Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively does not get to lie about SH and try to ruin multiple men’s lives, while making a mockery out of actual SH victims (the majority being women) and then go on SNL and make light of it. If you think that is ok you have no morals.

Sounds like she does.

She thinks she does but she has totally lost her target demo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Thank you!

Good letter.

One of the cases cited by Lively's team was a criminal case and the other one was a 2011 case from a different District. Ouch.

[Anonymous]

This thread is like a small asylum I visit periodically.

This is a wellness check: r u all ok?

Out in the real world, no one is talking about whether or not Cher and Kevin Costner clapped at a joke Ryan Reynolds made at the SNL reunion. Literally no one. That's a crazy town conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Mic drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Angles are everything

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1ira911/blake_lively_and_amy_schumer_at_snl50/?share_id=32ZKDzf0srkkPPaI-dO00&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

Does Blake look like she’d be easily liftable here? Keep in mind Amy Shumer is 5’7 and Blake is quite a few inches taller here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine being the PR grifters who cooked up the tone deaf SNL skit and this morning Blake and Ryan ask how it went over. Ummm……good. lol. Meanwhile they’re getting roasted all over social media and now these gen Z sleuths are prodding super agent Ari as well.

So glad kids are smart enough to realize this is a futile and desperate attempt to change public opinion. No one will forget that they first tried to ruin Justin’s life (podcast, agency, public perception, monetary, etc.) without so much as a backward glance. If Justin didn’t have receipts to dispute her claims or if he lacked the means to fight back, his life would be in ruins and they wouldn’t feel an ounce of remorse. They are evil personified.

That is what is so disturbing to me about what BL and RR did. They never expected him to fight back and were fine with ruining his entire existence for their own gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected. I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad), but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad. In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad. Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Thank you!

Good letter.

One of the cases cited by Lively's team was a criminal case and the other one was a 2011 case from a different District. Ouch.

These subpoenas were really an unforced error by the Lively team. They should have just asked for logs, then the dispute would just be about whether they should be limited to communication among defendants, and time frame. Instead, it now looks like they were asking for documents that they know they aren’t legally entitled to. They then multiplied the damage by misrepresenting the requests to the Court as seeking only non content materials. They had to know this would be easily disproven. Sloppy work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected. I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad), but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad. In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad. Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

You misunderstand almost all of his argument. They ask for far more than logs, and in your words, this is not the “normal way” to ask for just logs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is like a small asylum I visit periodically.

This is a wellness check: r u all ok?

Out in the real world, no one is talking about whether or not Cher and Kevin Costner clapped at a joke Ryan Reynolds made at the SNL reunion. Literally no one. That's a crazy town conversation.

Haha. No! I’m not okay. Every time I read the news I feel overwhelmed with fear and anger. This case is just a distraction for me. Feels relatively harmless to debate what’s happening with these uber rich people who will be okay no matter the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake‘s complaint that was published in the New York Times, detailed the extreme physical and mental stress this has caused both Blake and her children. But now they’re joking on SNL about it? Make it make sense.

I think they know that there will never be an actual case, there will probably be a huge settlement at sometime in the next few months. There’s just no way they want to go to trial like Johnny and Amber. And I think they are now trying to work to change their image and make it a blemish instead of defining moments in their career.

The thing is, I think it will work to a degree. I don’t really think there’s such a thing as canceling unless you are someone like Harvey Weinstein who have decades of actual rape under your belt. Most people are able to make it back. But I don’t think they’re ever going to be able to return to what they used to be able to do with the silly banter and “we’re just like you! So relatable!” We’ve now seen too much behind the curtains.

I agree that most people bounce back from things rather than being cancelled completely. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People should be able to redeem themselves and hopefully end up as better humans after all is said and done. Hopefully these two learn something from this whole thing. Only time will tell.

How mighty of you! They ruined someone’s name and livelihood with unforgivable lies. And now you think everyone should forgive them and not cancel them forever. What about Baldoni? Does he get his life and credibility back?

You are always only thinking of how to improve the situation for BL and RR. Not about the awful damage number that they have done on JB and where that leaves him at the end of the day.

Reminds me of that line F Scott Fitzgerald.

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy, they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.”

Ryan and Blake are Tom and Daisy. Sociopathic megalomaniacs who think rules and social norms don’t apply to them. Destroy people for sport and giggle about it afterwards, feigning it’s all water under the bridge.

Agreed, and I am the poster who wrote this response about (How mighty…)

It’s not that I don’t believe in forgiveness over time. But only if people are truly sorry for their actions. BL and RR are just like Tom and Daisy here (good Gatsby reference pp!) Baldoni was sport to them. And they continue to double down, even after receipts have been shown which contradict their stories.

How do you redeem insufferable people like this? Maybe you just don’t, and that is the redemption right there. That they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I think most people would support genuine regret, but not complete apathy, which is what appears to be coming from them.

Will Smith slapping CR? Still not hearing a genuine apology there.

Diddy? Do you think the public will forgive all of that, even if he emerges contrite? Think Cassidy beat down and how he promised to do better.

Alec? There is some grey area there, so there will probably be some forgiveness.

But who goes on media and talks frankly and confidently about how they like to take over movie sets via mutiny, and then cry wolf when accused of doing that very thing?

I’m team Baldino all the way because he’s the victim here. BL used SH to gain favor and potentially overtake a movie and denigrate its producer. How awful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake‘s complaint that was published in the New York Times, detailed the extreme physical and mental stress this has caused both Blake and her children. But now they’re joking on SNL about it? Make it make sense.

I think they know that there will never be an actual case, there will probably be a huge settlement at sometime in the next few months. There’s just no way they want to go to trial like Johnny and Amber. And I think they are now trying to work to change their image and make it a blemish instead of defining moments in their career.

The thing is, I think it will work to a degree. I don’t really think there’s such a thing as canceling unless you are someone like Harvey Weinstein who have decades of actual rape under your belt. Most people are able to make it back. But I don’t think they’re ever going to be able to return to what they used to be able to do with the silly banter and “we’re just like you! So relatable!” We’ve now seen too much behind the curtains.

I agree that most people bounce back from things rather than being cancelled completely. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People should be able to redeem themselves and hopefully end up as better humans after all is said and done. Hopefully these two learn something from this whole thing. Only time will tell.

How mighty of you! They ruined someone’s name and livelihood with unforgivable lies. And now you think everyone should forgive them and not cancel them forever. What about Baldoni? Does he get his life and credibility back?

You are always only thinking of how to improve the situation for BL and RR. Not about the awful damage number that they have done on JB and where that leaves him at the end of the day.

Reminds me of that line F Scott Fitzgerald.

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy, they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.”

Ryan and Blake are Tom and Daisy. Sociopathic megalomaniacs who think rules and social norms don’t apply to them. Destroy people for sport and giggle about it afterwards, feigning it’s all water under the bridge.

Agreed, and I am the poster who wrote this response about (How mighty…)

It’s not that I don’t believe in forgiveness over time. But only if people are truly sorry for their actions. BL and RR are just like Tom and Daisy here (good Gatsby reference pp!) Baldoni was sport to them. And they continue to double down, even after receipts have been shown which contradict their stories.

How do you redeem insufferable people like this? Maybe you just don’t, and that is the redemption right there. That they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I think most people would support genuine regret, but not complete apathy, which is what appears to be coming from them.

Will Smith slapping CR? Still not hearing a genuine apology there.

Diddy? Do you think the public will forgive all of that, even if he emerges contrite? Think Cassidy beat down and how he promised to do better.

Alec? There is some grey area there, so there will probably be some forgiveness.

But who goes on media and talks frankly and confidently about how they like to take over movie sets via mutiny, and then cry wolf when accused of doing that very thing?

I’m team Baldino all the way because he’s the victim here. BL used SH to gain favor and potentially overtake a movie and denigrate its producer. How awful!

They are nearly 40 and 50 years old, respectively, they aren’t redeemable or reformable. This is who they are. Two wicked peas in a pod.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Angles are everything

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1ira911/blake_lively_and_amy_schumer_at_snl50/?share_id=32ZKDzf0srkkPPaI-dO00&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

Does Blake look like she’d be easily liftable here? Keep in mind Amy Shumer is 5’7 and Blake is quite a few inches taller here.

Went back and looked at the IEWU photos. Hate to say it, but BL was heavy in those photos. She’s at least 5’9 and a size 14 or so. That’s reality. She’s a larger size.

That’s why the clothing choices threw many people off. Smaller or mid size people can rock a lot of patterns and frumpy, non-form fitting clothes and pull it off. When you are a bit more endowed, it can backfire.

She kept wearing boots and patterns. It perhaps made her look bigger. Solids in sophisticated colors would perhaps work better. My opinion.

[Anonymous]

If that SNL appearance was done to change the public perception on these two, it clearly didn't work. If anything, Ryan joking about their so-called “sexual harassment” claims on national television only made things worse.