Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Somebody keeps calling it a reply brief but that will be NYT’s response. Baldoni’s response will be the opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somebody keeps calling it a reply brief but that will be NYT’s response. Baldoni’s response will be the opposition.

Oh please, enough of this. It’s Baldoni’s reply to the motion, you knew what was meant.

[Anonymous]

None of this legal play by play is helping Ryan and Blake. Taylor has rightfully cut them off. They stepped in it with the SNL stunt. When you joke about something you claimed was traumatic, it’s obvious you’re lying about everything. And then their super agent runs his mouth bragging about helping railroad and blackball Justin at the behest of Blake and Ryan. They just need to pay this man a big settlement and fade away for a while.

[Anonymous]

An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

[Anonymous]

Daily Mail suggests the deposition of Taylor Swift will quickly sink Blake and Ryan. A smoking gun…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14445033/Taylor-Swift-smoking-gun-Blake-Lively-Justin-Baldoni.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

Twohey is a foot soldier for hire. But more broadly, if you have enough clout and cash, the Times’s “news” side is a foot soldier for hire. A nepo baby nitwit like Twohey doesn’t have carte blanche, she’s enabled by editors, executives, and the publisher.

Twohey also has deep ties to Washington and her husband is a literary agent.

“Born: Washington, D.C.
Alma mater: Georgetown University
Husband: Jim Rutman, a literary agent.“

[Anonymous]

Old interviews of Blake she basically characterizes her mom as a super abrasive and elbowy battle axe. Looks like the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. I would bet anything her stage mom was looped in from the get-go on this scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daily Mail suggests the deposition of Taylor Swift will quickly sink Blake and Ryan. A smoking gun…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14445033/Taylor-Swift-smoking-gun-Blake-Lively-Justin-Baldoni.html

Since when is DM paywalled?! Are they serious.

What testimony do they say, or do you think, that Taylor can offer that is relevant to the case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

This rant makes no sense. Settling would decrease the likelihood that Sullivan is overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old interviews of Blake she basically characterizes her mom as a super abrasive and elbowy battle axe. Looks like the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. I would bet anything her stage mom was looped in from the get-go on this scheme.

Her M.O. during most interviews is name dropping her husband and famous friends and using “sarcasm” to bully people and make them uncomfortable. She very clearly gets off on toying people for sport. It reminds me of Ellen. It’s not humor, it’s a psychopath mean girl who likes flexing her status and kicking down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting take from Reddit today

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

That's a bunch of self-aggrandizing pablum, I don't care whose "team" you're on at this point. I don't find it informative at all, sorry. This situation is not like that situation. Lively doesn't work for the Times. I also struggle to understand how someone can say simultaneously that they hope this results in a big settlement for Baldoni from the Times AND that they don't want anything to happen to Sullivan. That's not consistent, sorry. If the Times pays Baldoni in a situation where they quite clearly did not defame him, that gets us closer to overturning Sullivan. No.

You can support Baldoni in his suit against Lively without buying the frankly ridiculous argument his team is making that the Times article defamed him. It didn't. They reported on litigation Lively filed against him. I'm sorry that Baldoni's PR people (and Baldoni, for that matter) were so freaking stupid and said all that damning stuff in texts and that the Times got ahold of it, but they did and it did and so it got published. Next time don't be so dumb. Just because someone publishes embarrassing, maybe tortious stuff you definitely did does not make it defamation. Like Lively for sure sent that stupid email about being a khaleesi with dragons, and people reported on it. She sounds like an idiot in that email but she sent it and it's not defamation just because she probably would really prefer no one be able to read it now.

The Times suit is a joke. If you believe in free press, you better hope it gets dismissed now or at summary judgment or at trial because if this crap is deemed defamation then we are in real trouble. I will be so freaking mad if Sullivan gets overturned for some stupid conflict between a couple vapid actors. Enough.

Twohey wouldn’t be in this position if she has fully investigated the story. It was a big error to rely on a pile of texts without making sure that the test threads were complete. It was an even bigger mistake to selectively edit the texts in a way that changed their meaning. Her biggest mistake was believing someone because they were famous.

I don’t care if a journalist is writing about politics or entertainment or the stock market. They have a responsibility to make sure their stories are truthful and accurate, and that they are not being “used” by a source to peddle bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Watch the NYT claim Twohey is just an entertainment reporter, not straight news. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch the NYT claim Twohey is just an entertainment reporter, not straight news. lol

Same thing Fox and MSNBC did when Carlson and Maddow were sued.