Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

She got what she wanted, which was control of the movie editing. She didn't get upset again until she started getting bad press when the movie came out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask because I think it probably wasn't at the level of SH but I can see a scenario where she thought he was being creepy or weird, she complained, and in part because of who she's married to, and because of the 17 points, he was then extremely careful to basically not do anything even close to the behavior she complained about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

She got what she wanted, which was control of the movie editing. She didn't get upset again until she started getting bad press when the movie came out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Doesn't seem like it's the "only place" she didn't have trouble. We've seen photos of them on various location shoots where she doesn't complain about his behavior. But you've got to make her look as unreasonable as possible, I guess.

Those are public spaces. She's complained about him in private spaces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

PP answering my own questions now, but I guess it's because she got what she wanted. That's the thing though: Justin Baldoni is apparently such a sex pest and lacks such self-preservation instincts that he's willing to harass the wife of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but he magically stops during the second half of the movie? If he was brazen enough to lack self-control during the first half of the movie, he wouldn't magically stop during the second half. If anyone can truly be harassed by anyone, then we'd have to concede that fact patterns don't matter and sexual harassment is not worthy of academic study. It's not worth looking into any patterns because any man could start spontaneously harassing you. If people truly believed this, I think this would ironically discourage people from looking into any "red flags," making them even more unsafe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Doesn't seem like it's the "only place" she didn't have trouble. We've seen photos of them on various location shoots where she doesn't complain about his behavior. But you've got to make her look as unreasonable as possible, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Anonymous wrote:1) I still don't think it's a coincidence that the only place Blake didn't have trouble with Justin during the first half of the movie was on the plane with her children. Twisting claims about the plane ride would be a bridge too far for her, especially because it could involve her children having to give testimony.

2) For those of us who do believe she lied about being SH'd, I do wonder why she stopped with the claims during the second half of the movie? Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why not just continue twisting things?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More pro se stuff has been popping up. It's mostly Motions to Quash from the content creators, but also Perez Hilton requesting a protective order and a random guy making an argument why Lively's claims should be dismissed or summary judgment granted to Wayfarer (ie, what Freedman never bothered to do, and the guy has some decent points!).

The content creators mostly use similar templates but personalize them to their situations. There's one from Canada, one from the UK, and one who had just ONE subscriber. The one from the UK actually did have contact with Wayfarer's counsel because she's the one who tipped them off to the infamous NYT metadata, but she says they never replied to her. She says she was a domestic violence victim and calls the subpoena a digital strip search and points out several mistakes from Hudson.

I'm fascinated at how this will shake out... like, is Manatt going to rack up billables responding to whether they are required to follow the procedures under UK law when the creator is a British citizen but the subpoena is to Google? Are they going to argue they can't know if the creators are lying unless they get the IP proving they're not in the US? Are they going to get all aggressive and accuse them of crimes? (Some people on reddit want one of the creators prosecuted for allegedly committing perjury by using a fake name).

They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

I just again have no clue why Lively's side would open this all up. They really better have a damn good reason because it's so ridiculous. And this will all be coming to a head late next week when the lawyers will be there in person for a hearing regarding the subpoena to Freedman's law firm.

This won't be popular, but I don't honestly think these are well done so far and I do hope that someone does hire an attorney to fully represent the interests of these folks. I think that people enjoy digs these make to Lively, but some of what they are suggesting is not going to fly with the judge -- though I do think he will be generally sympathetic to their concerns re overreach and privacy.

That said, I do think that the fact that most of these folks are NOT hiring real lawyers suggests they don't think they have anything to be worried about.

It really doesn’t matter what these folks say beyond opposing. It’s all going to depend on whether Blake has a strong argument for targeting these particular people, it’s going to be a heightened standard because they are third parties, they are pro se and she is seeking financial info protected by federal privacy laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

Lmao I love it, that would be hilarious. But if they agreed at Wayfarer’s request, wouldn’t Blake then try to argue that this proves they actually were in cahoots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More pro se stuff has been popping up. It's mostly Motions to Quash from the content creators, but also Perez Hilton requesting a protective order and a random guy making an argument why Lively's claims should be dismissed or summary judgment granted to Wayfarer (ie, what Freedman never bothered to do, and the guy has some decent points!).

The content creators mostly use similar templates but personalize them to their situations. There's one from Canada, one from the UK, and one who had just ONE subscriber. The one from the UK actually did have contact with Wayfarer's counsel because she's the one who tipped them off to the infamous NYT metadata, but she says they never replied to her. She says she was a domestic violence victim and calls the subpoena a digital strip search and points out several mistakes from Hudson.

I'm fascinated at how this will shake out... like, is Manatt going to rack up billables responding to whether they are required to follow the procedures under UK law when the creator is a British citizen but the subpoena is to Google? Are they going to argue they can't know if the creators are lying unless they get the IP proving they're not in the US? Are they going to get all aggressive and accuse them of crimes? (Some people on reddit want one of the creators prosecuted for allegedly committing perjury by using a fake name).

They are so passionate I actually wonder if strategically, Wayfarer should ask if any of them want to volunteer to testify at trial and basically just explain how they, organically, started hating Lively on their own. It would be a free trip to NY and publicity for them... I think some would definitely do it!

I just again have no clue why Lively's side would open this all up. They really better have a damn good reason because it's so ridiculous. And this will all be coming to a head late next week when the lawyers will be there in person for a hearing regarding the subpoena to Freedman's law firm.

This won't be popular, but I don't honestly think these are well done so far and I do hope that someone does hire an attorney to fully represent the interests of these folks. I think that people enjoy digs these make to Lively, but some of what they are suggesting is not going to fly with the judge -- though I do think he will be generally sympathetic to their concerns re overreach and privacy.

That said, I do think that the fact that most of these folks are NOT hiring real lawyers suggests they don't think they have anything to be worried about.