Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read this thread everyday (cue the poster that insults me and instructs me to take a break who got this thread locked down the first time) and I have noticed that a ton of pro lively/defense of lively posts all at once on certain days. Very sus.

The majority of posters on here are not obsessed with baldoni and think he does no wrong. However he is the more of the victim based on all of the evidence that has been released so far. Blake and her husband are absolutely nuts.

Very sus. I come for the interesting discussion of the legal cases and completely check out when those posters get fired up.

[Anonymous]

I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

His male feminist shtick, him being fine playing a Latino guy for years when he is a white Italian, hiring Johnny Depp’s crisis PR group, the verified texts from him participating in the smear campaign, plus deeply religious people inherently raise red flags for most especially a religion like balahai that people in US at least are not super familiar with. They’re both insufferable

That a bigoted things to say.

And he was cast in that role on Jane the Virgin. Great show! I've never heard that he misrepresented his racial identity in getting the part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

Idk people do have an energy that he's right it's worthless when people talk about other theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

Idk people do have an energy that he's right it's worthless when people talk about other theories.

You don’t have other theories. You have a lot of desire to repeatedly mistate facts. And yes, it’s you, and no, no one is going to give you a personal primer through his attorney’s point by point refutation of her lies. It’s not “theory of the case” stuff. And it’s damned clear. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

One thing I cannot shake is how much the vitriol against Lively resembles the online comments about Amber Heard during the lead up to and during the trial.

Heard was also a deeply imperfect victim with a shake case -- she lost, if you recall. But she was also pretty clearly a victim of abuse, something that got very lost in the mix.

Lively's situation is very, very different -- she wasn't married to Baldoni and she was on much more equal footing to him professionally and arguably more powerful due to her husband's wealth/status. I don't think Lively was a victim of abuse the same way I think Heard was.

But I do think Lively is being treated very similarly by the online mob, and that Baldoni seems to be capitalizing on that dynamic. And that's why I find myself sometimes sticking up for Lively in this thread, especially regarding her retaliation case against Baldoni, which I think has legs. Not because I think she's great or don't think she hasn't engaged in her own bad behavior here. But because I saw with Heard how the online pile on buried her and the much more nuanced truth got lost under the chorus of "She's a liar" and "She's crazy," which do in fact happen to be the two most popular ways to discredit a woman (well that and "she's ugly" or "she's old" but bonus -- Lively gets that too).

I'm not a Blake Lively fan and I certainly don't work for her PR team. But I'm not ready to call her a liar just because the lawyer and the PR team for the guy she's suing, really, really want me to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

Idk people do have an energy that he's right it's worthless when people talk about other theories.

You don’t have other theories. You have a lot of desire to repeatedly mistate facts. And yes, it’s you, and no, no one is going to give you a personal primer through his attorney’s point by point refutation of her lies. It’s not “theory of the case” stuff. And it’s damned clear. Sorry!

Stop yelling and swearing at people.

By the way, you are accusing this PP (who is not me) of being me. Log off, babe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

Idk people do have an energy that he's right it's worthless when people talk about other theories.

You don’t have other theories. You have a lot of desire to repeatedly mistate facts. And yes, it’s you, and no, no one is going to give you a personal primer through his attorney’s point by point refutation of her lies. It’s not “theory of the case” stuff. And it’s damned clear. Sorry!

You don't know what I have This is exactly what I was talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I check this thread all the time (maybe not daily, be t a few times a week) and I'm not sure I've EVER read a truly pro-Lively post. Do they get deleted?

I see three kinds of posts:

1) Poor Justin/Lively and Reynolds are evil/the NYT is evil/Lively is a liar/Baldoni's lawyer is a genius/Lively's lawyers are "mid"/etc.

2) Debate over who has the better legal case, sometimes with editorializing about the people involved, as sometimes not. Some of these could be considered pro-Lively in that they might argue Lively has a case or that alternatively Baldoni's case is weak. But none of them actually celebrate or compliment Lively. In fact many will be prefaced "I hate Blake Lively, but." They are usually just focused on the legal arguments. Also Mamy of the posts in this category attack Lively's case or argue Baldoni's case is stronger, but in the legal merits as opposed to just picking a team.

3) People who enjoy the gossip/drama but do not appear to take a side either way.

Never seen anyone actually try to argue Lively is great or she has a slam dunk case.

Well she doesn't have a dlam dunk case so there's that

I agree but also neither does he, yet when people post on this thread that he does, they don't get accused of being members of his pr team.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say he has a slam dunk case. Just that he was probably in the right and that his case looks stronger than some might think

Idk people do have an energy that he's right it's worthless when people talk about other theories.

You don’t have other theories. You have a lot of desire to repeatedly mistate facts. And yes, it’s you, and no, no one is going to give you a personal primer through his attorney’s point by point refutation of her lies. It’s not “theory of the case” stuff. And it’s damned clear. Sorry!

Stop yelling and swearing at people.

By the way, you are accusing this PP (who is not me) of being me. Log off, babe.

That part because I am not any of the ones who do the long paragraphs. I chime and even that get pushback lmao

[Anonymous]

I thought the publication Puck (founded by former Hollywood Reporter journalist Matt Belloni) did a good analysis on the Baldoni vs. NYTimes case.
https://puck.news/blake-lively-v-justin-baldoni-round-2/

The piece touches on why Freedman wanted a California state court.

"When I contacted Freedman, he was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about his strategy. My guess? He’s more comfortable with the local legal arena, betting on the known quantities on the bench.

However, I do wonder if it has anything to do with a notable ruling last year in former film financier Ryan Kavanaugh’s case against podcaster Ethan Klein, where a judge allowed a libel suit to proceed despite an anti-SLAPP challenge centered on the application of fair report privilege. The dispute is terribly complicated—see my prior report for details—but long story short: Klein failed in his attempt to invoke the shield because the judge didn’t think what he repeated about Kavanaugh operating a “Ponzi scheme” was particularly fair."

[Anonymous]

This set of circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with the DV in a marriage between Amber Heard and Depp. The power difference between Reynolds/Lively makes them the Depp, not the Heard, and best I know, there was no documentary evidence like screenshots of uncut and unedited text comms backing up either of those parties. So no, sorry, I don’t see any commonalities between these things, nor between Lively’s acts and those of any MeToo claimant in Hollywood or otherwise.

We have to wait and see but I think she ended her career with going to the NYT. Baldoni and his production company likely had the ultimate prize of establishing a working relationship with Sony for additional future projects, which is why he bent over backwards to accommodate the impossible. (That is it seems the “he’s a jerk too” “he is a grifter” stuff - it makes no sense). I find Lively’s actions outrageous and dishonest and the only way to see otherwise is to decide against reason that she is telling the truth as an act of will, because it isn’t backed up with any publicly available information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the publication Puck (founded by former Hollywood Reporter journalist Matt Belloni) did a good analysis on the Baldoni vs. NYTimes case.
https://puck.news/blake-lively-v-justin-baldoni-round-2/

The piece touches on why Freedman wanted a California state court.

"When I contacted Freedman, he was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about his strategy. My guess? He’s more comfortable with the local legal arena, betting on the known quantities on the bench.

However, I do wonder if it has anything to do with a notable ruling last year in former film financier Ryan Kavanaugh’s case against podcaster Ethan Klein, where a judge allowed a libel suit to proceed despite an anti-SLAPP challenge centered on the application of fair report privilege. The dispute is terribly complicated—see my prior report for details—but long story short: Klein failed in his attempt to invoke the shield because the judge didn’t think what he repeated about Kavanaugh operating a “Ponzi scheme” was particularly fair."

Interesting piece, thanks for posting.