Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

They were not filming a birth scene.

Rights it’s only the most critical scene in the whole movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning.

She was told ahead of time.

Do you think if you say it enough, it will be true? She was not told ahead of time. Here is the description of the incident from Baldoni's own timeline AGAIN:

During lunch, as part of a continued creative discussion that Baldoni and Lively were having about the hospital birthing scene, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife’s post-home-birth video, stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching. Baldoni himself had seen the video prior and felt it was demonstrative of the spirit of his vision for the birthing scene. Heath agreed to share this deeply personal video and approached Lively with the video in hand. He proceeded to show her one second of it before Lively asked if Heath had permission to share the video, to which Heath confirmed that he did. Lively stated she would like to see the video but asked to watch it after finishing her lunch. Heath did not press the matter and moved on. (NOTE: Lively never did see the video beyond the one-second clip shown to her).

He did not tell her what it was and started the video with no warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning.

She was told ahead of time.

Do you think if you say it enough, it will be true? She was not told ahead of time. Here is the description of the incident from Baldoni's own timeline AGAIN:

During lunch, as part of a continued creative discussion that Baldoni and Lively were having about the hospital birthing scene, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife’s post-home-birth video, stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching. Baldoni himself had seen the video prior and felt it was demonstrative of the spirit of his vision for the birthing scene. Heath agreed to share this deeply personal video and approached Lively with the video in hand. He proceeded to show her one second of it before Lively asked if Heath had permission to share the video, to which Heath confirmed that he did. Lively stated she would like to see the video but asked to watch it after finishing her lunch. Heath did not press the matter and moved on. (NOTE: Lively never did see the video beyond the one-second clip shown to her).

He did not tell her what it was and started the video with no warning.

"stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

They were not filming a birth scene.

Rights it’s only the most critical scene in the whole movie.

It is amazing that you people accuse me and other Lively supporters of gaslighting, when you are MASTERS of the genre.

They were not filming the birth scene when Heath showed Lively the video of his wife. The scene had already been filmed and there were no plans to reshoot it. It *is* an incredibly critical scene, which is why it's crazy that Baldoni apparently had this vision for it to look like Heath's wife's home water birth video, but he didn't inform his lead actress they wanted to do the scene with full simulated nudity until the morning it was filmed, in violation of SAG guidelines for nudity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning.

She was told ahead of time.

Do you think if you say it enough, it will be true? She was not told ahead of time. Here is the description of the incident from Baldoni's own timeline AGAIN:

During lunch, as part of a continued creative discussion that Baldoni and Lively were having about the hospital birthing scene, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife’s post-home-birth video, stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching. Baldoni himself had seen the video prior and felt it was demonstrative of the spirit of his vision for the birthing scene. Heath agreed to share this deeply personal video and approached Lively with the video in hand. He proceeded to show her one second of it before Lively asked if Heath had permission to share the video, to which Heath confirmed that he did. Lively stated she would like to see the video but asked to watch it after finishing her lunch. Heath did not press the matter and moved on. (NOTE: Lively never did see the video beyond the one-second clip shown to her).

He did not tell her what it was and started the video with no warning.

"stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching."

Where in that sentence do you see the part where Heath or Baldoni told Livley that they wanted to show her Heath's wife's birth video? I'm looking and looking and I can't find it.

In fact the word "presumably" makes it clear they had no idea if she actually wanted to see it, they just assumed she would because.... they are weird, creepy men who think everyone wants to see Heath's wife's birth video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

They were not filming a birth scene.

Rights it’s only the most critical scene in the whole movie.

It is amazing that you people accuse me and other Lively supporters of gaslighting, when you are MASTERS of the genre.

They were not filming the birth scene when Heath showed Lively the video of his wife. The scene had already been filmed and there were no plans to reshoot it. It *is* an incredibly critical scene, which is why it's crazy that Baldoni apparently had this vision for it to look like Heath's wife's home water birth video, but he didn't inform his lead actress they wanted to do the scene with full simulated nudity until the morning it was filmed, in violation of SAG guidelines for nudity.

You have no idea whether they had plans to reshoot it, Arlington mom.

[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.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Dp. Where was it proven he used google AI? Fwiw lots of discovery tech used by law firms has an AI component. That’s very different than GAI though which is what this PP is implying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning.

She was told ahead of time.

Do you think if you say it enough, it will be true? She was not told ahead of time. Here is the description of the incident from Baldoni's own timeline AGAIN:

During lunch, as part of a continued creative discussion that Baldoni and Lively were having about the hospital birthing scene, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife’s post-home-birth video, stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching. Baldoni himself had seen the video prior and felt it was demonstrative of the spirit of his vision for the birthing scene. Heath agreed to share this deeply personal video and approached Lively with the video in hand. He proceeded to show her one second of it before Lively asked if Heath had permission to share the video, to which Heath confirmed that he did. Lively stated she would like to see the video but asked to watch it after finishing her lunch. Heath did not press the matter and moved on. (NOTE: Lively never did see the video beyond the one-second clip shown to her).

He did not tell her what it was and started the video with no warning.

"stating to Heath that Lively had not seen one and was presumably interested in watching."

Where in that sentence do you see the part where Heath or Baldoni told Livley that they wanted to show her Heath's wife's birth video? I'm looking and looking and I can't find it.

In fact the word "presumably" makes it clear they had no idea if she actually wanted to see it, they just assumed she would because.... they are weird, creepy men who think everyone wants to see Heath's wife's birth video.

Do you think childbirth is creepy? You seem to have some hang ups.

[Anonymous]

^ and I agree that calling out a fairly junior lawyer and stalking their background is not cool at all. Lively Weinstein Baldoni etc are public people. This lawyer is not

[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.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

Personally find your Stalkerish behavior far more creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Someone being friends with a predator, actually having dinner with them and being pictured with them is the same type of connection as their second cousin's best friend's husband being friends with a predator, got it.

There's no evidence Lively was friends with Weinstein. She did have dinner with him and there are some photos of them together. They worked in the same industry and Lively did movies with Miramax. You can find similar photos of many other actors and actresses in Hollywood.

Sunshine's dad repped Weinstein. That's not "second cousin's best friend's husband." It's his dad.