Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

I’ve seen extension requests denied in contentious litigation when opposed by the other side. Haven’t you, or am I actually a more experienced litigator than you, lol?

Looking back, what’s especially funny is that when Liman denied Lively’s extension request that Freedman consented to, team Baldoni took that as a particular slight against Lively and read it as a sign that Freedman was making headway with Liman, though he wasn’t. Looking above, you still read it that way instead of seeing Liman as just enforcing his good cause standard religiously. The Baldoni extension denial shouldn’t have been a surprise and shouldn’t have been something to feel cocky about given that earlier denial, but the excessive distain for Lively some of you feel gets in the way of your judgment.

And to the PP who is confident I was the bookmarker, I was not, so you’ve been arrogant about something you’re wrong about twice in as many pages. But please go off about how much smarter than us you are etc.

Fwiw, it’s certainly not inconceivable to me that NYT remains as a party after the MTDs (though I think it’s more likely they will be dismissed and that the judge has telegraphed this somewhat by granting the stay). I mean, I think they will be dismissed, lost likely with prejudice. But I don’t think you’re bananas. However, you were certainly rude to PP, who was just trying to have a conversation with you, and that your cockiness is strange given your rate of error ha.

Sigh. Right right. You’re a new poster. You know we see you, right? Your obsessiveness is very telling.

I’m not a new poster but you’re confusing multiple posters as one. Why not go check in website feedback for like the FOURTH time only to have Jeff tell you again that we are not sockpuppeting and there are multiple non-Baldoni-stan posters here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New docs on the Abel v Jones lawsuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/

So, skimming through Abel's amended answer (docket #50) she is using the subpoena and sham lawsuit to sue Jones for all kinds of computer related crimes (including the Federal Wiretapping Act), claiming Jones released the entirety of her phone to Lively without authorization. I would think most of these claims fail because it's a work phone, but would be interested to hear from tech lawyers. The hardware was obviously owned by Jones, but perhaps Abel has a point about the cloud. Abel claims a "possessory interest" in the phone #.

And, I'm sorry, but I'm laughing at the part where Abel claims she was "duped" into giving up her passcode to Jones along with the phone (!!!). This literally all could have been avoided.

This part is interesting especially the claim they monitored her after the fact:
: Jones and Jonesworks have used the illicitly obtained contents of these electronic communications to, inter alia, (1) monitor Abel’s activities after her termination from Jonesworks;
(2) spy on her conversations with third parties, including Wayfarer and Baldoni; (3) interfere with
Abel’s nascent small business and gain a competitive advantage in relation thereto; (4) harm
Abel’s career and reputation; (5) cause Abel mental and emotional distress; and (6) share them
with hostile third parties, including Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and their affiliated entities.

I’m not a CA lawyer or an employment lawyer, and I haven’t followed this closely, and I don’t know, but this suit poses some interesting issues. Jones arguably had a right to the phone itself and access to her work email while Abel was employed by her (I’m also curious what waivers, releases etc employees signed, which would be standard in a larger corp, but maybe not here) but outside of that, I’d think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. CA tends to be pro employee so I’m curious how this plays out.

Any employment lawyers on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

I’ve seen extension requests denied in contentious litigation when opposed by the other side. Haven’t you, or am I actually a more experienced litigator than you, lol?

Looking back, what’s especially funny is that when Liman denied Lively’s extension request that Freedman consented to, team Baldoni took that as a particular slight against Lively and read it as a sign that Freedman was making headway with Liman, though he wasn’t. Looking above, you still read it that way instead of seeing Liman as just enforcing his good cause standard religiously. The Baldoni extension denial shouldn’t have been a surprise and shouldn’t have been something to feel cocky about given that earlier denial, but the excessive distain for Lively some of you feel gets in the way of your judgment.

And to the PP who is confident I was the bookmarker, I was not, so you’ve been arrogant about something you’re wrong about twice in as many pages. But please go off about how much smarter than us you are etc.

Fwiw, it’s certainly not inconceivable to me that NYT remains as a party after the MTDs (though I think it’s more likely they will be dismissed and that the judge has telegraphed this somewhat by granting the stay). I mean, I think they will be dismissed, lost likely with prejudice. But I don’t think you’re bananas. However, you were certainly rude to PP, who was just trying to have a conversation with you, and that your cockiness is strange given your rate of error ha.

Sigh. Right right. You’re a new poster. You know we see you, right? Your obsessiveness is very telling.

I’m not a new poster but you’re confusing multiple posters as one. Why not go check in website feedback for like the FOURTH time only to have Jeff tell you again that we are not sockpuppeting and there are multiple non-Baldoni-stan posters here?

I’m not bothering Jeff with this nonsense but I wouldn’t put posting from different devices beyond you. You’re just obsessed. But truthfully, I mostly don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the judge not giving either party an extension when requested, but in particular, the assented to extension Lively requested, is highly unusual. So, to the weird poster who spent weeks crowing she predicted the result, even a stopped clock is right sometimes. And no, I am not the poster who predicted the extension would be granted.

I’ve seen extension requests denied in contentious litigation when opposed by the other side. Haven’t you, or am I actually a more experienced litigator than you, lol?

Looking back, what’s especially funny is that when Liman denied Lively’s extension request that Freedman consented to, team Baldoni took that as a particular slight against Lively and read it as a sign that Freedman was making headway with Liman, though he wasn’t. Looking above, you still read it that way instead of seeing Liman as just enforcing his good cause standard religiously. The Baldoni extension denial shouldn’t have been a surprise and shouldn’t have been something to feel cocky about given that earlier denial, but the excessive distain for Lively some of you feel gets in the way of your judgment.

And to the PP who is confident I was the bookmarker, I was not, so you’ve been arrogant about something you’re wrong about twice in as many pages. But please go off about how much smarter than us you are etc.

Fwiw, it’s certainly not inconceivable to me that NYT remains as a party after the MTDs (though I think it’s more likely they will be dismissed and that the judge has telegraphed this somewhat by granting the stay). I mean, I think they will be dismissed, lost likely with prejudice. But I don’t think you’re bananas. However, you were certainly rude to PP, who was just trying to have a conversation with you, and that your cockiness is strange given your rate of error ha.

Sigh. Right right. You’re a new poster. You know we see you, right? Your obsessiveness is very telling.

I’m not a new poster but you’re confusing multiple posters as one. Why not go check in website feedback for like the FOURTH time only to have Jeff tell you again that we are not sockpuppeting and there are multiple non-Baldoni-stan posters here?

I’m not bothering Jeff with this nonsense but I wouldn’t put posting from different devices beyond you. You’re just obsessed. But truthfully, I mostly don’t care.

“I don’t want Jeff to tell me I’m wrong again but that won’t stop me from posting more insults and insisting I really don’t care very much while calling other people obsessed” 👍

[Anonymous]

Anyone watched her Times 100 speech? I’m speechless. I want to know what is going on with her PR—this is baffling.


https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/dbFzCIo8bJ. I don’t have TikTok and couldn’t find the speech on YT but it’s posted on the link to the Reddit post.

[Anonymous]

Women thrive on hating women as evidenced by this thread and the one that preceded it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women thrive on hating women as evidenced by this thread and the one that preceded it.

Yeah. You're not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Not an attorney or a publicist. Not a frequent poster on this thread. But I'll wager a prediction about this case: Blake is going down. I don't know what will happen in court but Blake is not going to get much work at all, because she's too much of a liability. Even if she wins, she will lose. By contrast, Baldoni will become highly successful because this case has made him famous and hasn't reflected negatively on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not an attorney or a publicist. Not a frequent poster on this thread. But I'll wager a prediction about this case: Blake is going down. I don't know what will happen in court but Blake is not going to get much work at all, because she's too much of a liability. Even if she wins, she will lose. By contrast, Baldoni will become highly successful because this case has made him famous and hasn't reflected negatively on him.

I *am* a frequent poster on this thread, and I tend to take Lively’s side, and I agree that what you’re saying is highly probable. Even if she wins. I don’t think it’s right, but that seems to be the culture.

[Anonymous]

I agree that Baldoni has been the big winner from the case so far. His image/brand has remained strong. Having several cast members from the movie and prior sets willing to speak highly of working with you adds to his credibility.

Ryan may have to pay, but will rebound. Blake won’t get cast in much going forward, unless it’s thru Ryan’s influence. Sad to say this, and I’m a Bsldoni supporter, but their money will bring more opportunities for them to rebound.


What has changed for me is TS. She’s really no different than them. She just knows how to play her image better.

[Anonymous]

I have lost track of the many parts of the trial, but RR and BL are trying much too hard to still have exposure and force people to see them as these funny, carefree, awesome people everyone loves so it comes off desperate and rings false. Baldoni is handling much better just chilling with his family in Hawaii.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an attorney or a publicist. Not a frequent poster on this thread. But I'll wager a prediction about this case: Blake is going down. I don't know what will happen in court but Blake is not going to get much work at all, because she's too much of a liability. Even if she wins, she will lose. By contrast, Baldoni will become highly successful because this case has made him famous and hasn't reflected negatively on him.

I *am* a frequent poster on this thread, and I tend to take Lively’s side, and I agree that what you’re saying is highly probable. Even if she wins. I don’t think it’s right, but that seems to be the culture.

I’m not sure that the culture is wrong here though. If Blake was sexually harassed, she didn’t go through the right channels.

Someone on her team, her PR folks, certainly legal, ideally any other trusted advisor, should have told her what happens when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment. We are in a different time with me too, but you still need to follow certain protocols. From what a lot of people are seeing about this case, she complained about some inappropriate behavior during the strike, everyone met about it, and the inappropriate behavior was stopped. I think people are confused…. that is kind of the ideal situation. At most, she should’ve complained to SAG and gone to HR. Evidence shows that she tried to go to Sony and they told her they couldn’t handle it, which is a bit of a red flag given they are a big corporation, if it wasn’t in their purview, they should’ve directed her to go to sag. SAG is the non-biased third-party that is there to help.

Instead she went scorched Earth and really started a PR war with him to publicly damage his reputation over the summer. It seems she assumed a lot of the bad press was from the campaign, but again, a trusted advisor should’ve said, look maybe his campaign did some of this, but clearly some of this is organic and clearly you are not as loved by the public as we thought and let’s admit we got some of the marketing for this movie wrong and some fans are pissed. Let’s lay low and let this pass.

Then we find out they did this really dubious legal maneuver with a doe lawsuit that exposed that she started a company with ryan when he was very married to someone else. And she gets her very private friend Taylor Swift involved. It just seems like this was really poorly thought out.

If they they could just run to the New York Times and she would become some sort of me to movement hero, standing up for women everywhere, I mean, that’s just really really bad advice and reading the room wrong.

[Anonymous]

So NY Times seems to still be quite pro-Blake, the online front page mentions only her and Gayle King by name regarding the Time 100, and there's a photo of Blake, her mom, Georgina Chapman, and Demi Moore next to the headline.

The astroturfing angle has been interesting to me from the start. You have what Baldoni is accused of, which is the "organic" type astroturfing using bots and anonymous social media comments (which Lively has been accused of also, but more to bolster herself than attack anyone), vs Lively's more sophisticated PR campaign which uses legacy media and celebrity connections.

The result tends to be major media headlines more pro-Lively with the articles written in a way that is more neutral to positive for her (and almost always framing her as a legitimate MeToo victim) and then comments full of hate for her.

I don't know that either of them benefit so much. Baldoni has done a good job defending himself, but he was already transitioning to a more behind the scenes role before, so it's hard to say. I don't think he would have been going for lead roles regardless of the lawsuit. I think he'll still be able to direct and produce - the allegations, if true (and a lot of people think they aren't) aren't that bad, and if they go to trial, a lot of context will come out that will make most of it seem like no big deal. He certainly seems to have gained very ardent online fans who are way into the case, but does that translate to people that will go see any movie he directed?

Lively has the age thing working against her. IEWU was big, and she hasn't been able to leverage that so far into anything huge. She'll say it was the smear campaign, others will say it was her own blunders, and others will say it's the lawsuit itself causing the problems. She probably overplayed her hand. The bad publicity from the summer would have blown over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an attorney or a publicist. Not a frequent poster on this thread. But I'll wager a prediction about this case: Blake is going down. I Idon't know what will happen in court but Blake is not going to get much work at all, because she's too much of a liability. Even if she wins, she will lose. By contrast, Baldoni will become highly successful because this case has made him famous and hasn't reflected negatively on him.

I *am* a frequent poster on this thread, and I tend to take Lively’s side, and I agree that what you’re saying is highly probable. Even if she wins. I don’t think it’s right, but that seems to be the culture.

I’m not sure that the culture is wrong here though. If Blake was sexually harassed, she didn’t go through the right channels.

Someone on her team, her PR folks, certainly legal, ideally any other trusted advisor, should have told her what happens when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment. We are in a different time with me too, but you still need to follow certain protocols. From what a lot of people are seeing about this case, she complained about some inappropriate behavior during the strike, everyone met about it, and the inappropriate behavior was stopped. I think people are confused…. that is kind of the ideal situation. At most, she should’ve complained to SAG and gone to HR. Evidence shows that she tried to go to Sony and they told her they couldn’t handle it, which is a bit of a red flag given they are a big corporation, if it wasn’t in their purview, they should’ve directed her to go to sag. SAG is the non-biased third-party that is there to help.

Instead she went scorched Earth and really started a PR war with him to publicly damage his reputation over the summer. It seems she assumed a lot of the bad press was from the campaign, but again, a trusted advisor should’ve said, look maybe his campaign did some of this, but clearly some of this is organic and clearly you are not as loved by the public as we thought and let’s admit we got some of the marketing for this movie wrong and some fans are pissed. Let’s lay low and let this pass.

Then we find out they did this really dubious legal maneuver with a doe lawsuit that exposed that she started a company with ryan when he was very married to someone else. And she gets her very private friend Taylor Swift involved. It just seems like this was really poorly thought out.

If they they could just run to the New York Times and she would become some sort of me to movement hero, standing up for women everywhere, I mean, that’s just really really bad advice and reading the room wrong.

Sorry. I don’t believe this narrative at all. She was not sh. And the handful of examples she cited were proven wrong via hard evidence. She exaggerated or flat out lied.
Sony said she complained about covid, not harassment.

And I am reading that at last nights award show, there was no mentioned of the NAACP or blacks or service in any way. I heard it was a new (yes, newly dropped) narrative of her mom being sa, but with no real details.

What a mockery. But because Ryan has money, he will continue to buy influence.

[Anonymous]

Here's the text of her speech. Well, we can definitely say she's leaning into MeToo.

https://time.com/collections/time100-summit-gala-2025/7279196/time100-gala-blake-lively-speech/