celeb news Blake files new lawsuit, Justin sues NYT I Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni

[May]

I'm seeing people almost unanimously back Baldoni on TT now. The receipts I've seen are pretty damning especially the uncropped text message chains.

[orange22]

Quote

On June 2, 2023, Blake Lively began a text exchange with her "It Ends With Us" director and co-star Justin Baldoni that blamed her assistant for not getting her an updated batch of script pages. "She didn't realize they were new," Lively wrote. "New pages can always be sent to me as well please." The actress signed the missive with an "X" - the universal

symbol for a kiss. Lively followed up with another text shortly thereafter. "I'm just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines." Baldoni responded: "Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way." Eighteen months later, that interaction was depicted in a New York Times bombshell report in a far more sinister light. The Times wrote:

"[Baldoni] repeatedly entered her makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding."

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Shelter]

I hope the Trial is on TV. 
 

 

 

 

[Vermillion]

1 minute ago, Shelter said:

I hope the Trial is on TV. 

If I were either of their lawyers I'd advise against that.

 

Of course the new legal streaming networks that got a ton of subscribers during Depp+Heard are probably salivating at the idea.

[Shelter]

1 minute ago, Vermillion said:

If I were either of their lawyers I'd advise against that.

 

Of course the new legal streaming networks that got a ton of subscribers during Depp+Heard are probably salivating at the idea.

Do they get a choice? The Gwyneth trial was so funny 

[orange22]

23 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

And Blake's lawyers are Manatt and Willkie Farr & Gallagher

[Vermillion]

8 minutes ago, Shelter said:

Do they get a choice? The Gwyneth trial was so funny 

Great question, I don't know.

 

For the Gwyneth GIFs, well worth it 

https://imgur.com/JbwwCpW

https://imgur.com/Xrm3g76

[KingWitch]

16 minutes ago, Shelter said:

Do they get a choice? The Gwyneth trial was so funny 

Kinda? One of their lawyers can argue against a public trial if they feel like it will disadvantage them since it will have lots of media interest which can easily influence the judge.  Also the case has to do with media manipulation to spin a narrative, they can argue that a televised trial will just make things worse .

[MattieB]

1 hour ago, orange22 said:

The timing, lawsuit, allegations etc everything felt too convenient. I know how these people work

 

I need them dragged for filth

 

[MattieB]

25 minutes ago, orange22 said:

And Blake's lawyers are Manatt and Willkie Farr & Gallagher

GET THEM!

 

Cos what's that got to do with Justin?

[KKW]

1 hour ago, Vermillion said:

 

I'm convinced anyone who thinks this means anything lacks critical thinking lol. A lawyer/firm's job is to defend by any means necessary at the end of the day. People want to hire people who have a track record of winning as it's their JOB, ethical or not. 

 

Blake's publicist was Harvey Weinstein's. Does this mean Blake condones SA and abuse like?

Edited Wednesday at 07:14 PM by KKW

[simplywohoo]

6 minutes ago, KKW said:

I'm convinced anyone who thinks this means anything lacks critical thinking lol. A lawyer/firm's job is to defend by any means necessary at the end of the day. People want to hire people who have a track record of winning as it's their JOB, ethical or not. 

 

Blake's publicist was Harvey Weinstein's. Does this mean Blake condones SA and abuse like?

But doesn't the screenshot mean the lawyer himself paid someone off that accused him ? That's like if weinstein himself defended Blake 

Edited Wednesday at 07:20 PM by simplywohoo

[Nova_23]

why is he suing the NYT? 

[MattieB]

3 minutes ago, KKW said:

I'm convinced anyone who thinks this means anything lacks critical thinking lol. A lawyer/firm's job is to defend by any means necessary at the end of the day. People want to hire people who have a track record of winning as it's their JOB, ethical or not. 

 

Blake's publicist was Harvey Weinstein's. Does this mean Blake condones SA and abuse like?

Blake "That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever" Lively

[KKW]

1 minute ago, simplywohoo said:

But doesn't the screenshot mean the lawyer himself paid someone off that accused him ? That's like if weinstein himself defended Blake 

Most lawyers (especially ones that work with big names/in big industries) are not moral or ethical people, because it inherently goes against the nature of their job. Johnny Cochran is infamous for getting OJ off even though most people agree he murdered his wife and her friend. Do you think a morally "good" or ethical person is able to successfully do that?
 

So yes, this personal transgression is in fact believable given the personality type it takes to go into big law. However, it is completely irrelevant when it comes to assessing his client's culpability. People need to learn to stop casting immediate judgements because as another user said, there is nuance in everything, and most specifically lawsuits. Things do not exist in dichotomies no matter how hard people try to act as such, ESPECIALLY in a seedy industry like Hollywood

[simplywohoo]

1 minute ago, KKW said:

Most lawyers (especially ones that work with big names/in big industries) are not moral or ethical people, because it inherently goes against the nature of their job. Johnny Cochran is infamous for getting OJ off even though most people agree he murdered his wife and her friend. Do you think a morally "good" or ethical person is able to successfully do that?
 

So yes, this personal transgression is in fact believable given the personality type it takes to go into big law. However, it is completely irrelevant when it comes to assessing his client's culpability. People need to learn to stop casting immediate judgements because as another user said, there is nuance in everything, and most specifically lawsuits. Things do not exist in dichotomies no matter how hard people try to act as such, ESPECIALLY in a seedy industry like Hollywood

Hiring a gang rapist is never excusable 

There's thousands of lawyers and Justin still picked him. 

But that's just my opinion.

[Fama]

No one is denying that the smear campaign happened.

[KKW]

2 minutes ago, simplywohoo said:

Hiring a gang rapist is never excusable 

There's thousands of lawyers and Justin still picked him. 

But that's just my opinion.

I'm not saying it's excusable either. What I am saying is no one in Hollywood lives or operates on the same moral standard of an "every day" person. Thus, it makes sense why people in it do not bat an eye when hiring people who have disgusting and/or questionable pasts. Celebrity is the epitome of "anything goes." At the end of the day, people want to cover their asses in the eye of public perception. 
 

i.e. All the people (which is damn near EVERYBODY) who have a historically publicized relationship with Diddy and are now trying to separate themselves from that association given all that's come to light. Everyone around him knew what he was about because he was shameless in his transgressions, so it doesn't really matter if the relationship was rooted in business or personal ties. No one cared until it became bad to be associated with him in the public's eyes.

 

Once you start pointing the finger in Hollywood, it's very easy to get the finger pointed back at you

[RiseAndShine]

1 hour ago, orange22 said:

And Blake's lawyers are Manatt and Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Hope I'm not sounding dumb but could you please tell me what the significance of this statement is.

 

Have they done something unscrupulous?

[Rep2000]

On 12/22/2024 at 6:04 AM, By the Water said:

People being like "they're both terrible people. He's a predator and she's annoying" 

 

OT: Not the Baldoni gurls are even defending his gang-raping lawyer, I-
They truly are gonna give the Dr. Puke defenders a run for their title, are they?

 

[Fama]

5 minutes ago, KKW said:

I'm not saying it's excusable either. What I am saying is no one in Hollywood lives or operates on the same moral standard of an "every day" person. Thus, it makes sense why people in it do not bat an eye when hiring people who have disgusting and/or questionable pasts. Celebrity is the epitome of "anything goes." At the end of the day, people want to cover their asses in the eye of public perception. 
 

i.e. All the people (which is damn near EVERYBODY) who have a historically publicized relationship with Diddy and are now trying to separate themselves from that association given all that's come to light. Everyone around him knew what he was about because he was shameless in his transgressions, so it doesn't really matter if the relationship was rooted in business or personal ties. No one cared until it became bad to be associated with him in the public's eyes.

 

Once you start pointing the finger in Hollywood, it's very easy to get the finger pointed back at you

So, none of it matters? Everyone in Hollywood is the same, and they're all to blame? Everyone in Hollywood is bad and evil? All of them?

[KKW]

Just now, Fama said:

So, none of it matters? Everyone in Hollywood is the same, and they're all to blame? Everyone in Hollywood is bad and evil? All of them?

Yes, they are? Obviously there are some exceptions, but exceptions =/= the rule. Most are morally corrupt and we have been shown this time and time again in both public exposés/fallouts + associations people have with questionable people.

 

Blake has publicly aligned herself with the likes of Harvey and Woody Allen. She even went on to say that she didn't read Woody's victim's essay and did not want to speak speak on it bc she was unfamiliar. However, she made it a point that she found him to be "empowering to women" in spite of her knowledge this essay was out there. Does this mean she herself can't be a victim after the fact? Not at all. However, if we apply the same logic of "you are who you associate yourself with," she's not absolved from being someone people look at questionably either.

 

The affiliations game as justification for why one person is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong is just moot. It automatically turns into a thing of going in circles due to the nature of the industry.

[harwee]

Everyone's suing everyone in this circle of lawsuits. The winner here in the end will the lawyers and lawfirms. They all want that Deadpool monies.

 

[Maroonx]

LOL a 250 mil lawsuit over an article... that **** is gonna get dismissed x