Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Dp, but what is creepy to me is researching and posting about the personal lives of the Baldoni attorneys. It’s stalkerish. YMMV.

You mean like Baldoni supporters digging into the financial info of New York Times board members to find connections to Ryan Reynolds?

Or like Baldoni supporters obsessively tracking who is liking Baldoni's posts on Instagram? Or whether Travis Kelce follows Ryan Reynolds or not?

Or like Baldoni supporters tracking Taylor Swift's whereabouts for clues on whether or not she is still friends with Blake?

Or like Baldoni supporters digging up every LLC Ryan Reynold has ever registered?

Or like Baldoni supporters getting a donut shop shut down by making complaints about Lively not wearing a hair net during a short photo op there, even though they have never set foot in that donut shop?

Or like Baldoni supporters obsessing over three paparazzi photos of Blake walking to her car on a Saturday?

Or like Baldoni supporters combing through every interview Lively or Reynolds has ever given to find "evidence" which is actually just a couple hours babbling to the press about various projects?

Or like Baldoni supporters trying to hunt down the sexual assault victim Lively referenced anonymously in a speech?

I could go on.

If it wasn’t for these Baldoni supporters, no one would have known about the Vanzam sham lawsuit. People just want to uncover the truth.

No, they want to cherry pick the truth. Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, I don’t see how you can be a lawyer and make determining statements based on biased facts. That’s not how we were trained in law school. And no way does that serve as sound consultancy in advising a client. You are not a lawyer. You are a paid influencer.

Where do you live? If you are in the DMV, do you want to meet up? I will show you I’m just a dmv lawyer mom. These accusations are so tiresome and paranoid.

I, just like everyone else, want reasonable discussion of the facts. Countering has to be based on reason. It’s how you debate. But this grasping at straws and straw men is pure fiction, and it’s what makes people like me unashamed to bash lively supporters.

I would turn on Baldoni if I honestly believe he harassed her, he retaliated against her, and that she was trustworthy. Blake has lied sooooooooooo many times already, and who knows who is lying about TS involvement —is it Blake who says Taylor was involved in the production every step of the way,” or is it Taylor who said “ I only gave them the song, nothing else, no other involvement at all!”

Who are YOU going to believe?

No Sh and an invisible retaliation campaign that she thinks occurred.

How many millions are being spent on this case, based on Blake’s “hunches?”

So I guess that’s a “no” then to my good faith offer to prove I’m just a regular person. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Being "creepy" doesn't meet the threshold for workplace sexual harassment and you know that. That's why you said his behavior was "harassing" and not "sexual" harassment because seeing a birthing video and claiming someone talked to your dead father doesn't meet that threshold either.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Dp, but what is creepy to me is researching and posting about the personal lives of the Baldoni attorneys. It’s stalkerish. YMMV.

You mean like Baldoni supporters digging into the financial info of New York Times board members to find connections to Ryan Reynolds?

Or like Baldoni supporters obsessively tracking who is liking Baldoni's posts on Instagram? Or whether Travis Kelce follows Ryan Reynolds or not?

Or like Baldoni supporters tracking Taylor Swift's whereabouts for clues on whether or not she is still friends with Blake?

Or like Baldoni supporters digging up every LLC Ryan Reynold has ever registered?

Or like Baldoni supporters getting a donut shop shut down by making complaints about Lively not wearing a hair net during a short photo op there, even though they have never set foot in that donut shop?

Or like Baldoni supporters obsessing over three paparazzi photos of Blake walking to her car on a Saturday?

Or like Baldoni supporters combing through every interview Lively or Reynolds has ever given to find "evidence" which is actually just a couple hours babbling to the press about various projects?

Or like Baldoni supporters trying to hunt down the sexual assault victim Lively referenced anonymously in a speech?

I could go on.

If it wasn’t for these Baldoni supporters, no one would have known about the Vanzam sham lawsuit. People just want to uncover the truth.

No, they want to cherry pick the truth. Fixed it for you.

You don’t say Lively supporters do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

Which wasn’t the case here, since filming of the birth scene has already been completed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Except if you’re the director of a film and the scene that you are directing is a birthing scene. Now that would be incredibly reasonable to say “her, here is some research on a live birth that maybe you can take some context tips from, especially since you never bothered to read the actual book that the film we are filming is based on.”

How unreasonable (and creepy—right). Not.

First of all, Lively has a bit of experience with "live birth" so I don't think he problem here was that Lively didn't know what childbirth looked like.

Second, no one said to her "hey here is some research on birth we'd like you to look at so you know what we're going for." Baldoni and Heath don't even contend that happen. By their own admission, Baldoni sent Heath to show Lively the birth video because he believed she'd never seen one like it before and that she would "presumably" want to watch it.

Third, the video was shown after they had already filmed the birth scene. So it could not possibly have been presented as research for the movie unless they were suggesting reshooting it, which would itself be obnoxious because the whole reason Lively agreed to do the partial simulated nudity was to avoid filming delays, even though she had no warning of it and wasn't comfortable.

I'm sure I'll be told these are all "alternative facts." But the truth is that you just don't like it when people point out the birth video was shown after the scene was filmed, without warning, and without consent. That is the truth. But it is inconvenient for people who want to assert that Baldoni and Heath have never done anything wrong in their lives and were perfect angels on this set, so it is ignored and people who point it out are accuse of being "paid influencers."

So go ahead, accuse me of lying and being a paid influencer because you can't stand to see someone state FACTS that don't make Baldoni look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

Which wasn’t the case here, since filming of the birth scene has already been completed.

And they never reshoot scenes in Hollywood? Stupid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Being "creepy" doesn't meet the threshold for workplace sexual harassment and you know that. That's why you said his behavior was "harassing" and not "sexual" harassment because seeing a birthing video and claiming someone talked to your dead father doesn't meet that threshold either.

His behavior was both harassing and sexual and in several instances, sexually harassing. But "sexual harassment" does not just refer to someone hitting on or "ogling" someone at work, and the "sexual" in sexual harassment can also refer to gendered behavior, not just sexual behavior (i.e. a boss who repeatedly says nasty or critical things about women in front of his female employees could be guilty of sexual harassment even if he never tries to sleep with any of them).

Creepy isn't a legal term of course. But whether or not a situation constitutes hostile work environment requires a judgment call by a jury -- would a reasonable person find this behavior okay? I don't, I find it "creepy" and if I were on a jury and presented evidence of the behavior in Lively's complaint, I would consider this a hostile work environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.