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][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]

I don’t think are lying, they just didn’t need to do anything because Blake made herself look bad.[/quote]

This shows that you’re not reading all the deposition transcripts and are just reading the stuff the lawsuits sub tells you to read, or less.

Because Wallace and Nathan testified that they had nothing to do with the creation of the websites defaming Jones. But Katie Case testified that Nathan told her (as her employer) to draft up some language insulting to Jones, similar to what she had done in other cases, and to send it (I believe) to Wallace for inclusion either on the website itself or to be sent out via the defamatory social media accounts. And Case says she did all that, at Nathan’s instruction.

When Nathan was asked about this testimony that implicated her, Nathan had no other explanation but to say that Case was lying.

When Case was asked about it, she explained she had documents to back up the assertions she was making.

So I believe the person who has docs to prove the truth behind what they’re saying. But the Baldoni ass kissers clearly just want to put their head in a hole in the sand and pretend that none of this is happening to them. Good luck with that.

Ps:  None of this is anywhere near on the same level as Lively hiring lawyers to use a legal process (or at least seemingly legal process — and if it’s not, wtf haven’t WF done a single thing about it yet?) to obtain documents revealing the Baldoni team’s lying and deception?  Or anywhere near Lively remembering some things differently than Baldoni but nothing’s as serious as forgetting the retaliatory acts you committed against the person you/your client sexually harassed?  Thinking Baldoni said “it smells SO good!” instead of “it smells good” is not the same level of deception and perjury as denying you were involved in creating defamatory websites against Jones that you actually did create. Sorry not sorry. [/quote]

Van Zan baby! Or perhaps the literally hundreds of discovery requests she sent to content creators to harass them since she didn’t actually enforce any beyond Popcorn Planet

Or the conflicting info given by her and Taylor about Taylor’s role in the movie.  I could go on and on . . .

[/quote]

You have no response to my perjury question. And the stuff you’re raising is not perjury. Even with VanZan, which is the worst thing you raise — you have hired lawyers to find a way to get what you want. If it’s not legal, that’s the lawyer’s fault!

Whereas with Nathan and Wallace, creating the websites about Jones is actually illegal if they are defamatory — and moreover lying about having been involved with creating them in a sworn deposition **is perjury**!!!

Actual perjury!

So please stop with the small potatoes and actually address my questions. The stuff Nathan and Wallace are accused of here (and there’s pretty good evidence for it) is **much** more serious than anything you have on Lively. How do you account for their lies?[/quote]

There is no point in having a discussion with someone who can’t admit her girl has been caught lying many times, and is also abusing the legal process.

It End With Courts and your similarly delusional friends await . . .
[/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