_a_cult/

I don't quite think it's a cult. The current leader is not very dynamic, and reports are that people can leave without being killed. But there is a lot of recruiting going on, and I do think it's odd that the billionaire Bahai member Steve Sarowitz is so committed to Baldoni, Heath, and Wayfarer because of their shared religion. It's odd.

I knew people who were Bahá'i growing up -- it's not a cult, just small and kind of different.

However I think it's fair game to talk about the belief system and practices of the religion in this case because all the Wayfarer people involved are part of the religion. I think the same would be true if they were all evangelical Christians, or Catholics, or Muslim, or Jewish, or whatever. These people came together because of their shared religious beliefs, and are now accused of some inappropriate behavior. It's fair to discuss what those beliefs are IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

But wouldn't it still say something if these actresses are willing to go on record, even at this late date? As for Ferrer saying nice things about Baldoni, I don't find it implausible that a young actress would say those things despite being harassed, because she wants to work again. Of course, I'd expect Baldoni's team to probe why her public position changed.

That's IF this is all true, and I'm not trusting anything from Lively's side until it's produced and verified. I'm open to the idea that Baldoni did these things but don't want to fall for garbage again.

One thing that is weird is that if Lively's side was the one who leaked them, it's baffling why they'd choose to leak them in this way. These are apparently super pro-Baldoni "creators" -- even in their livestream they were casting doubt on the documents or trying to contextualize them in a way that didn't look bad for Baldoni.

So if the leaks came from Lively, that would be a very weird way to get that info out there when they could have just released it to People or something.

Which speaks to it being a hoax potentially. Though if a hoax, what a weird one! The specificity of detail is so high.

The whole thing is very weird.

Agree, it's weird for Lively to leak to these podcasters when these podcasters clearly hate them. Yet presumably Lively's side is the only one that would know what's in their amended complaint. Also finding it hard to believe that Baldoni's side would release reports of complaints by other female actresses on set, unless I guess they were ultimately going to be untrue, when the Ferrer allegations in particular make Baldoni look bad. I've been defending Lively, but to be honest I actually have trouble believing those allegations -- given the age of the actress they don't really fit into my picture of Baldoni. If these turn out to be real allegations by Ferrer, I would definitely make the SH case stronger, but I'll wait for the amended complaint to validate or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

She shouldn’t have written a gushing email after filming wrapped praising what a great director JB was and about how safe she felt if it wasn’t true. She’s an adult. She’s not some little girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

Throwing up in my mouth a little but you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

But wouldn't it still say something if these actresses are willing to go on record, even at this late date? As for Ferrer saying nice things about Baldoni, I don't find it implausible that a young actress would say those things despite being harassed, because she wants to work again. Of course, I'd expect Baldoni's team to probe why her public position changed.

That's IF this is all true, and I'm not trusting anything from Lively's side until it's produced and verified. I'm open to the idea that Baldoni did these things but don't want to fall for garbage again.

One thing that is weird is that if Lively's side was the one who leaked them, it's baffling why they'd choose to leak them in this way. These are apparently super pro-Baldoni "creators" -- even in their livestream they were casting doubt on the documents or trying to contextualize them in a way that didn't look bad for Baldoni.

So if the leaks came from Lively, that would be a very weird way to get that info out there when they could have just released it to People or something.

Which speaks to it being a hoax potentially. Though if a hoax, what a weird one! The specificity of detail is so high.

The whole thing is very weird.

Agree, it's weird for Lively to leak to these podcasters when these podcasters clearly hate them. Yet presumably Lively's side is the only one that would know what's in their amended complaint. Also finding it hard to believe that Baldoni's side would release reports of complaints by other female actresses on set, unless I guess they were ultimately going to be untrue, when the Ferrer allegations in particular make Baldoni look bad. I've been defending Lively, but to be honest I actually have trouble believing those allegations -- given the age of the actress they don't really fit into my picture of Baldoni. If these turn out to be real allegations by Ferrer, I would definitely make the SH case stronger, but I'll wait for the amended complaint to validate or not.

I think if the complaints are real, they may have been leaked by someone else -- someone at Sony or some other third party who got ahold of them somehow. They may have leaked to these people because they didn't know better, or they were the first people to reply to an email or something.

Cynically, if they are real, I do think Freedman might leak them in this way to try and get ahead of the story. He did that with the original complaint -- he leaked it to TMZ before NYT published (it's clear it was him because he's quoted directly in the TMZ piece, as himself, even though in the NYT piece his statement is identified only as "a representative of Baldoni").

I also think there's a good likelihood they are just a hoax designed to stir up controversy (success) and were "leaked" to this outlet because they would be a lot less scrupulous about checking the source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

She shouldn’t have written a gushing email after filming wrapped praising what a great director JB was and about how safe she felt if it wasn’t true. She’s an adult. She’s not some little girl.

If she did, does that mean that it's okay if Baldoni harassed her? Because she didn't do the perfect thing later? So even if he harassed her, she should be dragged over the coals for her subsequent text while he gets off with nothing?

You are only held accountable for sexual harassment if your victim makes zero mistakes after it happens, is that it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

She shouldn’t have written a gushing email after filming wrapped praising what a great director JB was and about how safe she felt if it wasn’t true. She’s an adult. She’s not some little girl.

If you are not aware of this pattern where abused/harassed women have positive communications with the abuser/harasser after the event has occurred in part to reassure the abuser/harasser that they won't tell and you don't need to retaliate against them, you haven't seen many of these cases. It's better for the harassment/abuse case when they don't, but it's something that happens regularly. But look at you already treating Ferrer like just another woman accuser who shouldn't be believed.

[Anonymous]

I mean, the Jenny Slate one said that when Baldoni apologize, he said “I’ll sorry we got off on the wrong foot.” And she replied, “you got off all right, but it had nothing to do with a foot.”

Suss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the Jenny Slate one said that when Baldoni apologize, he said “I’ll sorry we got off on the wrong foot.” And she replied, “you got off all right, but it had nothing to do with a foot.”

Suss.

Lol. +1 for Slate and her quick repartee, if true. (She used to be a performer on SNL after all, until she said the f word live.) I'm no fan of Lively but actually am a real fan of Slate's (I've seen many of her movies including her full length movie involving Marcel the Shell, which was adorable) and I like her very much, and this very much sounds like something she would come up with on the fly, but I'll withhold judgment until the amended complaint is filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pdfs are up and the date filed is redacted in all three. My guess is that they were filed very recently or absolutely no need to redact and probably all on the same day.

Also all went to Sony which said they had received no complaints as of date Blake’s complaint filed.

This is confusing. I thought that didn’t have any complaints. If these complaints were filed recently….hmmmm……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Freedman gets to cross Ferrar after those texts she sent JB.

This is a gross thing to say. What if the allegation here is true? Are you still gleeful at the idea of someone with Freedman's personality throwing Ferrar's texts in her face? As another poster pointed out, it's totally reasonable that someone in Ferrar's position would send a text like that even if she was treated very poorly on set because it was her first movie an her was the director and she would be scared to be viewed as a complainer or "hard to work with" so early in her career.

What’s the verified allegation? Stop getting hysterical.

Who's hysterical? If it's a real complaint, she should be treated respectfully and allowed to tell her story. If it's a fake complaint, she's not involved at all and won't testify. It's weird to think the complaint might be real but then to be thrilled by the prospect of her being dismantled on the stand by an aggressive attorney.

It’s called the art of cross examination.

Oh I know what it is. I think it's weird to be excited about it. We're not talking about a murderer or someone who extorted money or abused their family. We're talking about a young woman who may have felt very uncomfortable with her director's behavior towards her while filming a sex scene. It's weird to be excited about someone like that being subject to "the art of cross examination." This isn't someone who did anything wrong. There's no lie for her to be caught in. You're just excited about a lawyer known for being brash and kind of mean having a chance to go after her. That's weird.

I have respect for other attorneys that are masters at what they do.

She shouldn’t have written a gushing email after filming wrapped praising what a great director JB was and about how safe she felt if it wasn’t true. She’s an adult. She’s not some little girl.

If she did, does that mean that it's okay if Baldoni harassed her? Because she didn't do the perfect thing later? So even if he harassed her, she should be dragged over the coals for her subsequent text while he gets off with nothing?

You are only held accountable for sexual harassment if your victim makes zero mistakes after it happens, is that it?

She opened herself up to a brutal cross. Those are the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok more specific details coming out about harassment of Jenny Slate and Isabela Ferrer. I'm just going to cut and paste from the subreddit:

Jenny Slate

Baldoni put hands on actresses butt, and said he was helping with posture. He explained he was married. Actress said it wasn't ok. Bladoni said go see HR. She did! 3 hours later, he apologised.

Isabela Ferrer

Baldoni asked her if she ever had an orgasm on camera. Actress asks why he is asking as a climax is not scripted in scene. Baldoni leans in and whispers "I think we should add it in. Show me what you got". She said she didn't want to. Director said she couldn't hold up filming. Actress felt she had to. Baldoni placed his hands on her outer thighs and stated "come on, you can do better than that." Baldoni was so close she could feel his breath causing her makeup to mist up. He said "you know how hot this is, right?". He asked her to practise the scene again. This time he was closer, virtually locking her in place, in a very intimate embrace. A differenct actress came on set and waved. At which point Baldoni broke the embrace. At which point the make up need to be redone.

So we're talking actual sexual assault now.

If these allegations are true and these actresses are willing to go on the record, this is deeply disturbing.

Wow.

This. Changes. Everything.

Are you telling me Blake Lively isn’t the liar? I’m just so shocked. Colleen Hoover and Taylor Swift need to bend the knee to Khaleesi for daring to pull away from her. So they will be as stunned as we are!