Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Sorry, I did not mean to copy that whole post into this thread.  Here’s the link to the post containing images of the actual responses from Lively. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/2qKb9OAkan[/quote]

Thank you, yeah, that's not the RFAs it's the statement of facts.   I feel like Lively still wants to dispute it, but indeed, there is no evidence. That was weasely of NYT (I have no issue with them quoting the CRD and texts but they really did insinuate Flaa was involved or paid and there just has never been any evidence to support that). [/quote]

Flaa has come out and said she had no involvement with Baldoni’s team. Further how would they even know that this interview existed? I don’t think the full video was ever shown back in 2016.

In addition to there being no evidence linking them, Do you really think this journalist is lying? She’s had a pretty long career and Blake lively is not her first celebrity rodeo. basically you’re just saying they can’t prove it so the journalist must be lying? Even though we’ve caught Blake in 100 lies. Doesn’t add up. There is no evidence, the journalist denies it, at some point we just have to accept that it went organic on its own because it was a really, really horrible display of celeb behavior.[/quote]

Did anyone really think Wallace was lying?  Or Melissa Nathan?  And yet, signs point to yes, Case's testimony reflects that this whole team is filled with liars.  So while Lively may not have definite evidence of Flaa lying yet, I would not in any way be surprised.

And if you don't think Nathan and Wallace lied, what is your explanation for Case's testimony that they did, and that Nathan instructed her to write text for the defamatory websites?  How do you make that make sense?  Please explain that to me, I would love to hear it.[/quote]

I’d love to hear a real response from any of the Baldoni ass kissers on this question. Nathan and Wallace are very clearly lying about the work they really did in the case which they claim they never did.

What is your explanation for this?

How is this not perjury?  And if they would perjure themselves on this, why wouldn’t they (and the rest of the Ds) perjure themselves on the rest of what they did and didn’t do?  How do you think they have any credibility at all?[/quote]

Sister, Blake filed an entirely bogus lawsuit with the Court in Van Zan where the entire nature of her claim was misrepresented, and also outright lied in her original complaint (allegations about dance video that were disproved by video and subsequently dropped in Amended Compaint), and you want to get in the high horse about credibility?

I don’t think it’s obvious anyone lied with respect to the Jones litigation, isn’t there just conflicting testimony?  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics