Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just realizing that the fact that Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively the video of Heath’s wife giving birth means that Heath must have previously showed Baldoni the video of Heath’s nude wife giving birth, and Baldoni must have watched all or most of it, for Baldoni to have formed opinions on it.

And the Baldoni and Heath families socialize together all the time. But Heath must have shown Baldoni his nude wife in a tub, probably without asking his wife about it, given Heath’s reaction to Lively’s question that she wasn’t overly sensitive about that sort of thing.

If I gave birth naked and was filmed, I definitely would not want my husband showing the video to his friends and work mates, and/or strangers. Ew ew ew ew.

I would feel that him doing so would certainly conflict with my own desire to be in charge of any sensitive images of my body. And I would certainly expect that anyone who considered themselves to be a feminist would not take such a paternalistic view over who “owns” the female body in that way. Sheesh.

Eh, I think their families are close and have a shared attitude about childbirth that probably made everyone feel comfortable to share that video around. I bet Heath's wife was fine with it.

Their mistake was in not understanding that people outside their religious community and friend group might be less interested or find it to be a violation of boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just realizing that the fact that Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively the video of Heath’s wife giving birth means that Heath must have previously showed Baldoni the video of Heath’s nude wife giving birth, and Baldoni must have watched all or most of it, for Baldoni to have formed opinions on it.

And the Baldoni and Heath families socialize together all the time. But Heath must have shown Baldoni his nude wife in a tub, probably without asking his wife about it, given Heath’s reaction to Lively’s question that she wasn’t overly sensitive about that sort of thing.

If I gave birth naked and was filmed, I definitely would not want my husband showing the video to his friends and work mates, and/or strangers. Ew ew ew ew.

I would feel that him doing so would certainly conflict with my own desire to be in charge of any sensitive images of my body. And I would certainly expect that anyone who considered themselves to be a feminist would not take such a paternalistic view over who “owns” the female body in that way. Sheesh.

That’s a big leap

When Lively protested Heath showing her his wife’s nude video, he totally shrugged it off with some statement like “Oh, she’s not weird about stuff like that.” You think *that* guy checked in with his wife before showing it to Baldoni lol? Nah.

Have you ever met a woman who has had a tub home birth, that they film? The few I know who have basically want to show that off to everyone and anyone who will hear about it.

This is the specific problem with people like this. Home birth, tub birth, you do you. Do NOT show me your childbirth video on my lunch break. I do not now, and will never, want to watch it. And that doesn't make me weird or repressed or even uncomfortable with childbirth (I've done it). It just means I have stricter boundaries for that kind of thing than they do, which is okay and not something I need to justify.

[Anonymous]

Lots of new news. JB responded to Lively’s amended complaint, the judge denied Leslie Sloanes request for a stay of discovery, and JB and Jen Abel are counter suing Jones for illegally leaking text messages (breach of contract and privacy as Baldoni was her client, which is a point I’ve raised on this thread before). They say there was no subpoena and that Jones was unraveling and shared those texts with Blake out of spite, setting in motion this disastrous sequence of events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of new news. JB responded to Lively’s amended complaint, the judge denied Leslie Sloanes request for a stay of discovery, and JB and Jen Abel are counter suing Jones for illegally leaking text messages (breach of contract and privacy as Baldoni was her client, which is a point I’ve raised on this thread before). They say there was no subpoena and that Jones was unraveling and shared those texts with Blake out of spite, setting in motion this disastrous sequence of events.

I wonder why it took them so long to countersue Jones. The lawsuit against Abel/Nathan/Baldoni from Jones was filed 3 months ago (filed right after Lively's CRD complaint, and I think maybe before Lively had technically even sued Baldoni). I know it got removed from state court to federal so it could be consolidated with the other stuff in SDNY, but I'm still surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of new news. JB responded to Lively’s amended complaint, the judge denied Leslie Sloanes request for a stay of discovery, and JB and Jen Abel are counter suing Jones for illegally leaking text messages (breach of contract and privacy as Baldoni was her client, which is a point I’ve raised on this thread before). They say there was no subpoena and that Jones was unraveling and shared those texts with Blake out of spite, setting in motion this disastrous sequence of events.

I wonder why it took them so long to countersue Jones. The lawsuit against Abel/Nathan/Baldoni from Jones was filed 3 months ago (filed right after Lively's CRD complaint, and I think maybe before Lively had technically even sued Baldoni). I know it got removed from state court to federal so it could be consolidated with the other stuff in SDNY, but I'm still surprised.

Could just be a lower priority. Her pockets aren’t as deep as the other people they’re suing.

[Anonymous]

Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

[Anonymous]

We did talk about it when it happened, pages ago. Other things got filed since then. I already reported the news about Baldoni’s answer and the judge denying Sloane’s motion for stay a page or two ago (keep up PP lol!), but hadn’t seen the countersuit of Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We did talk about it when it happened, pages ago. Other things got filed since then. I already reported the news about Baldoni’s answer and the judge denying Sloane’s motion for stay a page or two ago (keep up PP lol!), but hadn’t seen the countersuit of Jones.

I think it’s more interesting that what some of you have been claiming for literally hundreds of pages, that Wallace was using bots to plant negative stories about Blake, was debunked by his sworn testimony. Way more worthy of discussion than a discovery stay or non stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

Seems more like certain posters are trying to bury it.

It’s going to have a far larger impact than anything in Blake and Ryan’s motions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

Seems more like certain posters are trying to bury it.

It’s going to have a far larger impact than anything in Blake and Ryan’s motions.

I'm sure if you post specific comments or thoughts about it, people will respond, especially the people that tend to defend Blake, but people did move on to other news items that have dropped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

And without a smear campaign, she literally has no case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just realizing that the fact that Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively the video of Heath’s wife giving birth means that Heath must have previously showed Baldoni the video of Heath’s nude wife giving birth, and Baldoni must have watched all or most of it, for Baldoni to have formed opinions on it.

And the Baldoni and Heath families socialize together all the time. But Heath must have shown Baldoni his nude wife in a tub, probably without asking his wife about it, given Heath’s reaction to Lively’s question that she wasn’t overly sensitive about that sort of thing.

If I gave birth naked and was filmed, I definitely would not want my husband showing the video to his friends and work mates, and/or strangers. Ew ew ew ew.

I would feel that him doing so would certainly conflict with my own desire to be in charge of any sensitive images of my body. And I would certainly expect that anyone who considered themselves to be a feminist would not take such a paternalistic view over who “owns” the female body in that way. Sheesh.

That’s a big leap

When Lively protested Heath showing her his wife’s nude video, he totally shrugged it off with some statement like “Oh, she’s not weird about stuff like that.” You think *that* guy checked in with his wife before showing it to Baldoni lol? Nah.

Allegedly. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we not talking about the Jed Wallace affidavit? Because it’s very bad for Blake?

It was discussed. He said he only monitored social media and didn't do anything actively. Discovery will bear that out. It was pointed out it's bad for Blake if it's true, yes. Wallace's lawyers are a lot less flowery than the others' so his filings are pretty boring and technical.

I think it’s just that there was so much news yesterday, so his motion didn’t get much attention. But it was compelling. Seems plausible that this entire smear campaign never happened, Blake is just not well liked. But b/c she’s a narcissist she believed that the bad press had to be artificial and now she’s ruined a man’s life.

And without a smear campaign, she literally has no case.

I think the Wallace affidavit is a huge blow for Lively, but I don't know that it means she has "no case." I think it undercuts her argument about the degree of any smear campaign and could seriously undermine her ability recover damages. But that aspect of her complaint was novel and untested anyway. Plenty of people win cases for SH/retaliation where the defendant didn't hire someone to astroturf Reddit against them. If Lively can show that Abel and Nathan planted negative stories about her in the media, especially if she can show that Wayfarer's goal in hiring Nathan and going on the attack was to discredit her so that if she came forward with allegations, she would be less likely to be believed, she still has a very strong case.

The text messages between Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni are already very strong evidence of retaliation, even if Jed Wallace can prove he didn't participate in a campaign against her.