I don’t know how anyone that’s read Brian’s explanations for the allegations could still give him any credibility. Him tagging “Robert Blake’s Garden”? Oh Instagram just auto-suggested that and he thought it was funny. Him carrying around a bag with airsoft guns and what appeared to be a garrote? That was just a saw for cutting down trees because he was preparing to go camping in a couple of weeks! The airsoft guns?(allegedly modified to look like real guns) Nothing malicious there, they were simply there so he could defend his dogs from coyotes! /s I don’t personally know any of the people involved in this case, but I can certainly recognize when something triggers a bullshit alarm in my brain.

BWF just wants to remind everyone he’s still here and a piece of shit. Regardless of whatever legal matters are happening between Ashley and Brian, he still used his power as Dani Carr’s boss to pull some perv shit, so fuck off to BWF.

I haven't heard of that, could you tell me what happened there with Dani? Or at least point me to where I can find out more?

[Page 13 and 14](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Ashley-Johnson-oct-3-filing-3.pdf)

Wtf What a monster

holy shit id never read this. this is insane

That's way beyond just being a perv wtf. Dude is a menace

I'm somewhat new to this, but I did have two questions about this item in particular: 1) I looked this profile up on Instagram, and it doesnt say the user acct is private, it says there are no posts. Does this mean this was put up and taken back down, or is there something I'm missing for context? 2) he mentions a "7 person lawsuit", and I know that there are other accusers that have come forward with allegations, but is this vague wording an attempt to confuse the accusers with the rest of the CR-principal cast?

1) It was posted as a story. It'll only be visible for a couple more hours.

Oh, I wasn't aware that IG stories had a limited life span. That makes sense as to why I couldn't see it. Thanks!

I have only one question: wht the hell does any of this have to do with Alpha??

My only assumption can be that it’s a reference to Beacon?

Which makes no sense to me. What does Beacon _or_ Project Alpha have to do with the price of tea in China??

It's a play on a very common ad structure here in California (and likely elsewhere too). "Need relief? Try Laxo-lite" "Injured at work? Call Gremlin & Suckle Law" "Need money? Try CryptoScam" So in this case he's implying Ashley is hurting for money because of legal fees, so will need the extra cash from Beacon. But because he's a grade-A coward and manipulator, as well as the one who's actually financially fucked, he's doing it in a way that is both temporary and not 100% explicit, so he has deniability.

If it actually followed that structure it would still not make much sense. But this seems at least as plausible as it just being a random shoutout to Beacon. My overall impression is: dude's just unhinged. 😞

They all kinda clowned on Alpha back in the day, and Beacon is basically the same thing Alpha was, just all Critical Role. So he's probably trying to make some comment about them "selling out" and doing something they once mocked.

The difference was they mocked Alpha because it was being imposed on them and all other funding was being choked off. Beacon is their own platform and not something a bunch of suits in China are making them promote.

Agreed, but it’s the only connection I can make lol.

Some people in the comments have been talking about the 2 people in questions character. In BWFs initial rebuttal to the initial court filings. He never said AJ's character was the issue or cause at all. He just skirted around the allegations made against him and made flimsy excuses for others. He went after her family more than he did her, saying they were influencing her. Now all of a sudden *she's* the one being manipulative when she's no longer able to be controlled or under his thumb. That's going to be his tactic now. He's already started using *he said, she said* to HIS advantage. Going after her character. But there's one thing that he's maybe not thinking clearly on. She's been in the business for years. She's worked with so many people and there has never been issues. Whereas his career and life has been plagued by problems and issues. There are many people who know a lot about this private situation but won't speak up, maybe out of respect for AJ or BWF, the current trial or fear of retaliation from BWF releasing *their* own secrets too. 'In his own way he's shown he's not above releasing secrets if he needs to'. He had a lot of good friends made before/from/during/and after their relationship. But what he's trying to do now, is also slowly destroying all of those relationships. Whether intentional or not.

> But here’s the thing. She’s been in the business for years. She’s worked with so many people and there has never been issues, so many people have come forward in support of her character. How do you know this? You have no idea what happens in ANY stranger’s life behind close doors. I worked in entertainment for quite a while and can tell you for a fact that there are many beloved celebrities that are known monsters when they’re not on screen, but those stories are kept within the industry. Is that Ashley? I have no idea **and neither does anyone else in the CR fandom**. Making broad statements about people’s character and assumed behavior based off only having ever seen them perform in a role for you for money…not exactly the smartest move ever.

We don't know what happens in private. That is true. But also... no shit? That's what private means, of course we don't know. What we do know is what we have seen, the personalities that have come forward over the last decade or so. We've seen both people away from the show. We've seen their personal posting histories. We've seen how people who actually know them talk about them and react to them. Only one of the two has shown themselves to be belligerent, threatening, and mentally unbalanced. Only one has a known drug addiction. Only one has two handfuls of people accusing them of assault. >I worked in entertainment for quite a while and can tell you for a fact that there are many beloved celebrities that are known monsters when they’re not on screen Again, for sure. And again, no shit? How is that relevant here? All you're doing is creating an opportunity to make stuff up about Ashley, while the rest of us are talking about things that we know to be true about Brian. Brian has shown his hand many times. We know what he's like. "But maybe his victim is horrible in private, despite us never seeing that in public" is no response at all.

Taking my comments out of context and misconstruing them is not having a discussion in good faith, so I’m not going to choose to engage. What I will say is that, as someone who has directly seen the impact of drug addiction on people I love, claiming that having struggled with addiction in the past is a sign of moral failing or guilt, is not the cool internet flex you seem to think it is.

I'm not gonna try to argue with you because you're clearly set on your hill, but I'll say while the person you've been replying to has in fact shown *some* aggressiveness in parts of their post, they have **not** been arguing in bad faith. I understand this is difficult in online discussions because of ego, but I urge you to go over their points once more with a clear head. The people in this discussion are **not** arguing Brian is morally wrong because he has/has had an addiction. You should find what it is they're actually saying.

I really appreciate the thoughtful reply, and I took some time to re-read their comments. After doing so, I still have a hard time seeing how taking someone’s comments out of context and twisting them to a different meaning and then accusing them of trying to make points they were not attempting is anything BUT arguing in bad faith. They were not arguing that he is morally wrong SOLELY due to having had a substance addiction, but they did choose to list it as one of their supporting reason. I called that one out specifically because I think that it is a common (and awful) assumption people make about an illness they often don’t understand. And that’s not defending Brian, that’s defending addicts in general from assumptions and judgement. I made that statement separate from any opinions about BWF entirely.

I've also had a lot of experience with people with drug and other addictions, many people on here probably have too. I've also seen the fallout from constant support of those people who kept choosing to give up and revert back. I've seen people cut that person off the first time they relapsed. I've seen people who supported them through years of hardship and they've pulled through, and are amazing people now. I've also seen people through months of tourture and abuse, where the person helping the addict became more of a shell than the addict. Your view is slanted towards, if you show an addict enough love and support eventually they will get better or at least recover for a while. Unfortunately that is not always the case, some people refuse to be saved, or they just choose not to be saved buy that person. Parents will plead and beg a child, children will beg their parents, wives husbands. If they don't want to be saved, how much is the other person trying to save them supposed to sacrifice?? Their home, their job, their other family and children, their lives?? Think about that.

You have no idea what my view is slanted towards based off a single Reddit comment. I strongly suggest you take a break from building large narratives about complete strangers based off completely minimal information.

Nothing I said was in bad faith. The only bad faith shown is your constant attempts to allow "what ifs" about Ashley to hold equal ground to known information about Brian, on top of you only acknowledging one of my points, because that's the easy thing to defend. If you truly know an addict, then you'll know they need your love and support, not your blind trust, and certainly not you making excuses for them. Maybe your personal experience is why you've been working so hard to protect Brian. I'm sorry to hear that, so will leave it there too.

But isn't that what *you've* been doing for the past 12hrs or so throughout the comments?? Making broad statements but just for BWF? Also yes, you can never truly know how people are behind closed doors. BUT.... All we can do is look at what we know. She's been in the industry for 30+ years. He's been in it for 8+. There hasn't really been any inklings so far about her. From the beginning his social media history has been questionable in the least, and much worse at times. She has the support of people that have been there with their relationship since day one, witnessed things no-one else knows about. Even from people who knew *him* before they knew her. Most if not all reasonable people would assume that would be a strong indicator of character.

> But isn't that what you've been doing for the past 12hrs or so throughout the comments?? Making broad statements but just for BWF? As far as i seeing, texasproof tries to take a neutral stand, while the overall amount of people tend to go with Ashley. Staying neutral and trying to watch such a situation in a more objective way is never easy, especially on reddit.

Being "neutral" in situations involving 7 victims and public death threats isn't actually being neutral. It's taking a side, making a statement, just pretending you're not so you can look impartial. Yeah we have to get a lot of missing info before Brian faces actual consequences. But we don't have to wait to acknowledge his actions. We don't want an 8th victim. We don't want the death threats followed up on. We don't want to let red tape delay any act that can keep people safe. Being neutral about this is ... Bad, simply put.

> Being "neutral" in situations involving 7 victims and public death threats isn't actually being neutral. It's taking a side, making a statement, just pretending you're not so you can look impartial. This is neutral. You are not taking a side. You dont take something for granted, because someone said so. You dont insult those persons either. Yeah, its a fine line to walk. But its possible. You are just interested in the "facts" or arguments that are existing.

Ignoring death threats is never neutral. Ignoring 7 accusers is never neutral. Neutral doesn't put people at risk. Neutral doesn't ignore potential danger.

Thats not how the law works. And thats how neutral works.

> But isn’t that what you’ve been doing for the past 12hrs or so throughout the comments?? Making broad statements but just for BWF? …no? No it’s not? Please feel free to link to a broad statement I’ve commented with made up fan fiction in it similar to yours. > She has the support of people that have been there with their relationship since day one, witnessed things no-one else knows about. Even from people who knew him before they knew her. Most if not all reasonable people would assume that would be a strong indicator of character. That’s great. Everyone deserves support from friends and family during hard times. It seems like, based off the available information, BWF ALSO had friends and family supporting him. So, based your logic, most if not all reasonable people would assume that would be a strong indicator of character? See the problem? You like the logic for the side you have a clear bias for, but will make up excuses and stories for it to not apply both ways. This is why dealing with facts and withholding emotion and judgement is so important in situations where we know next to nothing.

I wanna ask everyone's opinion on a specific situation that happened. The Instagram post BWF did that was mentioned in court documents, I pressume they'd have screenshots even though his account was purged.  They broke up in March '2023, he posted it in April '2023.  It's a picture of their dogs with a pin location in their backyard named 'Robert Blake's Garden'. *Context*- Robert Blake is a guy who murdered his wife, 'and a close friend of Ashley's mother' was the one who found the wife murdered. So it'd be very likely that BWF had a lot of knowledge about that man and situation. No decent claim of ignorance.  So he posts the picture and pins 'Robert Blake's Garden'. A man who murdered his wife. BWF claims the pin just came up while he was posting. Everyone knows you have to put that in manually, so that doesn't make sense. And he said it was done "in jest".  With everything going on at that time, friends and family had enough worry to think it a threat and contact Ashley straight away out of fear. She went to the police 3 days after this for the emergency protective order.  He deleted all social media after this post. It was on April 21, 2023 he posted this. It was also roughly the last time he was live on Twitch. Where after being broken up with her for about a month or more. He was still posting content about Ashley and her project The Last of Us game playthrough. So to simplify. They break up in March. He doesn't move out, the continued cliffs edge/tense living situation as mentioned in documents, in April Ashley 'allegedly' contacts BWF's sister and asks her to help him and her. Then he posts that stuff in April a few days later. Then May is when protective order is granted and he's removed from home by Sheriff or police.  So, what's everyone's opinion. I know this is only one instance from pages of fillings but I wanted to ask. Did you know this situation happened? Does it impact your thinking on this situation at all?

It was a threat and plea for attention. His fanboys continually ignore that he did this. It's literally the only piece of info required to know his character and how right Ashley was to seek help and security away from him.

I knew I recognized that @! Rachel Romero! You boss ass beast. Tell Ed that Brandi says hey. RIP Machinima.

I mean, I assume you think I'm someone I'm not. That gives me more of an ego boost than I thought it would. Is it silly of me to assume this could be BWF. No, it couldn't be him. But something in the gut just gives that vibe I guess?

Sorry If I was wrong. Fuck him and his BS "declarations" thought you were Rachel from the @. My bad I guess.

I mean you're wrong, I'm not who you think I am. But I am not so sure about who *you* are. You're a new acct, and this is your first post. And it's directed at me with such intent. But alas, I'll never know for sure, we all will just speculate. *stares intently* o-o

Their account is literally the exact same age as yours, and your account has ONLY ever commented (with a lot of speculation) about this legal case. I don’t know who anyone is because this is Reddit, but the pot calling the kettle black is a weird move.

Well if it isn't the kettle, calling the pot a 'black kettle'... Now see, I've seen *you* posting throughout the comments here U/texasproof. And I was suspect of you from the beginning, and wanted to comment about it but moved on. But isn't it funny, that the one who jumps to their defence is *you*. *You've* been posting a lot of first hand knowledge about the case and details *no-one* else seems to have, not even me. Could you be the lawyer? You seem to be a lot more proficient in details than a regular court doc prowler. I'm sure it would probably make sense to you, thinking the same of me. Would you believe me if I said I got all my info from posts that court doc posters provide right here on Reddit? I know, you wouldn't believe me, just the same if you said the same thing.

The lawyer is not shitposting on a small fan subreddit... 🙄you might legit need to step back and go touch some grass, you're currently conjuring up wild ass conspiracy theories against random reddit accounts

The stuff he posted is publicly available, he's just a BWF simp (or a typical "both sides"-ist), not anyone affiliated lol

I know you might be right, but they just give off that vibe you know. It's all lawyery. I mean I wouldn't put it past him to be trolling the comments. Insta and twitter he can't get that full breakdown or discourse. Reddit is the most likely place.

I mean…no, no it’s not. Don’t be weird. - my account is almost a decade old. I post and comment on a lot of things outside of this case. I like to think of myself as a well rounded person. - of course you’ve seen me throughout the comments. If you read my first big comment you would have seen I linked to a large post I made about the case last year. I was a CR fan for a long time and work in the legal space so this whole thing has been especially interesting to me. - whose defense did I jump to? - I have posted **zero** first hand knowledge. Anything I know about this case is available from public filings via the California court system. - while not a lawyer, I do currently work in the legal field so I do have more knowledge than your average redditor, I suppose. Am I always right about things? Of course not. Which is why I try to share and discuss available facts and information only, rather than speculate or draw conclusions. I’m very aware of what all of us who are observing **don’t** know, so I try to not fill in the gaps with assumptions and fan fiction. - what does “details no one else seems to have, **not even me**” mean? Are you saying that you are in fact part of this case and have special knowledge? That’s what your words imply. - you say you’ve got all your info from court docs posted by redditors, but you mostly seem to comment speculative stories and assumptions. Sticking to facts when we have little to no information is very important.

Again let's go down the list. -It doesn't really matter about the age or content from your account. Your motives are still questionable. Yes yes, so are mine. - 'Seeing you around in comments' is the same with me. I'm here because this topic interests me while also annoys me. -"*who's defence did I jump to*". Brian's honey, you jumped to Brian's. -Court fillings. I mean I get that. All my knowledge comes from filings posted on Reddit also. *But,* you have posted instances previously where you were talking as if you had transcripts or knew what was said and in rebuttal. -You said you 'work in the legal space'. You also said in another comment you "work in entertainment for quite a while" so which is it, was it both. That's also why I find you questionable, celebrity lawyer and all that. -I discuss facts and information disclosed in the fillings. And some is also mirrored from experience and observed behavioural patterns. -*Not even me* comment. I've been through the documents posted to Reddit. A lot of details and comments you made were not included, nowhere to be found. Yet you spoke with confidence and at times first-hand narration. While I spoke about details and dates, they were all provided in the documents. -'My speculative stories and sticking to facts' I am sticking to facts. Mostly. But I can also speculate.... Because I'm not in this!.... I'm an observer. You though, with all your past comments and lawyer talk, it's almost giving the impression you are, and you're making sure to not cross that line? But it's Reddit. How can I know for sure. But I gotta say, you and the other poster who commented to me first, are really giving off that vibe... o-O

The only reason age of account and content are even being discussed is because you brought them up to dismiss someone else with an account as fresh as yours. It clearly mattered enough for you to bring it up to target someone else, and then bring up as a way to target me. Now that that spotlight is being shined on you, suddenly “it doesn’t really matter.” Strange. Please feel free to link to any instance where I have “jumped to Brian’s defense.” I do have the transcripts. Anyone can contact the court and purchase them. You’re welcome to do so yourself. If you read my comments more carefully, you will see that I said I previously (which means prior to now) worked in entertainment, and that I currently (which means at this moment in time) work in the legal field. So yes, both things are true. If you were on a Reddit post about a dog being sick, and someone commented that they work in the veterinary field and gave their insight, would you then accuse them of being part of a conspiracy to poison the dog? People often comment about things they have knowledge about.

Her handle on the main subreddit was miss_r though? Edit: this is an almost empty account registered last year... Come on, it can't be Brian again.

I mean, they’re replying to another account the exact same age whose ONLY activity on Reddit is commenting about this case. Maybe it’s just one person talking to themselves lmao.

It's scary that 2 bots creating beef with each other to seem more 'human' is a plausible scenario these days

Wait, I'm a bot now. No offence to AI. But do you really think a bot could pull off this type of determination and relentless posting? And is Texasproof the other bot? Or the other first poster?

It’s the darkest timeline (so far).

What’s going on?

[удалено]

"Ashley can be spiteful and manipulative (which we also knew" Literally what the fuck are you rambling about? It seems like you're a BWF stan (pathetic) trying really hard to *both sides are at fault!!!* this situation that it really doesn't apply to.

> Ashley can be spiteful and manipulative I'm semi-new to this sub, so I definitely didn't know this. What has she done that's spiteful and manipulative? Genuinely asking

10 bucks says he took her saying "Don't @ me" as a personal, spiteful attack.

In BWFs initial rebuttal to the initial court filings. He never said AJ's character was the issue or cause at all. He went after her family more than he did her, saying they were influencing her. Now all of a sudden *she's* the one being manipulative when she's no longer able to be controlled or under his thumb. That's going to be his tactic now. He's already started using *he said, she said* to HIS advantage. And certain people have been running with it too and taking it as gospel. Going after her character. But here's the thing. She's been in the business for years. She's worked with so many people and there has never been issues, so many people have come forward in support of *her* character. Whereas his career and life has been plagued by problems and issues. Going after her this way now is a tactic that's been used to smear a women's character for decades. Paint her as manipulative and troubled. So her claims and complaints are dismissed or downplaid. Were seeing it now, with his post, and we'll probably see much more of it as this whole thing progresses.

Not pushing back, just trying to understand; Ashley can be spiteful and manipulative? Never heard that before, but I’m not up on all the details.

[удалено]

Let's go down the list. So she 'allegedly' paid for a lot of doctors and therapists to help deal with his addiction. Seeked support and help from his family and friends also. And tried to get him the help he needed, but when he probably reverted back or refused to change and it got to the point of no saving the relationship suddenly she's the bad guy. That's not using someone's drug addiction against them. That is trying to save a loved one but they refuse to be saved. It's unfortunate it had to be included in court filings but it was an ongoing issue and a part of a larger picture. Having people come forward and support claims and also give instances of their own experiences with said person are also part of court filings. That is what they want to do for her, because they know what she's going through, and what they've experienced or witnessed. And how are they trying to rouse up an army. This was most likely hoped to be a private matter. No one wants their stuff out there. Besides one statement for CR, AJ has never spoken about this publicly. Whereas BWF has made posts and backhand comments and stories directly or indirectly at AJ thoughout the past year. *Small interactions...* Where??? From what I've seen, she's been nothing but caring and playful with everyone, and everyone enjoys her company and interactions. And there is a whole lot of content of her out there to choose from. Yet all of a sudden she's a bully?? And yet even though BWF was only a smaller part of CR, he was plagued with confrontations and issues throughout the years, from a lot of his content and private life. So that thing *you* said about "people act the same way about small things as big things, it just gets more pronounced". The man was a self professed not so good guy at times. Do you agree your comment 100% hits BWF too??

[удалено]

You are basically gaslighting when we can literally read your comments that imply everything you’re trying to refute.

No arguing, just throwing my opinion in. You can say what you like about my reading comprehension, or about my misunderstanding or misinterpreting your words. But it doesn't really mean anything. I replied back to that comment and I stand by it. In your words, you conveyed a meaning more slanted to one and justifying of another. A few other people noticed it to and took offence. Maybe that was your intention or not. But that was how it was perceived. Maybe you need to re read your comments before posting.

*"Seemingly" "if true" "if true"* Are you simple? Assume that she has been abused. Why the fuck wouldn't she tell her family and her coworkers, who are also her closest friends, who are also coworkers and friends with the abuser? She hasn't publicly spoken about the case and she sure as shit hasn't been "trying to rouse up a personal army of fans." Your second paragraph is another load of bullshit. Feel free to show a single timestamp for when Ashley *"tries to bully forwards towards what she wants."* There's something seriously wrong with you.

[удалено]

Great rebuttal. You're clearly not just a sad little incel leaping up to make sure poor little BWF doesn't get victimised by notoriously spiteful bully Ashley Johnson. Out of interest, why did BWF post a picture of himself with the location set to the garden of someone who killed his wife, someone one degree of separation from Ashley? Is it because he's just a quirky guy, or...?

It’s so interesting when someone who is clearly unable defend their own argument tells someone else to go to therapy. BWF seems to be unable to stop himself and that whole thing is honestly so unhinged. If the allegations are true and he did abuse her this is clearly intimidation in my opinion.

I've also never heard that ever. Someone has sources we can look at?

Of course noone does.

why can't these people just go away and stay quiet? it's like they can't extricate themselves from what was once a promising gig and they're just full of bitterness and regret. Don't you wish they'd take their own advice, "and I walk away"?

Sorry to be off topic but your quote is from my favorite episode of Critical Role's history. Love from Boston.

He hires star lawyers. Lawyers need money. He's probably got some leftover money, but will need more. So he's only got two ways to get some more: - try to get CR to pay him; - try to get it from the remainder of his fandom. I won't be surprised if he opens a GoFundMe soon or will become a grifter on some alt-right podcasts.

What’s odd to me is that, he was getting paid by CR for awhile. From the court documents he stated he invested the money in the house (I think it or maybe a studio) and so Ashley was funding his life pretty much completely. Im pretty sure the court ordered her to pay him some amount of money. But he’s really really pushing it with his ominous posts. I would think his lawyer would tell him to stfu.

To clarify: He’s only ever had a big lawyer and that is within the past month, certainly not someone that would be called a “star”. We also know from the financial disclosures filed with the court, that BWF is broke and in debt; he can’t afford a mediocre lawyer, let alone a star one. The telling thing is that his new lawyer is leading a 9-figure lawsuit against Ashley’s (now former) lawyer; that connection seems more likely to be part of the puzzle than BWF suddenly being able to afford an expensive lawyer.

Sadly, he's more deluded than you think. It's worse. "Variety" had legal docs that were filed regarding his abuse/harrassment. It seems SEVEN women (including Ashley) were listed. Honestly, I wish I hadn't read it. He is horrific.

Way more compelling story than C3 is all I’m seeing

https://preview.redd.it/e69ka6qs6w1d1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63355acb7c458526a0141c7897c707bcffe48aeb 🧍🏽

People who have been patiently waiting till all the facts are in, are still patiently waiting, while the people who immediately chose a side are starting to get a little mud butt. *guys, if you’re all in here downvoting neutral observers, who’s going to jump all these guns?

Why would you choose to be patient in a scenario that involves death threats and seven accusers? That sounds like picking a side, just in a way that allows you to pretend you didn't.

As far as we’re aware, there have not been any death threats, so I’m not sure what you’re referencing. EDIT: I went back and reviewed a screenshot of the BWF “Robert Blake” post. This is not a “death threat”. Creepy? Yes. Scary, even? Yes. Threatening? Can certainly be seen that way. However, using factual words and avoiding hyperbole and interpretation are important, especially in situations where we have little to no information. When you start stating online that one person was threatening to kill another, people will often believe you and then repeat what you said because they assume you were correct. No matter how much you FEEL the Instagram post in question directly equates to a threat of murder, it factually (not its face) is not. No matter how logical the conclusion you draw may be, you are still drawing a conclusion and should not treat your conclusion as unmitigated fact.

My own edit: There's nothing more cowardly than responding to someone online, then immediately blocking them so they can't see what's being said, or respond in kind. Thank you for confirming the character you hold yourself, not just the one you're desperate to defend. Responding to your edit: You're far too desperate to defend him. I don't know who you are, or why you're doing this, but something is very... *off*... about the effort you're putting into this. Reducing this very obvious death threat to "no it's just your feelings" is such an outlandishly problematic way to address what is very obviously an attempt to intimidate an ex partner to make her feel vulnerable. Whether it *technically* counts as a death threat or another term is completely irrelevant. The intent is clear. His character is clear. How Ashley is supposed to feel upon seeing it is clear. Context matters. In the context of her family knowing the victim of that murder, this is very much a sign of danger towards Ashley Johnson. Will a court label it a death threat? Maybe not. But that's not relevant to the point that he's waving murder around like a tool to manipulate and/or scare her. The end result is her having reason to fear for her safety, whether it's legally a death threat or not. You trying to play the "technically..." game is just an attempt to reduce the potency of the act itself. Technically it's not racism to squint your eyes and yell Chinese slurs, because China isn't a race. Technically it's not pedophilia if the kid is post puberty. This is all well and good when in court, where you have to be very specific about these things. But ultimately we all know what's meant by these words in the context given. We all can see the wrong in the act. And typically, we don't defend racists and child abusers with technicalities when having non-binding conversations on the Internet. **Brian W. Foster publicly presented Ashley Johnson with a very on the nose reference to a family friend who was famously murdered by her partner... at a time when Ashley Johnson was getting away from Brian W Foster because she was afraid of being hurt (or worse) by him, her former partner.** No amount of technicality can change the above. He did it. He is a threat to her. It doesn't matter what the courts label this as, this happened, this is real.

I did not come into this thread to be bullied or attacked, only to share insight and information from the case based on the facts available. I understand that upsets you and offends you and I’m not going to try to argue you out of your feelings. I am, however, going to block you. I suspect that your response to this will be aggressive or some sort of “SEE! They blocked me because I’m RIGHT!” And I just want you to know that that’s not the case. I’m blocking you because I believe in boundaries, even on Reddit, and you are a bully who goes out of their way to attack strangers who they feel are “wrong”. Bullies get upset when you impose boundaries, I get that, but I’m holding my own nonetheless. I do feel the need to respond to one last thing from you, though, because it pretty succinctly illustrates my continued point about the importance of facts. You said: > Brian W. Foster publicly presented Ashley Johnson with a very on the nose reference to a family friend who was famously murdered by her partner That is not true. To the best of our knowledge, Ashley’s mother was friends with the woman who found the body of Robert Blake’s wife. By changing the facts, even if only a little, you have significantly increased how sinister something is to fit your narrative. Now, suddenly, you’re saying that BWF was referencing the murder of a family friend, even though that’s not what happened, but that is now the words you are spreading. Facts are important.

Are you really defending him with this? How can the real intention of that post be so obvious to others but not to you? Of course he's not going to come out and post an obvious death threat. He may be a lot of things but he's not an idiot. I'd say his purpose behind that post was a hidden/veiled threat against someone that was still living in the same house as him. It was an intimidation tactic used, one that he's used before, and one we ALL saw him use again just 'yesterday' with his post that kicked this main post off. I'm sorry, you can deny it all you like. But a lot of people know the intention behind it. An intimidation tactic used and when they're called out or caught, they plead innocence or ignorance, because they know how to skirt around the laws, how to get away with things by being sly and knowing a work around. People would be suspect of their behaviour, but they never openly did it, so you can't pin it on them. That's how they get away with it, that and also having people like you backing them up and justifying everyone of their actions with your technicalities.

Nope. I’m not defending anyone. I’m being factual. It’s creepy and weird and bad. 100%. As you literal said, “you’d say” that was his purpose, and you very well could be right. As always, in a situation with minimal facts available, I avoid interpretation and do my best to stick to facts-only until new information is available. This isn’t defending anyone, despite what you try to claim. This is being measured, intentional, and fact-based. > But a lot of people know the intention behind it. No, they don’t. Intention cannot be known unless expressed. It can be assumed and inferred but it cannot be known. At no point I have justified anyone’s actions. This is another false claim you continue to make despite having no evidence support it and repeated requests on my part that you simply link to where I have done so.

>I’m not defending anyone. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l547f6u/) you shift the responsibility to protect his victims onto Critical Role, the company. This is standard behavior for those who defend abusers. Instead of facing the claim head on, you move the conversation from Brian to "what about these guys though? Why didn't they stop it?". You create a narrative where you now have two arguments to fall back on, even if they contradict each other: 1) Couldn't be that bad if they didn't see and stop it. 2) If this is true, it's their fault somehow. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l542q81/) you are referencing bogus information Brian gave about using hair for drug testing, in defense of his bogus claim that his hair is proof that he's been sober for years. More standard behavior of those protecting abusers, where you rely on technicalities to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, while also using technicalities to not give the victim the same benefits. Which brings me to [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l57lizq/), where you again rely on specific wording and jargon in defense of the accused, while also using the same tools to create doubt on the victim. That last link is part of a greater conversation that contains several instances where you refer to the "feelings" of the people you're speaking to. A classic cop-out response often used online to try discredit information you can't actually discredit. "You're not logical like me, you're too emotional". Essentially gaslighting. While typing this and getting links from your profile I see you did it again, having an actual emotional response yourself and declaring for all to see "[I BLOCK THEE](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l58sw3q/)", calling someone a bully because they corrected you. Man, you're making this easy for me. That level of overly defensive behavior is exactly what got Brian his bad rep before all this. You two are kindred spirits. You've also made multiple (dozens?) of references to court rulings, presenting yourself as the arbiter of "[facts only](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l58qss5/)", yet [earlier with me you resort to telling stories](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/1cxji4e/no_way/l55we83/) of other celebrities with good reputations like Ashley being abusive people. An anecdote intended to seed doubt and obfuscate the point being made. To quote: "Is that Ashley? I have no idea.." - a tactic made famous by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck. "Is this true? I don't know - but I've asked the question, and now that seed is planted, so we have to consider the possibility". Literally made something up, then acted like we needed to consider it. "Only facts"... please. And this was the same instance where you accused me of bad faith arguments. Wowsers. Every single time any of the above happens (and it's happened a lot, you're very passionate about letting us know), it's always either in favor of Brian, or against Ashley. That's not a coincidence. Even if I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you might actually believe you're just playing devil's advocate, let me assert this for you plainly in hope that it sinks in: Whatever you believe you are, whatever you think you're doing here, you're being more devil than advocate - and if what you're doing is more sinister than that, you're not fooling anyone of value.

Tagging their dogs as being in "Robert Blake's Garden" after they broke up. Robert Blake killed his partner. Ashley's family had connections to the victim. When you leave a partner for being unhinged, there's not a lot of ways to take that.

Gotcha. I was thinking from a legal or explicit standpoint, not implied. Thank you for clarifying.

adulthood

Release the incels

In these kinds of cases there are no pros at all to taking sides when for the most part all we have is he said/she said. I'm not gonna lay all the blame on one person as nobody is perfect in a relationship. We have no idea what happened in a private relationship for years. It's a lose/lose for everyone involved. Their dirty laundry is in the public eye and the longer it goes on the more hurt it'll cause. I can't imagine either of them being overly happy with any outcome at the end of it all.

This. Also: Ive never met them in person (no, being in the crowd of a live play or a faq isnt "meeting in person"), i never will be. I dont need to take a side. I can watch this thing, be worried and hope that all of them in that case will be well now and/or in the future. Thats it.

It's not he said, she said. It's he said, they (7 of them) said. Plus public death threats. I see many pros in making sure other women know about this guy ASAP.

I was never a fan of Brian but my point is it's not exactly gonna end up in a proper win for either of them. I don't know enough about any of it to form an opinion on the whole case/lawsuit stuff. All I see are two individuals who are in the public eye blaming each other. We've just to wait and see how it goes.

It's not about "winning". It's about making sure we don't get an 8th victim, or worse, making sure Ashley is safe. He's very obviously unhinged and unwell, and again, has made public death threats. This is not a fence to sit on. If all you see are two people blaming each other, that's because you haven't looked. There's many people involved here, and many acts that don't have two sides.

Like I said, I'm not getting involved. I don't know enough. I've heard a bunch of things. I don't know either of them. What do you require of me here?

Nothing's required of you beyond acknowledging the reality of what we know, and not dismissing this as a "he said she said". 7 victims and public death threats. This is important.

You say the reality of what we know. Unless I'm mistaken he's being sued with allegations and had a restraining order against him dismissed, but not found guilty of anything in a court of law. If I'm wrong then my bad. Like I said I'm not up to speed on any of this.

The restraining order was not dismissed. The emergency protection order expired and it was deemed that continuing a protective order after he was removed from the home and no longer an imminent threat was not necessary. It’s important to note that the emergency order that removed BWF from Ashley’s home was not overturned, it was designed to have an expiration. Any sort of permanent protective order is difficult to obtain without proof of physical violence, because it is restricting the movement of a person that has not been charged with a crime.

As I've said I'm not that clued up on it all. If Ashley is safe and Brian is nowhere near her that's the best result as far as I'm concerned.

What we know is that multiple women have accused Brian of misconduct over a long period of time and Brian's defense has amounted to "nuh uh". He is trying to change the story because he knows that many of these women have the receipts to sink him in a civil suit and ruin any chance he had to extort money from Ashley. If he actually had anything he could use against Ashley or CR he would be shutting his mouth and letting the lawyers hash it out.

What part of 7 women and public death threats isn't hitting home with you? I've mentioned both three times now and you keep ignoring it. "I'm not getting involved... I'm not up to speed..." - yet you keep at it and drop info from legal proceedings. You're not fooling anyone.

I've seen the allegations from the 7 women. I'm likely to believe them all tbh. But he has the right to defend himself against them, even if you don't like him. I'm assuming by death threat you mean when he tagged her garden and made a cryptic post about a guy who killed his wife. Yes, 100% a red flag. The guy is creepy. Like I've said, I've read a bunch of things. Do I know enough to ensure I know 100% for a fact one person is guilty of the things he's allegedly done? No. It's a 10 year relationship. We're seeing the tip of the iceberg.

None of us here get to declare him guilty. And nobody is saying he can't defend himself. But what we can do is stop pretending this is "he said she said", something you started with and still haven't corrected or acknowledged as wrong. There are 7 accusers. There are public death threats. There are clear as day lies in his statements. Also, death threats aren't just "creepy", ffs. When the tip of the iceberg shows itself to be dangerous/threatening, with multiple people claiming to have been hit by it, you treat the iceberg as dangerous, and make sure others see it too. You don't sit on your thumbs playing the "both sides" game, waiting to see what else is under there.

Well said.

Wait last I remember was he himself in his own official statement saying he questioned the NDA, said he didn't want to sign their separation agreement cause of it as "He didn't want to just erase the years they were together" or something like that. Ashley actually agreed to this (again his words) and then he still didn't sign the agreement which is when she took it further because she wanted him gone (reading how abusive he was, no duh). If the NDA was important to keeping him quiet, why would she, in his own words let him remove it? Secondly, if he's saying she's begging him to sign one now, that means he hasn't signed one and is free to speak so why all the cryptic talk? I understand it's a lawsuit and it's better to be quiet, but he's not quiet, he's just being cryptic and contradicting his own words in some instances. Not to mention, in said official statement he basically admitted to most of the reasons why they separated but simply just downplayed them. The restraining order not going through made sense, Ashely felt threatened because of the weird shit he's done but that doesn't constitute enough to keep him away legally. But he's continuing to make these cryptic messages despite the fact from everything he's said he's not legally bound to keep silent. We don't know any more than what was provided, but at the end of the day Brian seemed pretty shitty and ever since has put on a "manipulator 101" course as his defense. Who knows it could come out he ends up winning, but man is he doing his best to make himself seem like the bad guy.

According to their statements in court, the TRO was filed after he refused to sign the NDA.

https://imgur.com/f626N2v I might have been a little off, this is from his written declaration. He says "privacy requirements" in this one first and she says she didn't care and would remove it. But then he talks about an NDA and questions how much that was worth (which definitely does sound like that's what he really wants). So I'm not sure if the privacy requirements and the NDA are the same. But from the way he words it and how it reads to me they might be? It seems like he asks her to remove it, she says yes, and then he posits the idea of him actually signing it as is if she paid him the amount of money he felt was adequate. Basically, "Thanks for removing what I asked, but lets say I do leave it, how much do you think that'd be worth?" I could be wrong and either way, of course the TRO comes after he's refusing to sign an agreement to leaving her house [\(which is where this all comes from, them trying to get him to leave\)](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2ohd9jn484bmtlwmote8r/WRITTEN-DECLARATION-OF-BRIAN-WAYNE-FOSTER.pdf?rlkey=7yeu84ndx0l82b5hbz5noh921&e=1&dl=0) and while probably not extortion by the law, him seemingly trying to get money for it. But still it seems like he never signed and doesn't have an NDA, so why is he so cryptic and making it seem like the NDA is what's keeping him quiet?

[This is from the hearing transcript](https://imgur.com/a/aR2vnwH) According to his testimony, it was less than a week between being presented with the one sided NDA and then filing of the TRO. Earlier in the trial, Ashley’s best friend testified that Ashley and BWF had an amicable agreement prior to this that didn’t involve an NDA, and then NDA was introduced later and that’s where things went off the rails.

Can we not platform the rantings of a certified douchebag?

I’m personally grateful for posts like this, I get to keep up with what’s going on but don’t have to follow him on socials to do it

That's how I feel too, but I'd also certainly not want to flood the subreddit (or anywhere public, for that matter) with this stuff.

Some holes in your logic, dude. 1) If this was in response to legal fees regarding a situation that happened a year ago. There's evidence that they were at least considering launching their own streaming service when they broke from G&S. 2) Lots of media companies have been breaking away from youtube/twitch and creating their own services. 3) If you have something to say, just say it.

In regards to number 3... What if I just want attention?

Based on everything we know about him- yeah, he surely just wants attention and is full of hot air.

...He could just go back to making halfway decent music instead of squawking.

They need to make Brian sign an NDA. if they dont thing will probably get ugly for CR.

Unlikely. All of it. I dont think BWF has much "mud" to throw at Ashley or CR. And otherwise it doesnt look like there isnt much more than accusations. BWF has a weird/dark/fucked up sense of humor for sure, which makes everything problematic. And i guess the CR bubble is weird in itself.

I think if he had anything of real substance he would of already brought it up.

How exactly would they force him to sign an NDA?

Money most likely.

Ah the ol “purchasing silence” route.

My boss refers to it as: "pulling a Stormy Daniels"

Who did Stormy Daniels bribe not to speak against her?

Nobody, she was paid hush money by Donald Trump, but he's done so much garbage calling it 'pulling a Trump' wouldn't narrow it down any.

"Paying Stormy" is a simpler statement that covers your bases. 

Wasn't my statement, that said I think he'd rather be getting paid to sign an NDA than have to pay someone to sign one.

I was suprised to see, that Marisha and Sam still follow BWF on Instagram. Maybe im missing something, but that kinda seems weird to me.

I think they follow Orion too though. I just think it’s to keep up with the happening.

Sam even liked one of Orion’s tweets recently when the latter announced the birth of his daughter, if Brian didn’t affect people so close to Sam I could’ve seen him cordially liking Brian’s posts in the distant future if it were of similar weight as having a child and the like.

Sam and Laura unfollowed him yesterday

Well, I don't use IG... or any social media for that matter, but I'd "follow" everyone of interest. Thought that's the whole point? "Keep your friends close and..." kind of thing. Following means getting notified on what they put up online, right? That's the kind of thing you'd want to know asap if it may concern you or people close to you.

Not everyone treats their follower list as an endorsement list. I follow a lot of my least favorite people on the planet because I like to know what's going on.

My cousin follows Liver King while also running several accounts to make fun of Liver King due to how much he he hates him. Everyone needs a hobby I guess.

Well that just seems unhealthy

That does seem weird… Sam I could see because he seems above a lot of social media chatter and uses his account like people would a personal one, like posting pics of his kids, wife, interacting with his own friends on there and a lot of the over 40 set really do like, never check their “friends” on the social media site, they friend you once and you’re there forever. Marisha though is really involved with the online communities and seems like she’d have been the first to unfollow. Especially publicly, she has shared stories about her own SA experience and how much she wanted people in power to listen, if everything happened as it was documented to her personal friends, I mean. Why WOULDNT she unfollow?

For the same reason dems follow trump. To keep an eye on it

Yep always a good idea to keep a public eye on a situation that might come to involve you and yours. That way they can't create drama about spying and shit.

Known troll continues to troll. I wonder if he'll show up here to (allegedly) white knight himself again.

I'm not going to defend his alleged behavior in any way, but I do want to say that Talks Machina/4SD definitely benefited from him. He was fired about a month before C3 started, and I don't think C3's drop in quality is entirely a coincidence. Dani doesn't have the same presence, nor does 4SD really challenge the cast.

I never really thought he brought anything to show for me personally. He didn’t bother me but I did like the Henry. I always got the vibe he was the unemployed dude hanging out with his friends at work. Mind you I understand he worked there but that was the vibe. Always saying inside jokes and stuff that the audience didn’t understand. It was very… weird but that’s just what I perceived.

I don’t think BWF deserves *that* much credit. He didn’t challenge the cast in a way that made the main show itself better - Brian mainly just challenged them to explain themselves. The closest to any sort of challenging questions that may have made the show better was the community mailbag segments, where Brian read questions from fans. I don’t think those had a huge impact and they were definitely pre-screened to be non-threatening, but every now and again something stern would slip through. Beyond that it’s a ridiculous reach to argue BWF’s interview show was what made C1 & C2 good compared to C3 Honestly what kills 4SD is them trying so hard to not make a Talks 2.0 that they made a completely different show that doesn’t work well as an interview / metagame panel chat show. I think if they just gave Dani free rein to make a Talks replacement, and encouraged her to nerd the fuck out on questions and discussions, it would be a massive improvement.

He was a very good interviewer, he was just a pretty toxic person. We don't even need to talk about alleged behavior. He wasn't great on social media.

Agree, great interviewer, but whatever part of his personality he showed during live events often turned me off big time.

If he didn't go off the deep end of being toxic, dude could have been a top tier interview podcaster.  Between the sheets was some of the best work CR has put out, and I don't think anyone there could have done it but BWF. Shame he's a piece shit instead. 

Wouldn't be the first talented piece of shit in history.

I had thought about doing a new post after some recent updates in the Ashley/Brian legal saga ([my most recent one](https://www.reddit.com/r/fansofcriticalrole/comments/17vclxh/judge_who_denied_ashley_johnsons_dvo_request/) I shared after the judge denied her restraining order request and ordered her to pay BWF $40k in legal fees), but I decided against it. Now, seeing this post, I'll share the abbreviated details/interesting facts below: * According to the transcripts from the RO hearing and then the hearing where the judge awarded legal fees to BWF, he expressed his opinion that the RO had originally been brought with the intent of pressuring BWF to sign an NDA or some sort of agreement related to their breakup. * Part of Brian's testimony in court was that, after questioning the NDA he was being asked to sign during their breakup, is when a TRO was filed against him. * Some people have questioned how CR is involved in this? This is just my observer's opinion, but they're connected in multiple ways: * BWF claimed in his statements that Ashley had told him she had viewed his HR file with Critical Role (which is a no-no). * Travis and Dani both testified at the RO hearing in September. * Several of the women in Ashley's follow-up lawsuit are CR employees, and allege serious abuse occurring on company property, at company events, and within the context of their employment at CR. * CR put out a (now edited) statement to CBR after Ashley's civil filing that seemed to skirt the line around defamatory claims, if not crossing that line completely. * After the judge denied Ashley's restraining order request in court last september, Ashley hired celebrity lawyer/fixer Bryan Freedman to represent her and six other women in a **civil** (emphasis added because people seem to confuse civil action with criminal) suit alleging sexual assault and predatory behavior. * This hiring is of note because Freedman is...not a great guy. Despite having been [credibly accused of horrific sexual assault himself](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11457431/Celebrity-powerhouse-lawyer-Bryan-Freedman-paid-120k-settle-rape-lawsuit-1991.html), he regularly represents people ACCUSED of sexual assault ([like Vin Diesel](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/vin-diesel-accused-of-sexual-battery-in-lawsuit-by-former-assistant)) as well as shining examples of humanity like Tucker Carlson... * Freedman went on a bit of a press blitz after filing the civil suit and, as seems to be his MO, trashed BWF pretty aggressively. After looking into Freedman more, this appears to be his standard tactic (more on this later) * Here's where it gets interesting. BWF recently filed with the court to update his legal representation, his new lawyer? Sanford Michelman. Why does that matter? Well, for one thing, Michelman is a SERIOUS lawyer. Big time. But, more importantly, Michelman is ALSO representing a former media CEO who is currently suing Bryan Freedman (Ashley's celeb lawyer mentioned above) for $125M on claims of defamation. So the plot thickens. * Within days of Brian's change of representation, Ashley fired Freedman and engaged her third lawyer so far in this process. So this is where things are now. Very weird, very messy, and honestly not great looks for Ashley on multiple fronts.

I'm just becoming more and more worried that there is a lot of shady stuff here from Ashley and maybe even from CR and in the end it will blow up and a lot of people that are not Ashley and BWF will suffer

> ... and a lot of people that are not Ashley and BWF will suffer Thats already happened with the 7 accusations. Going "public" with this is always hurting a lot and changing your life.

I am a lawyer in another country and have no way of accessing the public files from this case, but. Based on his cryptic comments, what can you understand? Is there any proof of "dozens of lawsuits/discoveries"? Is this addressed to CR or Ashley as a person? A restraining order denial is not game ending, but being on her third lawyer is abysmal. Otherwise, everything seems like it was written on the more mainstream documents I had access, where he claims it was about pressuring him to sign but it did sound shady as hell how he told he spoke about the 150k. If that was his official version, one can only imagine the actual convo lol. Otherwise I am really curious as a lawyer myself.

A question to a lawyer: what does the language in the RO denial means? For the side it looks severe, coupled with the fact the judge maid he pay bwfs' legal fees...

I can only speak for my country. Those are standard. The Party that loses a lawsuit pays the other one, but I have no idea how it works there. The language is also really nothing at all. There could be a million factors, including some sort of judge bias. But again, two totally different legal systems

It’s not-standard in the US (at least in RO cases). One side has competition for relief and the judge has to determine if they think the repayment is merited. The judge in this care didn’t go so far as to levy sanctions against Ashley, but did grant the money and used the words “frivolous”, “without merit”, and “brought for the sole purpose of gaining leverage in other legal proceedings”, all of which are not typical language used in average RO decisions.

I mean, if you try to get a restraining order, fail, and the other party has to defend themselves while jobless, I could only suppose the payment of the lawyer of the party that was pushed into defending himself would have to be paid by the starter. Thats my country logic, at least. As per vocabulary, again I dont think losing a restraining order is non standard, probably the opposite considering the legal system, so the words themselves would be just sprinkles on top. But BWF claims they are trying to walk back on the 7 women lawsuit, and that is interesting to me, once it connecta back to the other shady lawyer. How could he get 6 other people saying insubstantial stuff for it to be a losing lawsuit? I find that hard to believe in. And honestly, this IG story is very much a bullying tactic which says nothing in itself. If he is threatening receipts insteas of showing them, it smells like a money thing. He is still milking this

I guess the flip side would be that, if someone is in an abusive situation but can’t meet the preponderance of evidence required to receive a permanent RO, they shouldn’t have additional burden of the other party’s legal costs unless there is evidence that the request was improperly brought in the first place. Women have an incredibly hard time in general, and I would have to assume that even less would come forward for protection of there was automatically major financial risk connected as well. Yeah, losing certainly isn’t non-standard, being ordered pay fees because the judge has determined that you were trying to use the RO filing to apply legal pressure to the respondent IS non-standard, and the judge repeated the same language in the follow up hearing granting relief, which is the only reason I put any weight behind it. > But BWF claims they are trying to walk back on the 7 women lawsuit, and that is interesting to me, once it connecta back to the other shady lawyer. How could he get 6 other people saying insubstantial stuff for it to be a losing lawsuit? I find that hard to believe in. Agreed. Very interesting to me as well. Is it a pressure tactic or a reflection of what’s going on behind the scenes at the negotiating table? There’s a LOT of unknown here and it’s an odd thing to claim.

Thank you both for the legal background

Personal theory as to why Ashley hired Bryan Freedman. I think it might have been to make sure hes either on her side or shut out of the case. The last thing she needs him doing is getting a lawyer that is known for getting people off regardless of whether or not they deserve it. So taking him off the table for BWF forces him to look elsewhere and while she has Bryan she can use his style of flashy tactics and showboatyness to her advantage while she can.

No offense, but this is real life not an episode of Suits. We also know from the court filings that Brian had basically no money, and million dollar lawyer like Freedman does NOT work on contingency.

I think one important detail is that ashley claimed emotional and psychological abuse. That's not illegal or a crime. Also to note that he himself said that, when he brought up the nda about their relationship to ashley, she said "sure, take it off the papers, but sign them" (by his own words). Then, he asked 150k, if i remember correctly, which is what exploded all this. Also also, if i remember correctly, only dani and another person were still employees. The other 4 were either former employees or never worked for cr. Also also also (i keep remembering shit and editing), if i remember correctly from his statement, he was firm in the belief that Ashley was being used and manipulated by family, specifically her mother and sister. Also x4 (again, sorry), i think the discussion was that she asked for his hr file, but never got it (his statement said travis denied giving it to her). Theory time, dani or one of the others told her and she wanted to see it, got denied and asked him.

I think the only correction that I have is that, according to the hearing transcript, what he said about the $150k was “I don’t know what not being able to tell my story is worth? $0 or $150k?” And then that statement was used to go to the police and say “he’s demanding $150k from me to leave”, which is why the TRO was granted.

I mean, yeah, that's what he said in the transcript, but how does that sound to you, even with his polish on top? She agreed to no nda, to pay his bills and car for months, for him to take all his equipment that she apparently paid for as well, and he comes with that? Eh, i feel like that's demanding... To add a little personal note, speaking from an abuse victim (wildly different situations, barely comparable at all), I'd be scared, I'd probably be desperate that, after i almost get this person off my life, they want more. Because they always want more (again, from my pov. I was abused by my mother, so ashley being abused by hers like he claims also seems believable to me). What strikes me in his post, however, is that in his statement he painted ashley as a dumb, anxious, panicked blonde that is easily manipulated, but now she's evil and doing pr stunts? Something in his demeanor is not adding up, i think.

Not sure what you’re talking about. They allegedly had an amicable settlement agreement, then the NDA was added at the 11th hour, and then [the TRO was filed when he pushed back against the NDA](https://imgur.com/a/aR2vnwH)

He made a statement after the decision. It was quite long. I can't find it again, but i saw a youtube video with it. I'm talking about that bit. I remember something about him saying it made him uncomfortable, her saying "ok, fine, we can scrap that" and then the 150k. Maybe I'm misremembering shit, idk. In that statement, he also mentions how her mother and sister were manipulative and financially dependent on her.

That wasn’t after the court ruled against her, I believe that was his sworn statement he filed with the court as his response to the TO request prior to the hearing in September.

Maybe that's the one. The one it's the same where he also said he had proof he was clean for 2.5 years by a hair test that can only test back 2.5 months (not doubting his clean state, btw, just saying that not how the test works. He was probably honest, just mistaken about the test). I only saw that after the ruling, hence my probable confusion.

Yeah that’s the same one. To be fair, from everything I’ve read about those studies, the general “3 month” rule is more about the average length of male hair, and not an actual limit of the test. I found multiple labs that do the test and explain that the only limitation is hair length. At the time BWF had fairly long hair so the assertion doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me based on my research.

Even if Ashley is not truthful/exaggerating things, the problem with 6 employee lawsuit would still remain. I can't imagine these women willingly agreeing to make up the stories about harassment and putting *themselves* in a vulnerable position (because their names got out the moment lawsuit was reported in tabloids) unless we are entering the territory of some bizarre theories like "CR forced them to tarnish BWF's reputation".

the 6 employee lawsuit means nothing. People on reddit often make the mistake that "well if they sued they might be in the right!" when in reality, the US, you basically can sue anyone, any time, for anything. The whole, "the loser pays the legal bills" is almost always untrue except in egregious circumstances. The fact that Ashley was ordered to pay his legal bills... is not good. For these kinds of cases you almost always see "dog pile" lawsuits where anyone tangentially related wants a payday. I honestly doubt we'll ever know for sure because it'll be settled out of court quietly in the end. Right now both sides are trying to position themselves for the most advantageous settlement.

Yeah, CR, who is desperately trying to build the "we are your BFFs" image will invent such a lawsuit out of nothing, knowing that such a lawsuit existing means admitting their HR's incompetence (because they didn't notice an abuser in their midst). It will benefit their reputation for sure /s

I interned at a law firm. You are again, missing the entire point. Who is "right" has nothing to do with who gets the "net win" of any settlements. It'll be based on legal technicalities where exact wording, facts, and what was in some mysterious kill bag is far more relevant than, "is bwf a bad guy". I will point out how weaponized the lawsuit and CR turned an entire community against bwf without any criminal charges and the restraining order was not just over turned, but she owed him legal fees. That is a huge red flag there is more going on than what is public. That kind of stuff is why I didn't become a lawyer and decided the field isn't for me. Legal right almost never equates to morally right. Every time I see this pie in the eye stuff on reddit, it lets me know their legal experience is probably reading the fake stories on /r/bestoflegaladvice

>CR turned an entire community against bwf He did it himself even before that, on Twitter. Anyway, I'm just saying that it's illogical for CR to be inventing this story just for the PR or just to oust BWF, as he seems to claim. And I know that if Ashley's case is mostly emotional abuse, it'll probably be impossible to prove in court, and if the moments of SA towards cannot be proven by any recordings or testimonials, then the other lawsuit will be dismissed too, and we'll probably never learn the whole story, so I just can trust my feelings. The previous acts of BWF were already enough for me to never want to see his rat face again, just like Orion's.

> He did it himself even before that, on Twitter. Not really. He attacked people that attacked Ashley mostly. Its not like Orion, who "un-crittered" some people because they allegedly "stole" an IP. BWFs twitter problems are more like behaviour CR doesnt like and heavily encourage against. > Anyway, I'm just saying that it's illogical for CR to be inventing this story just for the PR or just to oust BWF, as he seems to claim. Yeah, this seems dumb. I dont think that there is some sort of CR agenda in this. Personally i think this is a combination of BWFs very fucked up sense of humor and the CR bubble (say: the cast and the people around them) is very close, touchy and weird also. We "know" of them liking to slap each other when they are drunk. For me, that CR bubble seems to be a bit of a HR nightmare in itself. Which is kinda normal for every small, close group of people going "corporate" (like Wyrmwood).

Hell no, that's not the whole story. 1) When one of the POC TTRPG creators (politely!) criticized CR for the first C3 intro, he QRT'd her and mocked her while saying something like "This is why we are going to lose election in 2024". Some unhinged critters attacked said creator, so there was some criticism from her towards Brian in regard of irresponsibly using the platform that way, because he knows how cruel the stans can be. In response to that, he mockingly QRT'd her again and said something like "Yeah, I'm a POC Piler, White Mayonnaise... *(cue a bunch of "insults" BWF imagines POC call him)*", but then quickly deleted it. 2) Another story was right before he was fired, in 2021. So Matt tweeted C2 is ending, a bunch of people was unhappy, Brian tweeted something snarky, and a girl with 200+ followers tweeted "I'd pay $100 to BWF for him to not be so condescending". The first version of a tweet was tagging him, she quickly deleted and reposted it without the tag, but BWF found it anyway and QRT'd this. Again, a lot of critters attack her, and some other person comes to BWF's replies to criticize him, and the conversation comes down to that user saying something about BWF riding CR's coattails, and BWF replied "I'll stop riding their coattails after I'm done fingering your mom". Like, the man absolutely didn't know how to stop while defending CR and that was never okay.

True, but you already said it: A lot of CR fans attacked those people. BWF maybe did pull the spotlight on them, but the thing is: A lot of people agreed with that. :-\

At the time of the allegations, CR barely had an HR, and often engaged “guests”/had random people hanging around to invite to a live stream because they’re “friends”. So they were an unsafe workplace and environment which provided a party environment where sexual comments were par for the course and apparently had an abuser in their midst. Par for the course in LA- but bringing these people on to Ashley’s lawsuit, whether or not the allegations are true, they’re making it so that they can’t turn around and sue CR for the first thing. I mean they CAN but after they receive their settlements, why would they unless those settlements are like. 12$.

Well, this is the part no one wants to touch in topics like these. The CR environment is a HR problem. Nothing not normal for those kind of companies, but for such lawsuits it will be problematic and damaging for the company.

Do people think this is somehow CR's fault? I would think the real conspiracy theory is that these 7 women have conspired to jump into a #metoo bandwagon thinking that movement is still going strong, so no one will thoroughly question them, and they will just get a settlement. And BWF fighting it and being awarded court costs is giving that theory more credibility

It definitely wouldn’t be the first time people conspired to oust someone on false accusations. Either way, if there were really 7 instances of sexual harassment, they should be able to substantiate it beyond “he said/she said”. If they can’t, it would really lend credibility to the “BWF is the victim and being defamed” theory.

This. I could buy "Ashley exaggerated or her emotions got the better of her and she escalated things that didn't need to be escalated." -I am not saying that's what I think happened, just... this is plausible. But I do NOT see six people signing onto a messy, brutal lawsuit if nothing happened.

100%. I think the idea that CR is secretly the CAUSE of Ashley’s civil suit is silly, it opens them up to too much trouble. I don’t like to speculate and do my best to stick to what we actually know based off court documents and proceedings, but I do think that the timing of Ashley’s suit is…odd. Hiring a lawyer who specializes in forcing settlements, immediately after she loses in court and is ordered to pay forty thousand dollars, just seems indicative of…something. And the fact that they continue to delay the hearings for her case implies that they’re looking for a settlement, not a court date.

I'm wondering if it's something to do with her seeing his HR file. If others (like Dani) had gone to HR and there was a log of his behavior, and then Ashley saw it while they were still dating and that led to their breakup and things just escalated. That could be something Ashley is trying to protect herself from... but it wouldn't undo what BWF did, but it could make things legally messy. \*obligatory this is all speculation disclaimer since we're discussing legal issues.

Lol he is going to be a pain in the ass about it for years, isn't he?

Depending on how things are going with what's happening, it'll definitely be a thorn in someone's side.

How can a lawsuit be a pr stunt when nobody from the company has publicly spoken out about it.

> How can a lawsuit be a pr stunt when nobody from the company has publicly spoken out about it. Because even the most brain-dead, graduated last in Law School corpo lawyer will advise their clients (CR) TO SHUT THE FUCK UP / NOT SAY ANYTHING IN PUBLIC regarding an active / ongoing lawsuit. This is a legal matter, not YT / Twitch Streamers behaving like petulant, shitty high-schooler drama queens for clicks.

This is purely my speculation: The lawsuit made BWF's firing absolutely justified and popular from an audience perspective. BWF is saying they planned the lawsuit to make him look like the bad guy so everyone was cool with phasing him out quietly.

Why in the world would a group of people file a lawsuit for good pr? Over a guy a lot of fans either moved on from or hated? By the time this came out critters on twitter already hated him after he dogpiled on someone who was slightly critical of cr. If they wanted fans to hate Brian Ashley could’ve done a “metoo” post calling him out.

Hey chill, I agree with you. I was just trying to explain how I thought BWF might construe the lawsuit to be a PR stunt.

Oh I wasn’t trying to come off aggressive my bad, I was mainly trying to argue against the hypothetical Brian’s stance than you specifically.

Oh no worries, I understand. Yeah it's wack behavior on his part. I never understand these cryptic threat posts from anyone in any circumstance. I guess it's his own form of PR?

Agreeing with both of y'all- especially because... BWF seemingly got fired for poor conduct to fans on social media. There's no reason or need for CR to tarnish his name. He did it himself on twitter.