Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

The Sony lawyers advised them to sign it while adding a note that they disagreed with implied wrongdoing but had no issue with the requests as most were already in place, or something to the effect. Basically agree but don’t admit guilt, which is what they did. How is following legal counsel JB’s fault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So BF says he still hasn’t seen the “phantom”subpoena. Daily Mail has shared more information about the subpoena Stephanie showed them. They said it was signed by Blake’s lawyers at manatt out of NY but was not stamped by a court. I’m guessing this is why DM initially referred to the subpoena they had seen as a “purported subpoena”. Stephanie Jones’ lawyers said if BF thinks the subpoena is fake he should sign an affidavit saying so and make a discovery request. This is all very strange. If the subpoena supposedly exonerates Steph, why show it to the tabloids and not attach it to their MTD? Lawyers any thoughts?

Adding one other detail. It was supposedly filed in Manhattan Supreme Court but no court stamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So BF says he still hasn’t seen the “phantom”subpoena. Daily Mail has shared more information about the subpoena Stephanie showed them. They said it was signed by Blake’s lawyers at manatt out of NY but was not stamped by a court. I’m guessing this is why DM initially referred to the subpoena they had seen as a “purported subpoena”. Stephanie Jones’ lawyers said if BF thinks the subpoena is fake he should sign an affidavit saying so and make a discovery request. This is all very strange. If the subpoena supposedly exonerates Steph, why show it to the tabloids and not attach it to their MTD? Lawyers any thoughts?

Adding one other detail. It was supposedly filed in Manhattan Supreme Court but no court stamp.

Story gets more and more strange. Why would it emanate from a NY court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

DP can you two stop bickering so we can talk about more interesting things like the subpoena? But also while we’re on the dance scene, Blake is not always pulling away, there are times she puts her arms around his neck and pulls him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

DP can you two stop bickering so we can talk about more interesting things like the subpoena? But also while we’re on the dance scene, Blake is not always pulling away, there are times she puts her arms around his neck and pulls him in.

And yet she does repeatedly pull away, often when he is kissing her. Which goes to my point.

[Anonymous]

I'm not interested in the subpoena but all you need to do to talk about it is post about it. Feel free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not interested in the subpoena but all you need to do to talk about it is post about it. Feel free.

Same, the subpoena is totally uninteresting to me. Largely because I think the texts are admissible even without it. There may be an ND problem related to them, but that's Jones' problem and I don't really care about Stephanie Jones personally (though I find the conflict between Jones and Abel and Nathan pretty juicy and interesting, but I don't view any of them as "right" -- they are all sleazy PR folks and act it).

I think if the subpoena were truly legally problematic for Lively's case, we'd already know it. I think it's irrelevant for the Lively/Baldoni stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

DP can you two stop bickering so we can talk about more interesting things like the subpoena? But also while we’re on the dance scene, Blake is not always pulling away, there are times she puts her arms around his neck and pulls him in.

And yet she does repeatedly pull away, often when he is kissing her. Which goes to my point.

DP. It's a scene of two people falling in love. Pushing and pulling away is what you do. Will they or won't they, and that kind of crap. If she honestly was uncomfortable and stopped him to say this isn't in the script, or I want an IC if you're adding kissing, I'd support her, but she presented her concerns as purely artistic, wanting to make the scene more romantic. For hostile work environment SH it has to be unwelcome behavior and often complainants need to speak up to make that clear. He can't be expected to read her mind here. A reasonable person wouldn't be expected to understand her body language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not interested in the subpoena but all you need to do to talk about it is post about it. Feel free.

Same, the subpoena is totally uninteresting to me. Largely because I think the texts are admissible even without it. There may be an ND problem related to them, but that's Jones' problem and I don't really care about Stephanie Jones personally (though I find the conflict between Jones and Abel and Nathan pretty juicy and interesting, but I don't view any of them as "right" -- they are all sleazy PR folks and act it).

I think if the subpoena were truly legally problematic for Lively's case, we'd already know it. I think it's irrelevant for the Lively/Baldoni stuff.

I disagree. The fact that it hasn’t been produced yet suggests it is damaging to one or more parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

DP can you two stop bickering so we can talk about more interesting things like the subpoena? But also while we’re on the dance scene, Blake is not always pulling away, there are times she puts her arms around his neck and pulls him in.

And yet she does repeatedly pull away, often when he is kissing her. Which goes to my point.

DP. It's a scene of two people falling in love. Pushing and pulling away is what you do. Will they or won't they, and that kind of crap. If she honestly was uncomfortable and stopped him to say this isn't in the script, or I want an IC if you're adding kissing, I'd support her, but she presented her concerns as purely artistic, wanting to make the scene more romantic. For hostile work environment SH it has to be unwelcome behavior and often complainants need to speak up to make that clear. He can't be expected to read her mind here. A reasonable person wouldn't be expected to understand her body language.

Not to mention they are ACTING a romantic scene from a book where his character is controlling. It amazes me how many of the comments on the Blake side lose sight of this repeatedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not interested in the subpoena but all you need to do to talk about it is post about it. Feel free.

Same, the subpoena is totally uninteresting to me. Largely because I think the texts are admissible even without it. There may be an ND problem related to them, but that's Jones' problem and I don't really care about Stephanie Jones personally (though I find the conflict between Jones and Abel and Nathan pretty juicy and interesting, but I don't view any of them as "right" -- they are all sleazy PR folks and act it).

It’s not necessarily just Jones’ problem if the supboena was issued by Blake’s lawyers and wasn’t fully above board. Why was it filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by Blake’s lawyers and why was there no court stamp? What case was it part of, and if it was pre litigation discovery, where’s the court order? If the texts were subpoenaed as part of pending litigation but instead were leaked to the nyt first, can that void the litigation privilege? Courts have rules and a lot of rules seem to have been violated here.

I think if the subpoena were truly legally problematic for Lively's case, we'd already know it. I think it's irrelevant for the Lively/Baldoni stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not interested in the subpoena but all you need to do to talk about it is post about it. Feel free.

Same, the subpoena is totally uninteresting to me. Largely because I think the texts are admissible even without it. There may be an ND problem related to them, but that's Jones' problem and I don't really care about Stephanie Jones personally (though I find the conflict between Jones and Abel and Nathan pretty juicy and interesting, but I don't view any of them as "right" -- they are all sleazy PR folks and act it).

I think if the subpoena were truly legally problematic for Lively's case, we'd already know it. I think it's irrelevant for the Lively/Baldoni stuff.

Sorry I posted my response in the middle of your text, so posting again…

It’s not necessarily just Jones’ problem if the supboena was issued by Blake’s lawyers and wasn’t fully above board. Why was it filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by Blake’s lawyers and why was there no court stamp? What case was it part of, and if it was pre litigation discovery, where’s the court order? If the texts were subpoenaed as part of pending litigation but instead were leaked to the nyt first, can that void the litigation privilege? Courts have rules and a lot of rules seem to have been violated here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Just as we said” lol

I’ve ignored this thread for a long time, but, whatever. It’s pretty likely that none of what’s transpired in terms of actual reportage and seeming public opinion favors Lively/Reynolds. Their facades are busted and their careers at least somewhat compromised. Because they’re a$$holes and didn’t realize sometimes people can and will fight back. Kind of pathetic that you like people like that.

Not just likes them, spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Not the poster being referred to, but this could easily apply to Baldoni and Freedman too. None of these people are deserving of white knighting.

Really? When did they fabricate a story of sexual harassment and take it to The NY Times?

This is bananas. If the SH was a fabrication, Baldoni certainly shouldn’t have signed on to the 17 point list. He is not blameless but you guys sure have drunk the kool aide.

And we’re back to square one. I’ve never sneered at someone and said they were drinking Kool-Aid, which is how it’s spelled incidentally. But the rooftop scene showed me that Lively is a cold, dumb liar, and I’m rather obviously not the only person reaching that conclusion.

However this all concludes there is no likely way BL/RR wind up happy. You can’t get back a reputation for being good-humored decent-enough people after this. Or rather, they can’t.

And we’re back to rules for thee and not for me, because it was obviously sneering to say either “Kind of pathetic that you like people like that” OR the follow up comment of “spends an enormous amount of time on this thread supporting them, while simultaneously adopting a holier than thou attitude.” But somehow the kool aid comment is a bridge too far to you.

And I am not the only person who viewed the dance scene as Lively trying to keep the seen to its scripted gazing and dancing rather than unscripted kissing, repeatedly pulling away from Baldoni.

DP can you two stop bickering so we can talk about more interesting things like the subpoena? But also while we’re on the dance scene, Blake is not always pulling away, there are times she puts her arms around his neck and pulls him in.

And yet she does repeatedly pull away, often when he is kissing her. Which goes to my point.

DP. It's a scene of two people falling in love. Pushing and pulling away is what you do. Will they or won't they, and that kind of crap. If she honestly was uncomfortable and stopped him to say this isn't in the script, or I want an IC if you're adding kissing, I'd support her, but she presented her concerns as purely artistic, wanting to make the scene more romantic. For hostile work environment SH it has to be unwelcome behavior and often complainants need to speak up to make that clear. He can't be expected to read her mind here. A reasonable person wouldn't be expected to understand her body language.

Not to mention they are ACTING a romantic scene from a book where his character is controlling. It amazes me how many of the comments on the Blake side lose sight of this repeatedly.

I haven’t read the book, but from what I understand from people discussing the book online, Baldoni was very much in character and Blake was not (because she hadn’t read the book). Apparently Baldoni’s character was obsessed with lily’s tattoo (the one on her collarbone that we later learn is significant to her relationship with Atlas) and that’s why he was always touching and kissing that area. This is all in the book.