Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

And being outwitted strategically is not extortion.

Bit being threatened with fabricated sexual harassment claims in exchange for rights to a movie is.

Please point to where Lively threatened Baldoni with fabricated SH claims in exchange for movie rights. And no, Reddit threads where random people just assert that this is what must have happened don't count. Show where Lively threatened to go public with fabricated claims to get the rights to the sequel.

Yes, factual allegations typically don’t change. It’s basically an admission that she lied.
How did it go from Blake supporting Justin and the film to having Justin and his family segregated into the basement at the premier? Why did Blake make this happen?

Because he sexually harassed her on set.

He didn’t. She’s a liar and unethical and has been for her entire adult love. Plantation Khaleesi is an earned name for her.

Yeah, I mean, they removed several things from the amended complaint. They changed the wording wherever they were busted by Justin’s complaint, and they even deleted things (like that she couldnt get covering between breaks during the birthing scene).

Super sketch. I don’t know how people can just ignore that.

Yes, factual allegations typically don’t change. It’s basically an admission that she lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I learned in the past few weeks is that Blake's had at least three nose jobs and an eye job. She looks like a completely different person.

I expect PR lady to get on here and tell me that childbirth changes the shape of your eyes and nose.

It totally gives you plastic-firm t!ts and permanently triple-sized lips, duhhhh!! Every ob knows it.

Yeah, so if your goal is to convince anyone that your "position" on the legal case stems from anything other than raging misogyny, these comments aren't cutting it.

Who cares if she has had plastic surgery? How is that relevant to anything? If we found out Baldoni took steroids, would that matter? No. It's just a weird obsession with Lively's body and appearance.

It doesn’t matter, it just goes along with her theme of lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni hasn't really articulated how and when Reynolds called him a sexual predator.

Forgot about that mention. So they lied, mocked him in their movie, usurped his power; ambushed and chewed him out; forced him to agree to their demands; overstep traditional director/actor boundaries and stated that is their m.o., force him to take their rewrite of the script else dragons would act out against him, cancel wardrobe in favor of their wardrobe, not agree to an IC, not agree to promised pullout if his script outperformed hers to screening audiences, omit him from marketing, force him and his family to watch movie in basement at the premiere, demand a production credit, accuse of astroturfing when bad publicity came back…am I missing anything?

And people are saying he shouldn’t fight back via lawsuit?

What am I missing?

People are saying he shouldn't have fought back by signing on with the Depp/Heard tactics to destroy Lively. I can understand why he did it, because Lively also did terrible things. I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't have sued. Most of his claims aren't particularly strong, but he certainly has the right to assert them, and much of his evidence is geared to the media, not the court, including that timeline that's probably going to be struck.

As far as your list, most of those things aren't illegal. Some of them aren't unethical at all (wardrobe stuff) or were not within Lively's complete control (she had the right to advocate for her cut and if Sony agreed, oh well). Some of them are unethical or terrible things to do.

I think overall he probably felt much more unsafe more uncomfortable than she did. He texted that he was terrified to talk to her about the wardrobe. I think he seemed just as uncomfortable as her during the dance scene (with her pushing him to talk when there was no dialogue). He also got to get yelled at by her husband.

Imagine being told you’re supposed to play an abuser without making your scene partner feel threatened (while acting).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

Link?

Go to Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

Link?

Go to Reddit.

DP. Reddit has fifteen million threads and multiple subreddits on this single case. Please post a link.

[Anonymous]

No amended complaint is posted on the docket today and as far as I'm aware there is no where to surreptitiously change a complaint on the docket once it's been filed, so post it or you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni hasn't really articulated how and when Reynolds called him a sexual predator.

Forgot about that mention. So they lied, mocked him in their movie, usurped his power; ambushed and chewed him out; forced him to agree to their demands; overstep traditional director/actor boundaries and stated that is their m.o., force him to take their rewrite of the script else dragons would act out against him, cancel wardrobe in favor of their wardrobe, not agree to an IC, not agree to promised pullout if his script outperformed hers to screening audiences, omit him from marketing, force him and his family to watch movie in basement at the premiere, demand a production credit, accuse of astroturfing when bad publicity came back…am I missing anything?

And people are saying he shouldn’t fight back via lawsuit?

What am I missing?

People are saying he shouldn't have fought back by signing on with the Depp/Heard tactics to destroy Lively. I can understand why he did it, because Lively also did terrible things. I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't have sued. Most of his claims aren't particularly strong, but he certainly has the right to assert them, and much of his evidence is geared to the media, not the court, including that timeline that's probably going to be struck.

As far as your list, most of those things aren't illegal. Some of them aren't unethical at all (wardrobe stuff) or were not within Lively's complete control (she had the right to advocate for her cut and if Sony agreed, oh well). Some of them are unethical or terrible things to do.

I think overall he probably felt much more unsafe more uncomfortable than she did. He texted that he was terrified to talk to her about the wardrobe. I think he seemed just as uncomfortable as her during the dance scene (with her pushing him to talk when there was no dialogue). He also got to get yelled at by her husband.

Imagine being told you’re supposed to play an abuser without making your scene partner feel threatened (while acting).

Agree. Justin was playing the role of an abusive man in a film that he was directing. Blake and Ryan were critiquing everything he did, including Justin’s acting ability. His character was too affectionate, too much kissing…this is a film… Everything he did was wrong in Blake and Ryan’s eyes. He was playing the role of an abusive man, how would Ryan Reynolds play the role of an abusive man? This is all so over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

You appear to be lying as nothing is on the docket reflecting this. You are probably reading something on reddit that you don't understand, or just making things up in your head.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni counsel also responded to BL’s request for the soecisl protective order. Counsel states that BL has not given any particularities/specifics as to why anything about the court model protective order is needed. She has to produce these specifics for it to be considered else counsel is fine with the model currently specified by the court.

The letter is also on Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

You appear to be lying as nothing is on the docket reflecting this. You are probably reading something on reddit that you don't understand, or just making things up in your head.

I guess I can perform basic Reddit queries better than you can. It’s therex

[Anonymous]

Both parties agree there should be a protective order, but apparently Lively wants more than the model order, including a distinction called attorney's eyes only. Baldoni's counsel argues that in order to invoke that, they should have to give particular reasons each time.

To be honest, I don't understand what the salient difference is, other than it appears Lively's team wants to make it easier to seal things than Baldoni's team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

You appear to be lying as nothing is on the docket reflecting this. You are probably reading something on reddit that you don't understand, or just making things up in your head.

I guess I can perform basic Reddit queries better than you can. It’s therex

There is no new amended complaint. I’m sure someone is just rehashing the specifics of some aspect of it.

[Anonymous]

Still can’t over that they had the all hands back to work meeting at Blake’s apartment and they blindsided him and Ryan screamed at him. How did anyone think that was okay?

If you felt creeped out or sexually harassed by two men, why would you have them at your home? Like isn’t your home your sanctuary? Why would you want to do that?

A poster in this thread recently called Justin Blake‘s boss. Trying to think of another scenario where somebody was inviting their boss to their home so that they could berate him and expect to go back to work with him. In what world does that make sense? She was the one with all the power summoning him to her penthouse apartment. So cringe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, they amended their complaint today “quietly.”

It shows the text of where JB was labeled as a sexual predator. Reddit offers the deets.

You appear to be lying as nothing is on the docket reflecting this. You are probably reading something on reddit that you don't understand, or just making things up in your head.

I guess I can perform basic Reddit queries better than you can. It’s therex

There is no new amended complaint. I’m sure someone is just rehashing the specifics of some aspect of it.

I'm a DP from PP above saying there is no new amended complaint (I'm the original person arguing with PP on this) and I also can't find any amended complaint on the docket. PP claiming there is both (1) does not know how to find docket sheets or read them; and (2) does not appear to be reading reddit correctly.