Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace dropped his claim for a declaratory judgement in the Texas case. Yet somehow no one is blaming his lawyers of not having planned out the lawsuit properly or being a terrible lawyer. Weird. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.276.0.pdf

Dp. I don’t think you understand what a claim for declaratory judgement is. He filed it bc BL had said she wasn’t sure if she was going to sue him. Then added him. I think he indicated awhile ago that he was going to drop it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

DP. Actually you don’t need to ‘prove’ damages at all. You show some info, but the jury decides. You think hulk hogan proved he was damager for $100+ m over a video of him having sex when he constantly bragged about his sexual prowess?

You need to educate yourself bc most of what you say is just dead wrong

DP but that's what it means to "prove" damages -- you convince a jury that the damages are justified. Hogan proved to the jury that the embarrassment and invasion of privacy from having that video come out was worth $140 million. I disagree, but I wasn't on that jury. I'm guessing they appealed to how the jurors themselves would feel if a similar video of them was made public.

Pp the point I’m trying to make to the person constantly crowing about Baldonis financials and ‘how could he expect that much??!!!’ is that the ‘proof’ of damages and the amount are essentially never tied to tangible financial loss. So she needs to STFU already

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

DP. Actually you don’t need to ‘prove’ damages at all. You show some info, but the jury decides. You think hulk hogan proved he was damager for $100+ m over a video of him having sex when he constantly bragged about his sexual prowess?

You need to educate yourself bc most of what you say is just dead wrong

DP but that's what it means to "prove" damages -- you convince a jury that the damages are justified. Hogan proved to the jury that the embarrassment and invasion of privacy from having that video come out was worth $140 million. I disagree, but I wasn't on that jury. I'm guessing they appealed to how the jurors themselves would feel if a similar video of them was made public.

Pp the point I’m trying to make to the person constantly crowing about Baldonis financials and ‘how could he expect that much??!!!’ is that the ‘proof’ of damages and the amount are essentially never tied to tangible financial loss. So she needs to STFU already

There are two kinds of damages. Compensatory damages, which are absolutely tied to tangible financial loss (often based on expert testimony about, for instance, the value of lost property or the lost profits from a business venture, etc.) and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are supposed to literally compensate the plaintiff for losses related to the alleged claim and do need to be based on something real.

You are talking about punitive damages, which are meant to punish the defendant for the wrongness of their actions. This is an amount above and beyond the actual financial losses or expenses a plaintiff may have incurred. Juries have more latitude in awarding punitive damages (though judges also have some latitude in bringing down a really huge punitive award and this happens with some regularity. Punitive damages are not always allowed -- they are generally meant to apply only to cases where the behavior is very egregious or willful.

There are also jurisdictions that have treble damages, which is where the the compensatory damages amount is multiplied or in some cases added to. Treble damages are a form of punitive damages but are more directly linked to the compensatory damage decision, making the determination of compensatory damages extra important in these jurisdictions.

Baldoni has asked for $400 million in compensatory damages, which his complaint say will include "consequential damages, lost wages, earnings, and all other sums of money, together with interest on those amounts."

He is ALSO asking for pain and suffering (a form of compensatory damages but a squishier one -- it's meant to compensate the plaintiff for their negative experience caused by the defendant's actions), as well as punitive damages. While he specifies the $400 million for compensatory damages, he leaves pain and suffering and punitive damages open ended.

If you are going to lecture people on how damages work in civil actions, the very least you could do is supply good info. Otherwise, respectfully, it is you who should (quoting here) "STFU."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

DP. Actually you don’t need to ‘prove’ damages at all. You show some info, but the jury decides. You think hulk hogan proved he was damager for $100+ m over a video of him having sex when he constantly bragged about his sexual prowess?

You need to educate yourself bc most of what you say is just dead wrong

DP but that's what it means to "prove" damages -- you convince a jury that the damages are justified. Hogan proved to the jury that the embarrassment and invasion of privacy from having that video come out was worth $140 million. I disagree, but I wasn't on that jury. I'm guessing they appealed to how the jurors themselves would feel if a similar video of them was made public.

Pp the point I’m trying to make to the person constantly crowing about Baldonis financials and ‘how could he expect that much??!!!’ is that the ‘proof’ of damages and the amount are essentially never tied to tangible financial loss. So she needs to STFU already

There are two kinds of damages. Compensatory damages, which are absolutely tied to tangible financial loss (often based on expert testimony about, for instance, the value of lost property or the lost profits from a business venture, etc.) and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are supposed to literally compensate the plaintiff for losses related to the alleged claim and do need to be based on something real.

You are talking about punitive damages, which are meant to punish the defendant for the wrongness of their actions. This is an amount above and beyond the actual financial losses or expenses a plaintiff may have incurred. Juries have more latitude in awarding punitive damages (though judges also have some latitude in bringing down a really huge punitive award and this happens with some regularity. Punitive damages are not always allowed -- they are generally meant to apply only to cases where the behavior is very egregious or willful.

There are also jurisdictions that have treble damages, which is where the the compensatory damages amount is multiplied or in some cases added to. Treble damages are a form of punitive damages but are more directly linked to the compensatory damage decision, making the determination of compensatory damages extra important in these jurisdictions.

Baldoni has asked for $400 million in compensatory damages, which his complaint say will include "consequential damages, lost wages, earnings, and all other sums of money, together with interest on those amounts."

He is ALSO asking for pain and suffering (a form of compensatory damages but a squishier one -- it's meant to compensate the plaintiff for their negative experience caused by the defendant's actions), as well as punitive damages. While he specifies the $400 million for compensatory damages, he leaves pain and suffering and punitive damages open ended.

If you are going to lecture people on how damages work in civil actions, the very least you could do is supply good info. Otherwise, respectfully, it is you who should (quoting here) "STFU."

For one, it’s not just Baldoni. It’s multiple parties, and the rest of your post is just your typical PR blather.

But to clarify for you again, Hulk hogan was awarded over 100m just for compensatory damages. Not including punitive. So yes, STFU

[Anonymous]

👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

Shoot, that was intended at the longer comment explaining damages to the person slowly and carefully since that's what they seem to need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

So a man can’t say to a woman you smell good without it being SH? WTAF? Get therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

And further, in the instant case, she said her tanning lotion smelled and THEN he commented on it. He said it smells good. Watch the freaking video.

[Anonymous]

I don't think any of the women who reported the men discussed below were lying, and they were put through hell for it, but what price is that against the worth of a man's 'good name'?

"The good name of a good man has been tarnished. I do not believe Judge Thomas is capable of the kind of behavior Professor Hill described to this committee." Strom Thurmond, 1991.

“She comes off as someone who basically blackmails the president of the United States…And Katie Roiphe wrote a great article the other day, and she said there should be a term connoting the opposite of sexual harassment—when a person of less power uses her sexual attractiveness or personal relationship with the person in greater power to get ahead. No pun intended. I think Monica Lewinsky is the one who should apologize to America. She’s the homewrecker. And if anybody really owes an apology, I think it’s her.” Bill Maher, 1998.

"He must walk out of here free. He's an 80-year-old man. He's had a distinguished career. He's made some mistakes for sure, but he is no criminal." Tom Mesereau (Bill Cosby's lawyer), 2018.

“My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed.” Brett Kavanaugh, 2018.

"What's at stake in this trial is a man's good name—even more than that, what's at stake in this trial is a man's life.... There is an abuser in this courtroom, but it is not Mr. Depp. And there is a victim of domestic abuse in this courtroom, but it is not Ms. Heard." Vasquez noted expert accounts that diagnosed Heard with Borderline Personality Disorder and called the actress a "deeply, troubled person" who is "desperate for attention and approval." Camille Vasquez (Johnny Depp's lawyer), 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

And further, in the instant case, she said her tanning lotion smelled and THEN he commented on it. He said it smells good. Watch the freaking video.

I've seen the video. She was trying to tell him to keep his distance by suggesting her tanning lotion smelled (i.e., so stay away). But he used it as an excuse to get closer, saying it smelled good! That was the opposite of what she wanted. She was trying to make the scene light and talky, and he kept trying to make it about kissing and being physically close. No kissing was scripted here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

And further, in the instant case, she said her tanning lotion smelled and THEN he commented on it. He said it smells good. Watch the freaking video.

I've seen the video. She was trying to tell him to keep his distance by suggesting her tanning lotion smelled (i.e., so stay away). But he used it as an excuse to get closer, saying it smelled good! That was the opposite of what she wanted. She was trying to make the scene light and talky, and he kept trying to make it about kissing and being physically close. No kissing was scripted here.

Wow, you live in your own, very warped world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.

I honestly think Baldoni supporters are delusional. You think BL & RR are going to agree to a settlement for OVER $40 million? Because there was a NYT article -- that they didn't write and that will absolutely not end up getting the NYT in trouble -- that was "almost" career ending?? That's more than 100x his salary in IEWU! There's no evidence he would ever in his life have earned close to that much much less that they caused him to lose that much.

There are multiple defendants seeking compensatory damages. That is not just for Justin. Some of you are too stupid to breath.

They still need to prove damages, not just ask for a percentage of the random number Baldoni/Wayfarer requested. And most of the defendants weren't defamed or really have any cognizable claims (Sarowitz). Publishing text messages Abel made on her work phone isn't defamation.

DP. Actually you don’t need to ‘prove’ damages at all. You show some info, but the jury decides. You think hulk hogan proved he was damager for $100+ m over a video of him having sex when he constantly bragged about his sexual prowess?

You need to educate yourself bc most of what you say is just dead wrong

DP but that's what it means to "prove" damages -- you convince a jury that the damages are justified. Hogan proved to the jury that the embarrassment and invasion of privacy from having that video come out was worth $140 million. I disagree, but I wasn't on that jury. I'm guessing they appealed to how the jurors themselves would feel if a similar video of them was made public.

Pp the point I’m trying to make to the person constantly crowing about Baldonis financials and ‘how could he expect that much??!!!’ is that the ‘proof’ of damages and the amount are essentially never tied to tangible financial loss. So she needs to STFU already

There are two kinds of damages. Compensatory damages, which are absolutely tied to tangible financial loss (often based on expert testimony about, for instance, the value of lost property or the lost profits from a business venture, etc.) and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are supposed to literally compensate the plaintiff for losses related to the alleged claim and do need to be based on something real.

You are talking about punitive damages, which are meant to punish the defendant for the wrongness of their actions. This is an amount above and beyond the actual financial losses or expenses a plaintiff may have incurred. Juries have more latitude in awarding punitive damages (though judges also have some latitude in bringing down a really huge punitive award and this happens with some regularity. Punitive damages are not always allowed -- they are generally meant to apply only to cases where the behavior is very egregious or willful.

There are also jurisdictions that have treble damages, which is where the the compensatory damages amount is multiplied or in some cases added to. Treble damages are a form of punitive damages but are more directly linked to the compensatory damage decision, making the determination of compensatory damages extra important in these jurisdictions.

Baldoni has asked for $400 million in compensatory damages, which his complaint say will include "consequential damages, lost wages, earnings, and all other sums of money, together with interest on those amounts."

He is ALSO asking for pain and suffering (a form of compensatory damages but a squishier one -- it's meant to compensate the plaintiff for their negative experience caused by the defendant's actions), as well as punitive damages. While he specifies the $400 million for compensatory damages, he leaves pain and suffering and punitive damages open ended.

If you are going to lecture people on how damages work in civil actions, the very least you could do is supply good info. Otherwise, respectfully, it is you who should (quoting here) "STFU."

For one, it’s not just Baldoni. It’s multiple parties, and the rest of your post is just your typical PR blather.

But to clarify for you again, Hulk hogan was awarded over 100m just for compensatory damages. Not including punitive. So yes, STFU

Dp, but agree, I don’t think it’s crazy to think they would get a six figure award at trial because the jury would have already found the claims to be fabricated in order to reach damages. The reputational damages would be significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

And further, in the instant case, she said her tanning lotion smelled and THEN he commented on it. He said it smells good. Watch the freaking video.

I've seen the video. She was trying to tell him to keep his distance by suggesting her tanning lotion smelled (i.e., so stay away). But he used it as an excuse to get closer, saying it smelled good! That was the opposite of what she wanted. She was trying to make the scene light and talky, and he kept trying to make it about kissing and being physically close. No kissing was scripted here.

Wow, you live in your own, very warped world.

He signed the 17 point checklist.
He agreed to no more unscripted nudity, kissing, sex, etc.
He agreed to no more discussions about porn, Lively’s non-exposure to porn, lack of consent.
He agreed to no more open screens with whole crew during cast nudity, or open sets during same.
He agreed to producer and intimacy coordinator on set at certain times.
He promised not to retaliate.
He hired the same crisis PR team as Amber Heard.
He wanted them to make him feel more protected. They responded to one another that they could bury anyone.
But they wouldn’t say exactly what they would do in writing, because that could get them in trouble.
Heath, Baldoni, and the PR reps had many in person conversations and calls that are not captured in these texts.
Baldoni says he needs something like the PR campaign against Hailey Bieber.
The PR reps said their campaign would be untraceable.
Why was untraceability so important if what he was doing was just boosting his own name and not hurting hers?
It was because he had promised not to retaliate, and what he was doing was retaliating, so he needed it to be untraceable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

Hey, thank you for this serious response. To be honest, I am not surprised you support Lively here in part because you have actually been sexually assaulted/harassed but were not in a position to sue and understand how difficult it is to report and to be taken seriously as a victim. Your experience resonates with me, too. I have said it before here, but I have also been sexually harassed both at and outside of work, and in every case except one I just moved forward and moved on because I could not deal with the fallout that would happen to me as a result of reporting. The one case that I did report had no effect on me because I was a prospective employee who declined the job offer so I wouldn't need the situation following me into my new job. Every other time I just kept my mouth shut.

The most and possibly only successful result I have seen come out of a sexual harassment suit or exposure (besides the NYT exposure of Weinstein) was Taylor Swift suing that gross DJ for $1 to prove a point. She didn't give them her medical records so they couldn't tear her down; she wasn't suing him for real money. Women who speak out to try to warn others get scrutinized and pilloried, time and time over. Famous cases I know of are Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, Amber Heard, Bill Cosby's accuser (who also got sued for defamation) Andrea Constand, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinski. None of these women besides Constand were ultimately taken seriously (and even Cosby got his sentence thrown out), and all of them were mocked and derided for coming forward. Just like people on this board are doing. All of them had lies told about them that other people believed and used to mock them. That's the way women are treated.

It's not right. I agree with you that if facts come out showing that the SH or retaliation didn't actually happen, I'll withdraw my support. But like you, I believe Lively mostly experienced what is in her complaint. (I frankly don't care if every single detail is correct. To me there is no real difference between "You smell good" and "You smell so good.") I believe her, and I also hope real details come out about the retaliation campaign, because if that can be proven, it would help so many women going forward.

I'm a real person too and I believe her.

And further, in the instant case, she said her tanning lotion smelled and THEN he commented on it. He said it smells good. Watch the freaking video.

I've seen the video. She was trying to tell him to keep his distance by suggesting her tanning lotion smelled (i.e., so stay away). But he used it as an excuse to get closer, saying it smelled good! That was the opposite of what she wanted. She was trying to make the scene light and talky, and he kept trying to make it about kissing and being physically close. No kissing was scripted here.

Wow, you live in your own, very warped world.

He signed the 17 point checklist.
He agreed to no more unscripted nudity, kissing, sex, etc.
He agreed to no more discussions about porn, Lively’s non-exposure to porn, lack of consent.
He agreed to no more open screens with whole crew during cast nudity, or open sets during same.
He agreed to producer and intimacy coordinator on set at certain times.
He promised not to retaliate.
He hired the same crisis PR team as Amber Heard.
He wanted them to make him feel more protected. They responded to one another that they could bury anyone.
But they wouldn’t say exactly what they would do in writing, because that could get them in trouble.
Heath, Baldoni, and the PR reps had many in person conversations and calls that are not captured in these texts.
Baldoni says he needs something like the PR campaign against Hailey Bieber.
The PR reps said their campaign would be untraceable.
Why was untraceability so important if what he was doing was just boosting his own name and not hurting hers?
It was because he had promised not to retaliate, and what he was doing was retaliating, so he needed it to be untraceable.

Way to prove my point! There is nothing normal about your refusal to put things in context.