Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP, taking notes on your considered thoughts on how reasonable Baldoni fans have been in this thread in talking about settlement a whole hour after you/someone just called me “brain damaged,” hang on.

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP, taking notes on your considered thoughts on how reasonable Baldoni fans have been in this thread in talking about settlement a whole hour after you/someone just called me “brain damaged,” hang on.

Right. You’re a ‘victim’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On some level I'm impressed that Baldoni losing on ALL of his claims at the MTD stage has not impacted the confidence of JB supporters even the tiniest bit. The delusion is strong with y'all.

Meanwhile when all the Taylor stuff was going down, you saw Lively supporters openly saying that if it was true that Lively threatened Taylor or tried to get her to destroy evidence, they would absolutely stop supporting her. When Lively has had bad outcomes to motions or the judge has seemed annoyed with her side, Lively supporters largely seem to acknowledge this, at least.

But Baldoni's entire lawsuit was just thrown out, and the JB folks are still out here lecturing, giving unsolicited advise, explaining how "litigations" work, etc. Truly epic.

How old are you?

You can’t answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this suggested on Reddit and thought it was interesting (link to thread here, this quote is from the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1l7o47r/did_people_actually_read_all_the_legal_filings/):

"Baldoni’s entire defense was that Blake supposedly made up the sexual harassment to steal the movie. That claim’s been thrown out and can’t be brought up again. I have no idea what Baldoni’s defense is even going to be now. Why did she “lie” about being sexually harassed?"

I am not sure this is true or not and would be curious what others think. But if it is true, this would make this loss a much bigger deal that I think a lot of people currently think it is, because it could have implications for how well Justin can defend himself against the SH allegations. I'm curious if a jury will be as persuaded by just a straightforward defense (this didn't happen, she is lying or her perception is wrong) rather than this theory they've been putting forward that she was lying on purpose in order to gain control of the movie or obtain the rights to the sequel.

I’m not sure how much they can prove she was trying to get rights to the sequel. It’s not a stretch in my mind, but I have no idea if they can prove that or convince a jury.

However it seems very easy to show she was taking control of the movie via of the sexual harassment allegations. They absolutely advanced her role in the movie and it’s hard to argue otherwise. She simply would not have gotten PGA credit, which is a very powerful and sought after credential if you want to do things like direct and produce, which apparently she did. It was smart of Wayfare to write that letter and file it with their legal team to show that they did it under duress.

She also took control of the marketing of the movie which financially benefited Ryan, she blatantly sad that she wouldn’t charge the use of his marketing firm to the film and then she did. So they got paid, but also it allowed her to take control of the marketing and launch her hair products during promotions for the film as well as shill for Ryan’s gin line. Yes, inexplicably she had drinks made with his gin and her booze line even named after characters in the film during promotional events.

She also levered the fact that Ryan wrote the rooftop scene and was able to share that on the red carpet which helped them create the Barbenheimer effect they were trying to create. Tons of red carpet footage of her talking about Ryan and Deadpool. Showing that Deadpool was playing in the marquis next door etc.

It seemed like wayfarer was blindsided by the list after the strike and she used the list to leverage a lot of control over the film. I don’t know how all of it will shake out or even if it will go to trial, but it’s hard not to see that she got a lot of things when her lawyers started sending threatening letters to Wayfarer and alleging sexual harassment.

Gotta appreciate the hopefulness here I guess after a day like yesterday I guess. Not even Freedman is out there spouting this rn so good job you I guess.

I don’t understand what you are talking about. Blake lively still very much has to show sexual harassment and retaliation took place.

Her former best friends don’t believe her, Hollywood doesn’t believe her, but I’m sure she is glad some anonymous poster on DCUM is shilling for her.

I don't think you can conclude "Hollywood" doesn't believe her. She's gotten quite a bit of support. Agent hasn't dropped her, she still gets invited to stuff, she's been seen publicly with Hollywood people. I think people are wary of her because of the bad press but that's different than thinking she's lying.

No idea what to make of the Taylor falling out, would love to know what the issue was there. But I'm not convinced that Taylor thinks she's lying -- Taylor didn't seem particularly in Baldoni's side, and if she thought Blake was just making it all up, I would think she would have been more supportive of Baldoni. Instead it just seemed like she was annoyed to be brought into it at all and annoyed with both Blake and Baldoni. Which reads to me like she thinks they both suck, which is very different from thinking Blake is lying.

You are overthinking and over analyzing the Taylor thing. Of course she didn’t take Baldoni side, they were never friends. Sounds like she met him once at the apartment and she’s pissed that she got dragged into this. It would be very weird for her to support Justin. Frankly, I support Justin, but I don’t like the guy. I think he’s a bit of a fraud and super annoying, I just don’t think he sexually harassed blake.

Taylor hasn’t been seen with Blake since October. I think she caught wind of this and was fed up. It’s pretty clear that even before the dragons text she felt like she was being used. It’s now coming out that a bunch of her friends have been warning Taylor about Blake lively for years. Selena Gomez in particular was very weary and always thought Blake was using her. I think seeing some of Blake’s actions and then seeing some of her resurfaced interviews as we all did in August made her very weary. She started distancing herself way before the Kalisi text.

The New Year’s Time article dropped December 21 and Taylor was silent and not supporting her. And that’s when we were all supporting her because the article was so one-sided! I for sure thought she’d been sexually harassed. So it was particularly damning for Taylor, who stands up for women, was silent about her best friend.

I mean, even Blake’s sisterhood of the traveling pants costars, and Amy Schumer issued statements of support at that time. But Taylor, totally silent. And not even willing to be seen with Blake. Or throw any kind of indicator that they were friends when the whole Super Bowl came and went, and Blake was not there.

So I’m a little confused why you’d say “I don’t know what to make of the Taylor thing.” there’s nothing to make of . It seems pretty clear that Taylor is set up with her and cut her out of her life and is not supporting her. Having Travis publicly Unfollow Ryan was icing on the cake, and talk about breadcrumbs, it was instantly picked up and it’s been months and she’s done nothing to say oh it was a mistake. There’s nothing really to make of it. It is what it is.

Filing a federal lawsuit based on actual lies is a big deal. I personally think that if Taylor believed Blake was lying about all this (as many JB supporters do), she would have cooperated more willingly with Baldoni's legal team to help him clear his name.

What I think is more likely is that Taylor believes Baldoni did the stuff Lively is alleging and that he sucks, but also that when she saw how Lively was using Taylor's name and rep in the Khaleesi email and in the IEWU press, she felt used.

I should also note that I don't believe the stuff Freedman alleges about Blake threatening Taylor or trying to get her to delete messages. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Try convincing Taylor fans that if she thought he was a sexual harasser she would not be doing more to help. I’m sorry, but that just does not pass muster.

You can downplay this all you want, but Taylor severing the friendship is the biggest PR blow Blake could possibly imagine and it’s going to be incredibly difficult to recover from.

Most Taylor fans I know actually think Taylor secretly supports Blake and us just laying low to avoid making it look like she's throwing her weight to bury Baldoni, since he's already alleging that was the plan.

I don't actually know any Swifties who support Baldoni.

If she secretly supports Blake, explain why Travis unfollowed Ryan. Come on, that was such a petty move. It is super easy to mute someone if you don’t want to follow their content. Swift is the queen of breadcrumbs. She knew that the press would instantly pick it up and they did. That was sending a message.

These fantasies of Taylor secretly supporting Blake are just so weird. Blake has a lot of power on her side with her money and her legal team. She just scored a big victory. Trying to twist the Taylor part is just weird and really transparent. No one is buying it.

Why would she have gotten in that dig that she didn’t even bother to see the movie for weeks? I mean that was just super unnecessary lol

And if you know anything about Swifty’s, it’s delusional to think that anyone thinks they are still friends. That is just not the prevailing thinking.

Dp and I haven’t fully kept up on this issue but I think everyone knows taylor swift slammed Blake and clearly thinks she’s a liar. Maybe they’ll make amends but this was so damaging.

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Excellent comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oof the comments on articles about this litigation news are mostly very anti Blake. A few supporters here and there, but a lot of hate for Blake. People really hate her.

+1000

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

DP and experienced lawyer. I’ve been in and out of this thread, but I’ve only seen rational discussion about these issues on this thread. As a former litigator (I now do compliance focused work), I know that good lawyers should always help their clients keep an eye on settlement. Litigation is costly and unpredictable. This is obvious.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Excellent comment.

DP.

I’m a former litigator. I don’t see how Blake has more options now, as PP claimed. How so?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

This is obvious to most lawyers

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

Nah, the vast majority of comments on settlement have been reasonable thoughts on the benefits of settling. You just choose to ignore them so you can be angry and indignant

DP but I do think the folks who have been insisting that Blake was dumb not to settle have just been proven wrong.

It's common in high profile litigation for the public perception of the case to differ from the legal standing of the parties. The public is generally just weighing in on who they like more, or who they are more sympathetic towards, with no real understanding of underlying legal concepts or what evidence is likely to be relevant or how the law gets applied in cases like this.

In this case, I think Lively's team has known for months that they had extremely good odds of getting at least some of Baldoni's key claims dismissed at the MTD phase. Months ago, I predicted in this thread that the extortion claim was for sure a goner (they didn't even bother to plead the elements of extortion or offer any evidence), and most like the defamation claims against NYT and Sloane. I thought at the time that the defamation claim against Reynolds was most likely to survive MTDs and that maybe one or more of the contract claims would survive. I think that assessment, after reading all the documents, was pretty spot on in terms of a good guess as to what might happen here. Obviously Lively got more than that, and I'm sure they are thrilled, but even if only the claims I suggested would be dismissed had been dismissed, Baldoni's claims would be greatly diminished from a financial perspective. Without the defamation claims against Lively and NYT, and with no extortion claim, the alleged damages would have been revised down by a lot (especially given that $400m was always a huge reach even if all claims had survived and been well pled).

Given this, from a settlement perspective, it was always going to make sense for Lively to, at a minimum, wait until the MTDs were decided before even entertaining settlement discussions, because the fewer claims Baldoni can hold over her head, the worse his bargaining position is in terms of coming up with a financial settlement. Lively just went from being in a position to potentially need to give him tens of millions to make this whole thing go away, to the reverse. Now if the parties want to settle, Baldoni has to pay Lively. I don't think that will happen but it's unquestionably a better situation for her, and as the case continues to unfold, the potential remains for the pressure on Baldoni to increase, whereas the worst thing that can happen to Lively is she loses her case and is out the expense of litigation.

Of course there is a PR element, but the MTD decision obviously also benefits Lively on that front. Before the great dismissal, Lively was in a terrible position with regards to PR and the pressure for her to just make it all go away was strong. But, again, knowing they had a very good chance of a successful result on the MTDs, it would have been idiotic for her to negotiate a settlement from that PR position, knowing there was a good likelihood that the judge's decision on the MTDs would boost her PR position and put her on more equal footing with JB. Which I think it has. She's also in more of a power position moving forward as the sole plaintiff, and will not have to play defense as much in the press.

So if you were saying a few weeks ago that Lively would be stupid not to settle, whether for legal reasons or PR reasons, you were incorrect. Her team knew a positive outcome here was likely (not this positive, but still positive) which would have made it dumb to settle when she was in the weakest possible position. Now her position is stronger and she has more options, because she waited.

Her position is somewhat stronger but it still ultimately depends on Justin. The issue you are missing is that ongoing litigation tends to immerse people and the longer it goes on, the more it can cause people to entrench. This is a win for her but she still has a lot of risk, and a continuing PR nightmare and exorbitant legal fees. Justin never depended on his image. She did and does. And he has a financial backer.

With all of that, I continue to think it is always better for her to try to settle.

“Justin never depended on his image”?!?!

What fresh hellscape of denial is this?

Baldoni’s image has been completely wrapped up in his male feminist “Man Enough” persona for years. That’s gone. How does he even return to acting or directing at this point? Who backs him besides Sarowitz? He has been in Hawaii for months, hiding.

DP. How does justin depend on his image in the same way Blake does? He has moved to behind the camera work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On some level I'm impressed that Baldoni losing on ALL of his claims at the MTD stage has not impacted the confidence of JB supporters even the tiniest bit. The delusion is strong with y'all.

Meanwhile when all the Taylor stuff was going down, you saw Lively supporters openly saying that if it was true that Lively threatened Taylor or tried to get her to destroy evidence, they would absolutely stop supporting her. When Lively has had bad outcomes to motions or the judge has seemed annoyed with her side, Lively supporters largely seem to acknowledge this, at least.

But Baldoni's entire lawsuit was just thrown out, and the JB folks are still out here lecturing, giving unsolicited advise, explaining how "litigations" work, etc. Truly epic.

How old are you?

You can’t answer?

DP, but no Lively supporter owes you anything here.

[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:Who knew a judge’s ruling was the end all be all on this sub forum. Page after page of whining over how Johnny Depo dodged accountability and “won” in court only because he was the more famous A-lister with all the connections. The whiners continue to call Johnny an abusive sociopath. Same dynamic here: Blake and notably her husband are A-listers with exponentially more wealthy and Hollywood connections. Blake gets a court “win” and we’re supposed to forget she and her husband manufactured this hoax from thin air?

This forum has more lawyers per capita and many of us are interested in the legal case, not a particular side. This is a big deal for us, we're nerds.

You've repeated this line for months ("forum with the most lawyers and journalists per capita") and I believed it since I'm fairly new here, yet I'm a journalist, and in the past, when I asked for other reporters' input on some elements of this case, there were crickets, lol. With the exception of one poster who magically was a "fact checker" in the past.

DP but PP above didn’t say “the most lawyers and journalists” above, she just said lawyers.

Whatever, she's always said some variation of that line, and just like she's wrong about the amount of journalists, she's also probably wrong about the amount of lawyers on here, too.

DP but I’ve been on this thread for months and people in the thread have been commenting since the beginning that there are an outsized number of lawyers (or people who claim they are lawyers) in the thread compared to a regular thread, and that seems correct to me. Not sure re journalists. YMMV.

Stop spamming your bullshit disinformation. None of the spamming losers are successful attorneys.

And yet they correctly predicted dismissal.

Yes, it was always an uphill battle. That doesn’t absolve these hoax scam artists. Just as OJ wasn’t innocent.

Huh, I don't remember it being called an uphill battle when the JB side was insisting BL should immediately settle these cases for tens of millions.

Right? Where has this person been for the last four months of discussion Baldoni’s supposedly strong and persuasive claims worth $400M? It was not discussed by Baldoni supporters as an “uphill battle.” They have been urging Luvely to settle for tens of millions of dollars and a statement of contrition for months.

Dp. I’m one who has often recommended settlement and it is so astounding to me that despite the fact I correct you EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue arises, you still revert back to the same fake twisted statement- that Baldoni supporters are insisting she settle ‘ASAP!’ for ‘400M!!’ even though ‘they haven’t even proved damages!!!’ and ‘they insist she gives a statement of contrition!!!. That has NEVER been said. Yet you repeat it again and again. Why? Are you brain damaged? Or is it just some strategy?

What I have said, and seen, on this topic is reasonable and intelligent people commenting that this litigation has been a PR nightmare for her, is likely costing millions and her claims seem extremely weak. Any decent professional would see this, and advise their client to find an exit ramp such as a confidential settlement (no one would need to know how much or how little was exchanged), some sort of word salad statement where neither side took blame and said they’ve decided to settle their differences privately and blah blah.

This happens ALL THE TIME in litigations

So can you finally get this through your head and keep it there??

I'm not the person you're directly replying to, but while there have been SOME comments like that, there have definitely been a lot of comments that just said "Blake should settle already" often after a link to some tabloid article or some story about someone unfollowing her, hardly the nuanced analysis you're describing, or saying the hoaxers Blake and Ryan needs to pay millions and millions (which read to me like the person who also accuses Ryan of being zesty, but I honestly can't remember if those were contained in the same comments). And sometimes I, and others, have said it would be wise to get the financial information from Wayfarer before entering settlement talks, not because "they have to prove damages before settling" but because that's just a reasonable thing to do so they can reach a fair settlement, but that's moot now, as there are currently no claims at all pending against Lively from Wayfarer.

DP and experienced lawyer. I’ve been in and out of this thread, but I’ve only seen rational discussion about these issues on this thread. As a former litigator (I now do compliance focused work), I know that good lawyers should always help their clients keep an eye on settlement. Litigation is costly and unpredictable. This is obvious.

So what would your settlement advice be for Baldoni? How much should he pay Lively to drop her SH and retaliation claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this suggested on Reddit and thought it was interesting (link to thread here, this quote is from the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1l7o47r/did_people_actually_read_all_the_legal_filings/):

"Baldoni’s entire defense was that Blake supposedly made up the sexual harassment to steal the movie. That claim’s been thrown out and can’t be brought up again. I have no idea what Baldoni’s defense is even going to be now. Why did she “lie” about being sexually harassed?"

I am not sure this is true or not and would be curious what others think. But if it is true, this would make this loss a much bigger deal that I think a lot of people currently think it is, because it could have implications for how well Justin can defend himself against the SH allegations. I'm curious if a jury will be as persuaded by just a straightforward defense (this didn't happen, she is lying or her perception is wrong) rather than this theory they've been putting forward that she was lying on purpose in order to gain control of the movie or obtain the rights to the sequel.

I’m not sure how much they can prove she was trying to get rights to the sequel. It’s not a stretch in my mind, but I have no idea if they can prove that or convince a jury.

However it seems very easy to show she was taking control of the movie via of the sexual harassment allegations. They absolutely advanced her role in the movie and it’s hard to argue otherwise. She simply would not have gotten PGA credit, which is a very powerful and sought after credential if you want to do things like direct and produce, which apparently she did. It was smart of Wayfare to write that letter and file it with their legal team to show that they did it under duress.

She also took control of the marketing of the movie which financially benefited Ryan, she blatantly sad that she wouldn’t charge the use of his marketing firm to the film and then she did. So they got paid, but also it allowed her to take control of the marketing and launch her hair products during promotions for the film as well as shill for Ryan’s gin line. Yes, inexplicably she had drinks made with his gin and her booze line even named after characters in the film during promotional events.

She also levered the fact that Ryan wrote the rooftop scene and was able to share that on the red carpet which helped them create the Barbenheimer effect they were trying to create. Tons of red carpet footage of her talking about Ryan and Deadpool. Showing that Deadpool was playing in the marquis next door etc.

It seemed like wayfarer was blindsided by the list after the strike and she used the list to leverage a lot of control over the film. I don’t know how all of it will shake out or even if it will go to trial, but it’s hard not to see that she got a lot of things when her lawyers started sending threatening letters to Wayfarer and alleging sexual harassment.

Gotta appreciate the hopefulness here I guess after a day like yesterday I guess. Not even Freedman is out there spouting this rn so good job you I guess.

I don’t understand what you are talking about. Blake lively still very much has to show sexual harassment and retaliation took place.

Her former best friends don’t believe her, Hollywood doesn’t believe her, but I’m sure she is glad some anonymous poster on DCUM is shilling for her.

I don't think you can conclude "Hollywood" doesn't believe her. She's gotten quite a bit of support. Agent hasn't dropped her, she still gets invited to stuff, she's been seen publicly with Hollywood people. I think people are wary of her because of the bad press but that's different than thinking she's lying.

No idea what to make of the Taylor falling out, would love to know what the issue was there. But I'm not convinced that Taylor thinks she's lying -- Taylor didn't seem particularly in Baldoni's side, and if she thought Blake was just making it all up, I would think she would have been more supportive of Baldoni. Instead it just seemed like she was annoyed to be brought into it at all and annoyed with both Blake and Baldoni. Which reads to me like she thinks they both suck, which is very different from thinking Blake is lying.

You are overthinking and over analyzing the Taylor thing. Of course she didn’t take Baldoni side, they were never friends. Sounds like she met him once at the apartment and she’s pissed that she got dragged into this. It would be very weird for her to support Justin. Frankly, I support Justin, but I don’t like the guy. I think he’s a bit of a fraud and super annoying, I just don’t think he sexually harassed blake.

Taylor hasn’t been seen with Blake since October. I think she caught wind of this and was fed up. It’s pretty clear that even before the dragons text she felt like she was being used. It’s now coming out that a bunch of her friends have been warning Taylor about Blake lively for years. Selena Gomez in particular was very weary and always thought Blake was using her. I think seeing some of Blake’s actions and then seeing some of her resurfaced interviews as we all did in August made her very weary. She started distancing herself way before the Kalisi text.

The New Year’s Time article dropped December 21 and Taylor was silent and not supporting her. And that’s when we were all supporting her because the article was so one-sided! I for sure thought she’d been sexually harassed. So it was particularly damning for Taylor, who stands up for women, was silent about her best friend.

I mean, even Blake’s sisterhood of the traveling pants costars, and Amy Schumer issued statements of support at that time. But Taylor, totally silent. And not even willing to be seen with Blake. Or throw any kind of indicator that they were friends when the whole Super Bowl came and went, and Blake was not there.

So I’m a little confused why you’d say “I don’t know what to make of the Taylor thing.” there’s nothing to make of . It seems pretty clear that Taylor is set up with her and cut her out of her life and is not supporting her. Having Travis publicly Unfollow Ryan was icing on the cake, and talk about breadcrumbs, it was instantly picked up and it’s been months and she’s done nothing to say oh it was a mistake. There’s nothing really to make of it. It is what it is.

Filing a federal lawsuit based on actual lies is a big deal. I personally think that if Taylor believed Blake was lying about all this (as many JB supporters do), she would have cooperated more willingly with Baldoni's legal team to help him clear his name.

What I think is more likely is that Taylor believes Baldoni did the stuff Lively is alleging and that he sucks, but also that when she saw how Lively was using Taylor's name and rep in the Khaleesi email and in the IEWU press, she felt used.

I should also note that I don't believe the stuff Freedman alleges about Blake threatening Taylor or trying to get her to delete messages. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Try convincing Taylor fans that if she thought he was a sexual harasser she would not be doing more to help. I’m sorry, but that just does not pass muster.

You can downplay this all you want, but Taylor severing the friendship is the biggest PR blow Blake could possibly imagine and it’s going to be incredibly difficult to recover from.

Most Taylor fans I know actually think Taylor secretly supports Blake and us just laying low to avoid making it look like she's throwing her weight to bury Baldoni, since he's already alleging that was the plan.

I don't actually know any Swifties who support Baldoni.

lol. You Lively shills are peas in a pod with MAGA Q-anons.