Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

JB supporters aren't the ones in a Reddit bubble. Nearly everyone on TikTok supports him and that TMZ poll -- voted upon by normies -- was super revealing. Your girl wasn't sexually harassed, I'm sorry you have to contend with the fact that she's a liar.

[Anonymous]

I stepped away for the thread for the day. Come back to find the Blake supporter crashing. Not surprised. Things look dark for Team Lively.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I stepped away for the thread for the day. Come back to find the Blake supporter crashing. Not surprised. Things look dark for Team Lively.

Yeah, they're big mad over that new evidence. I keep telling them and the so called "neutral" supporters who are here! Liman will continually judge in Blake's favor, but Justin will continually have the evidence on his side. Everyone keeps thinking new evidence and new surprises are going to pop up that will change the dynamic, but it's not. And that's because Justin did not sexually harass her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

They're going on about Steve because they have nothing else to latch onto. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

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

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

That’s incorrect. She got a percentage of the profits. She made tens of millions. What you’re quoting was just her base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

Yes the complaints "magically" went away when Blake got what she wanted, which included an agreement to stop touching people without their consent, employ an intimacy consultant on more scenes, and to stop discussing sexual history, their wives' birth experiences, and Baldoni's conversations with Blake's dead father on the set.

Blake also didn't accuse Baldoni of being a "sex pest." She accused him of harassment, which has a legal definition. But keep throwing up straw men -- that's weird, man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Justin knows how powerful Blake and Ryan are. If he were such a sex pest, why would a 20-point list stop him? The complaints magically went away when Blake got what she wanted.

He's also strange for a "sex pest." The berating in Ryan's house not stop him, but then the 20 point list did? That's weird, man!

Yes the complaints "magically" went away when Blake got what she wanted, which included an agreement to stop touching people without their consent, employ an intimacy consultant on more scenes, and to stop discussing sexual history, their wives' birth experiences, and Baldoni's conversations with Blake's dead father on the set.

Blake also didn't accuse Baldoni of being a "sex pest." She accused him of harassment, which has a legal definition. But keep throwing up straw men -- that's weird, man!

Intimacy coordinator was involved from the beginning. Baldoni's conversations about her dad have nothing to do with sexual harassment. etc. etc.

Blake wasn't sexually harassed, man! Get it together!

[Anonymous]

When do you guys think Blake and Ryan will divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

[Anonymous]

How has no one brought up that Rainn Wilson, Dwight from the office, has text messages supporting Baldoni through this and telling him he was ambushed and attacked by lively.

This case just keeps on giving and giving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why are we going on about Steve? He’ll probably be dismissed from the case before trial if it even goes to trial. If he’s dismissed, as the defense is asking, will he even be called? To say what? Security can testify whether or not he was on set. Steve isn’t relevant beyond that.

Why would Sarowitz be dismissed from the case? That makes no sense. On what legal principle?

The defense is asking for him to be dismissed b/c he never belonged in the case. He did not harass her, was barely ever around her and wasn’t on set like she claimed.

He bankrolled the retaliation.

There’s a lot of problems with this lawsuit. A lot will get kicked before trial. You can’t just go around suing the wrong parties. That’s part of the reason Wallace isn’t in the case now. Blake is supposed to be suing it ends with us movie not the others as individuals. Not wayfarer, not Steve, certainly not Abel and Nathan, but it ends with us movie. None of these people could be even remotely considered individually liable except maybe Baldoni and Heath. None of the others have any connection to the alleged SH and they’re simply not individually liable. If this goes to trial, expect it to be with fewer claims and fewer parties.