Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

Extensively? Let’s see the clip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1) Explaining the law is not "PR blather." The above comment is not pro-Lively or pro-Baldoni. It simply lays out damages work in civil cases. If those facts somehow undermine your belief system around this case, that's a you problem.

2) Hogan's damage award had three parts. He received $55 million in compensatory economic damages, $60 million for "emotional distress", and $25.1 million in punitive damages. Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties are claiming $400 million in economic damages and asking for an unspecified amount for pain and suffering and in punitive damages. As mentioned in the above comment, emotional distress or "pain and suffering" damages sort of straddle the line between compensatory and punitive -- they are technically compensatory but they are not as well defined as economic damages, so it can be a way to sneak in a punitive element to compensatory damages. If you follow the Hogan formula for estimating pain and suffering and punitive damages, Baldoni et al would get somewhere in the ballpark of $1.019 billion dollars if they received the full requested 400m in economic damages to start.

They deserve every cent. Blake and Ryan (and any of their lawyers, management, et al. who helped conspire and carry out this evil scheme) should be bankrupted.

In what world do these people deserve a billion dollars? Like spell it out. Why?

Because Blake & Ryan are allegedly paper billionaires and everyone who helped them has billions - and who’s to say Justin couldn’t have made a billion in the next 30 years. The settlement needs to be a judicial shot across the brow to power drunk psychopaths and their complicit entertainment and media toadies that this sort of blackballing character assassination conspiracy scheme must never, ever happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1) Explaining the law is not "PR blather." The above comment is not pro-Lively or pro-Baldoni. It simply lays out damages work in civil cases. If those facts somehow undermine your belief system around this case, that's a you problem.

2) Hogan's damage award had three parts. He received $55 million in compensatory economic damages, $60 million for "emotional distress", and $25.1 million in punitive damages. Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties are claiming $400 million in economic damages and asking for an unspecified amount for pain and suffering and in punitive damages. As mentioned in the above comment, emotional distress or "pain and suffering" damages sort of straddle the line between compensatory and punitive -- they are technically compensatory but they are not as well defined as economic damages, so it can be a way to sneak in a punitive element to compensatory damages. If you follow the Hogan formula for estimating pain and suffering and punitive damages, Baldoni et al would get somewhere in the ballpark of $1.019 billion dollars if they received the full requested 400m in economic damages to start.

They deserve every cent. Blake and Ryan (and any of their lawyers, management, et al. who helped conspire and carry out this evil scheme) should be bankrupted.

In what world do these people deserve a billion dollars? Like spell it out. Why?

Because Blake & Ryan are allegedly paper billionaires and everyone who helped them has billions - and who’s to say Justin couldn’t have made a billion in the next 30 years. The settlement needs to be a judicial shot across the brow to power drunk psychopaths and their complicit entertainment and media toadies that this sort of blackballing character assassination conspiracy scheme must never, ever happen again.

This poster is just some meat puppet; the answer isn't remotely serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

Extensively? Let’s see the clip.

Still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1) Explaining the law is not "PR blather." The above comment is not pro-Lively or pro-Baldoni. It simply lays out damages work in civil cases. If those facts somehow undermine your belief system around this case, that's a you problem.

2) Hogan's damage award had three parts. He received $55 million in compensatory economic damages, $60 million for "emotional distress", and $25.1 million in punitive damages. Baldoni and the other Wayfarer parties are claiming $400 million in economic damages and asking for an unspecified amount for pain and suffering and in punitive damages. As mentioned in the above comment, emotional distress or "pain and suffering" damages sort of straddle the line between compensatory and punitive -- they are technically compensatory but they are not as well defined as economic damages, so it can be a way to sneak in a punitive element to compensatory damages. If you follow the Hogan formula for estimating pain and suffering and punitive damages, Baldoni et al would get somewhere in the ballpark of $1.019 billion dollars if they received the full requested 400m in economic damages to start.

They deserve every cent. Blake and Ryan (and any of their lawyers, management, et al. who helped conspire and carry out this evil scheme) should be bankrupted.

In what world do these people deserve a billion dollars? Like spell it out. Why?

Because Blake & Ryan are allegedly paper billionaires and everyone who helped them has billions - and who’s to say Justin couldn’t have made a billion in the next 30 years. The settlement needs to be a judicial shot across the brow to power drunk psychopaths and their complicit entertainment and media toadies that this sort of blackballing character assassination conspiracy scheme must never, ever happen again.

This poster is just some meat puppet; the answer isn't remotely serious.

How much would you want if you or your husband had a local millionaire conspire with the largest local news outlet to smear you as some sexual deviant predator, get you fired from your jobs, and buried you in civil lawsuits to drive the conspiracy home? Multiple the number that pops into your head by 100 and that’s what Justin should get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

Extensively? Let’s see the clip.

Still waiting.

DP, but she talked about this eloquently off the cuff in Copenhagen. I note that when Flaa made fun of her for these remarks she carefully edited out all the audience applause and cut it to make it seem tone deaf. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYJ-GFJmT7M

The part I refer to runs from about 4:50 to 7:20. Two minutes of straight, extemporaneous discussion.

And your toe tapping here is completely disingenuous. This clip has been discussed in this thread before as you well know (find it yourself, we are not your google servants!), and omg you waited a whole 20 minutes! People have lives and ish to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Preach!!!

Also, yet another amicus brief has dropped, this one from the National Organization for Women and several other groups, focusing on the DARVO tactics used by men accused of SH, particularly in filing defamation suits against their accusers. They cite to 6 full pages of news articles etc. where men have pulled this absolute BS.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.283.1.pdf

This brief is filed by the NYC chapter of NOW. I’m sure we will learn of the Lively connection in short order.

Blake’s MTD called into question how 47.1 should be interpreted. The filing of amicus with literally no new arguments months later remains highly suspicious..

Look at you, telling these womens and survivor groups to be quiet like a good little girl.

Who said that?

Aren't you? You're arguing that these briefs are all "highly suspicious" and contain "literally no new arguments" that were each filed "months" after they should have been, but you also think that the judge should indeed consider them and that womens and survivor groups should continue to file them? Wait, allow me to sell you this bridge.

Please point out the new arguments in the amicus briefs? There simply isn’t any. So, sure, let’s pretend this is anything more than a pr stunt organized by Blake’s lawyers. When your high profile best friend publicly disavows you and your claims, use your power and influence to make it look like you have a cause.

Seems clear you haven't read them and don't seem to understand the purpose of amicus briefs. That's a shame. Nice sea lioning, though.

[Anonymous]

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman has granted Stephanie Jones's request for a protective order prohibiting the enforcement of Wayfarer's subpoena for records from the security firm, Edgeworth, that Jones hired in anticipation of litigation. Loss for Wayfarer and Baldoni, clearly. The judge denies that there is evidence of any crime or fraud having occurred here that would defeat normal attorney/client (and outside firm hired in anticipation of litigation) privilege here.

In particular, check out the footnote: "The Wayfarer Parties have provided evidence of an action filed in New York state court by 'Vanzan, Inc.,' a corporation purportedly associated with Lively, against 'Does 1-10.' Dkt. No. 204-1. The Wayfarer Parties assert (without providing evidence) that this action was filed solely in order to allow Vanzan, Inc. to subpoena Jonesworks for Abel's communications under New York law. Dkt. No. 204-1. This does not provide probable cause to believe that the identified communications between Edgeworth and Jones or Jonesworks were in furtherance of a crime or fraud."

That's gotta hurt. So many hopes and dreams had been pinned there. Thoughts and prayers.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.284.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

[Anonymous]

So Vanzan has been relegated to literally a footnote in this case as predicted. And I'm in the group that thinks it was unethical, but as directed to the state court where it was filed. Unsatisfactory though it may be it just isn't going to move the needle in this suit. But we may get some flashy move from Freedman to deflect.

[Anonymous]

All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

And, oh look, the Vanzan allegations don't really matter at all with respect to this case and "someone on TikTok said so" doesn't count as evidence in support of those allegations to begin with. Color me shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is so damning that Lively and her lawyers have many longstanding relationships with nonprofit advocacy groups for women, children, DV survivors, and other survivors of sexual violence. What horrible people.

I wonder where Know More, the org that Baldoni partnered with during IEWU, stands on the question of whether 47.1 should be declared unconstitutional, as Baldoni's lawyers are arguing.

Let’s be clear, this is not based on Lively’s long standing commitment to anything.

I mean, she didn’t even read the book, and rather than using the film as a platform for discussions about domestic violence, she wanted to talk about florals and girls nights.

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

Extensively? Let’s see the clip.

Still waiting.

DP, but she talked about this eloquently off the cuff in Copenhagen. I note that when Flaa made fun of her for these remarks she carefully edited out all the audience applause and cut it to make it seem tone deaf. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYJ-GFJmT7M

The part I refer to runs from about 4:50 to 7:20. Two minutes of straight, extemporaneous discussion.

And your toe tapping here is completely disingenuous. This clip has been discussed in this thread before as you well know (find it yourself, we are not your google servants!), and omg you waited a whole 20 minutes! People have lives and ish to do.

Two whole minutes it which she provides a few sentence plot summary. Neither extensive nor profound. Got anything actually substantive or no? I’m guessing no if this is what you posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the people who think compensatory damages don't have to be linked to some kind of actual economic loss... Why are you posting legal theories in a thread if you literally don't understand the basics of civil law claims? Thanks to the poster who spelled that out.

And, oh look, the Vanzan allegations don't really matter at all with respect to this case and "someone on TikTok said so" doesn't count as evidence in support of those allegations to begin with. Color me shocked.

Well see, the footnote seems an invitation to provide more evidence about the VanZan case.