Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

This, the jury will not be pulled from a pool of Reddit users or people who frequent celebrity gossip blogs. You can assume half the jury will be over 55 (this is standard in jury pools, they always skew older because for a variety of reasons, these are the people most likely to get called and show up and not have an excuse to be dismissed). It's New York so you can assume a lot of diversity, but you can't make stereotypical assumptions about how this will influence them. People often have interesting personal reasons for believing one witness over another, or being more sympathetic to one party. All the parties are wealthy so I doubt that will play a role. I do think some jurors will relate to an argument about a difficult college or employee who complains a lot and is unfair. But I also think some jurors will be receptive to an argument about tone deaf and presumptuous employers who violate boundaries and take a "well I'm paying for all this so you do what I say" attitude. It's very hard to say which might prevail.

This whole case is an interesting Rorschach test. I would not assume that a jury will see it the way I do.

[Anonymous]

Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

But Blake lied. She said Steve was there and made her uncomfortable and Steve was not on set during that scene. That is going to weigh more than him just being an ass.

People also aren’t really getting into the fact that it is now becoming a real problem for Lively’s legal team that she never signed the contract. It’s all over Reddit that she may be limited to $400,000 in damages because of that.

I think there’s less than a 1% chance that this case goes to trial.

[Anonymous]

I just posted, but I’ll also add its going to be hard for her to get damages for the hair company now that it has come to light that it is not her company. She simply has a licensing distribution agreement so she can’t really sue for damages.

I was kind of surprised that she was paid 1.7 million for this movie and then I think she was given her $200,000 bonus because it did so well. I understand that this wasn’t the biggest budget movie, but the fact that she didn’t even pull 2 million for this, it’s really surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

But Blake lied. She said Steve was there and made her uncomfortable and Steve was not on set during that scene. That is going to weigh more than him just being an ass.

People also aren’t really getting into the fact that it is now becoming a real problem for Lively’s legal team that she never signed the contract. It’s all over Reddit that she may be limited to $400,000 in damages because of that.

I think there’s less than a 1% chance that this case goes to trial.

Limited to $400 in damages? I would still call that a win. Don't care what the reddit echo chamber thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

How many pages were devoted to a meaningless interview a decade ago?

Doesn't that prove your point? She's so unlikeable that it fueled pages of discourse around that interview. Exactly. Juries will hate her.

Jurors may also want to stick it to the jerk male billionaire. Everyone loves to hate them right now.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich. If that actually were a concern, it would be a wash.

How's that crystal ball working out for you so far in this case?

We’re talking about a jury, not Liman. I already said that we all know Liman will rule in favor of Blake because he loves his hot tub hangouts with Gottlieb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a TMZ poll on Instagram asking people who they believe in the Blake and Justin unimprovised kissing scene, and more than 90% support Justin with more than 50,000 votes. Casual TMZ watchers definitely represent the jury pool better than the freaks who post on r/BaldoniFiles and r/ItEndsWithCourt.

What makes you think "TMZ watchers" is at all representative of a jury pool?

Because normies follow TMZ. Way more representative than the people on BaldoniFiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

Steve is a minor player. Jurors won't really care about him, and will fixate on Blake (very unlikeable) and Justin (very sympathetic).

Jurors haven't been obsessing over either of them all this time. They will form their own opinion not come in with guns loaded ready to settle the score.

This, the jury will not be pulled from a pool of Reddit users or people who frequent celebrity gossip blogs. You can assume half the jury will be over 55 (this is standard in jury pools, they always skew older because for a variety of reasons, these are the people most likely to get called and show up and not have an excuse to be dismissed). It's New York so you can assume a lot of diversity, but you can't make stereotypical assumptions about how this will influence them. People often have interesting personal reasons for believing one witness over another, or being more sympathetic to one party. All the parties are wealthy so I doubt that will play a role. I do think some jurors will relate to an argument about a difficult college or employee who complains a lot and is unfair. But I also think some jurors will be receptive to an argument about tone deaf and presumptuous employers who violate boundaries and take a "well I'm paying for all this so you do what I say" attitude. It's very hard to say which might prevail.

This whole case is an interesting Rorschach test. I would not assume that a jury will see it the way I do.

Everyone outside of Reddit hates her and you can’t deal with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

I will take a wash over "everyone looooves JB". You're so blinded by your own bias you can't tell up from down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

I will take a wash over "everyone looooves JB". You're so blinded by your own bias you can't tell up from down.

You know Blake doesn’t have a case when the best defense is well the jury might not like Sarowitz!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

I will take a wash over "everyone looooves JB". You're so blinded by your own bias you can't tell up from down.

I never said everyone loves JB, I'm confused. Who's saying that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

I will take a wash over "everyone looooves JB". You're so blinded by your own bias you can't tell up from down.

You know Blake doesn’t have a case when the best defense is well the jury might not like Sarowitz!

lmao, my thoughts exactly. Blake supporters are reaching for the stars!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how happy people were over the health insurance shooting in NY, I wouldn't presume to think they were automatically going to side with the hot head billionaire who thinks the people he pays should kiss his feet. There are problems on all sides here.

Blake and Ryan are also filthy rich, again, a wash.

I will take a wash over "everyone looooves JB". You're so blinded by your own bias you can't tell up from down.

I never said everyone loves JB, I'm confused. Who's saying that?

I love how the "everyone hates Blake" crowd is so easily confused. You seem really lost when outside your reddit bubble and have to encounter new opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Lively is pretty unlikeable but some of the stuff coming out now makes Baldoni and Sarowitz both also seem unlikeable. I think it's perfectly fair to talk about what these guys are saying and doing and how it would play in front of a jury, just as we would discuss the same with Blake.

I think if you read some of these Sarowitz quotes, in particular, and think it's fine or won't turn people off, you have lost any objectivity on this case. It's clearly really awful, and the fact that this is how he's talking in a deposition for a lawsuit sort of alarms me. Most people will be on their best behavior in that setting, and the most careful with their words. The Hamas comment was also bad, but he was unknowingly recorded and it was a casual conversation. This was something he said in a conference room with lawyers and a court stenographer present! And it comes off as threatening, entitled, and misogynistic (IMO). That's a big red flag.

But Blake lied. She said Steve was there and made her uncomfortable and Steve was not on set during that scene. That is going to weigh more than him just being an ass.

People also aren’t really getting into the fact that it is now becoming a real problem for Lively’s legal team that she never signed the contract. It’s all over Reddit that she may be limited to $400,000 in damages because of that.

I think there’s less than a 1% chance that this case goes to trial.

Limited to $400 in damages? I would still call that a win. Don't care what the reddit echo chamber thinks.

Agree this will settle. My prediction -- Baldoni has to pay her $15 million plus an apology.