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:

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’.

I’m no fragile flower and I hold my own here, but I do find it laughable when Baldoni supporters keep insisting how measured and reasonable they’ve been over the last several hundred pages when I’ve been right here. Lie all you want but don’t be shocked by the call outs.

(Remember the days before Lively supporters started insulting back? And the thread was a one way conduit of insults by Baldoni supporters? I think you miss those days.).

NP. I have only seen Lively supporters being immature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, at this point, I think Lively should welcome Freedman taking her deposition instead of a lawyer with more legal acuity. Freedman should be worried about Lively getting under his skin as much as he wants to intimidate her into thinking he will get under hers. Prep her well and she will be fine. Let Freedman sink himself.

We’ve all seen her interviews. She isn’t going to be hard to depose.

As always, I think you underestimate her legal team and how powerful good prep can be. But whatevs. Keep putting all your hopes and dreams in the Freedman basket.

I’m sure that she has had hours and hours of interview prep, yet she basically can’t open her mouth in public without saying something offensive.

I still think this won’t go to trial, but it seems like an uphill battle. I mean, think of the trials of this nature that we’ve seen. Harvey Weinstein raping women left and right for years and terrorizing them and vaporizing their careers. Horrible things have happened to women. Real abuse.

I agree the set was probably uncomfortable and weird, but the problem people have is that Blake contributed to a lot of it, not meeting with the intimacy coordinator, having Justin relay notes, saying that she doesn’t want anything unscripted and then grabbing and kissing him and handling him when it works for her. There’s just a lot of hypocrisy.

We have already caught her in lies - saying that Taylor was involved in the casting and other creative decisions of this movie and we now have Taylor saying that she was not. She said she wrote the rooftop scene, only to change course and say Ryan did it. She said that they’d foot the bill for Ryan’s marketing firm, only to charge the movie for it. Regardless of what happened to her or didn’t happen to her, she has a history of lying and twisting the truth during the course of this film.

What she is alleging, just does not seem like a big deal to some people. I am sure it was annoying to have constant conversations about the birth scene, but it really shouldn’t have been that triggering for Heath to pull out a video of his wife’s home birth. Is it annoying and weird? Yes, but most of us would be able to file a complaint with HR, not run to the New York Times screaming that she was sexually harassed and she’s just doing this to protect other women. It’s been months and months and months, where are these other women? Honestly asking, since this news has broke, have any of the costars voiced their support? This is a pretty big win for Blake, it will be telling in the next couple of days if any of them come forward, or don’t.

Women have been through a lot, this is a tough time, and I just think it’s going to be hard to garner sympathy for this multimillion dollar actress who had every privilege and a ton of control on this set.

Who knows, it’s possible that she will be able to build support, and that if this does go to trial, people could come on the stand or be deposed and support her. If that happens, I’m willing to say I was wrong. But my issue with this is it’s been several months and that hasn’t happened yet.

To the contrary, she gets less popular each month and it’s been six. Even yesterday, there was almost universal negative reaction to the decision, outside of her most ardent supporters. She’s going to need to have some bombshell secret evidence to have a chance of winning in the court of public opinion.

lol, I guess you weren’t hanging out on this board, where there was much rejoicing!

Well, Fric and Frac ran on and on about their prognostication powers, but I guess they were happy for Lively too.

[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.

The statement that Justin doesn't depend on his public image is bizarre. Justin's career is fully dependent on his public image. That's why he hired crisis PR in the first place, because he knew that allegations from Blake had the potential to destroy his entire career as a director, author, podcast host, and thought leader on masculinity and feminism issues.

If Justin's public image didn't matter, none of this would be happening because he never would have hired Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace and those texts between Jen Abel and Nathan and Baldoni wouldn't exist, and Leslie Sloane never would have found out about them from Steph Jones, and there would never have been the VanZan subpoena, and probably never have been the CRD or the NYT article. We are all here because of Justin's public image.

I am new here and just reading the end but can you be serious!? Of course Blake lively depends on her public image in a way that this director didn’t. She’s been all over my social trying to sell crap and doing obvious pap walks. OMG!!! LOLZ

[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, 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’.

I’m no fragile flower and I hold my own here, but I do find it laughable when Baldoni supporters keep insisting how measured and reasonable they’ve been over the last several hundred pages when I’ve been right here. Lie all you want but don’t be shocked by the call outs.

(Remember the days before Lively supporters started insulting back? And the thread was a one way conduit of insults by Baldoni supporters? I think you miss those days.).

Do, there was no such time, the collective you had been screaming about misogyny since day one .

[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.

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?

I think that depends on whether Blake is able to show anything showing sexual harassment or retaliation. So far, the evidence looks terrible for her, but perhaps there is missing intonation, idk.

As other smart posters on here have suggested, I believe a confidential settlement (maybe of a nominal amount or nothing or a donation) and a public statement together is the wisest course of action.

I’ve suggested the same. They settle privately, issue word salad statements and make some show of support (donations) for the sake of goodwill.

Then they should take a break from public and come back quietly on projects.

The longer this goes, up to and through a trial the worse the risk for both.

[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:

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.

The statement that Justin doesn't depend on his public image is bizarre. Justin's career is fully dependent on his public image. That's why he hired crisis PR in the first place, because he knew that allegations from Blake had the potential to destroy his entire career as a director, author, podcast host, and thought leader on masculinity and feminism issues.

If Justin's public image didn't matter, none of this would be happening because he never would have hired Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace and those texts between Jen Abel and Nathan and Baldoni wouldn't exist, and Leslie Sloane never would have found out about them from Steph Jones, and there would never have been the VanZan subpoena, and probably never have been the CRD or the NYT article. We are all here because of Justin's public image.

Honestly his public image has only been bolstered by all of this. Ironic. People know him and LOVE him now.

This is so true. I see #justice for justin all over!! Lolz! The irony!!

[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:

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.

The statement that Justin doesn't depend on his public image is bizarre. Justin's career is fully dependent on his public image. That's why he hired crisis PR in the first place, because he knew that allegations from Blake had the potential to destroy his entire career as a director, author, podcast host, and thought leader on masculinity and feminism issues.

If Justin's public image didn't matter, none of this would be happening because he never would have hired Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace and those texts between Jen Abel and Nathan and Baldoni wouldn't exist, and Leslie Sloane never would have found out about them from Steph Jones, and there would never have been the VanZan subpoena, and probably never have been the CRD or the NYT article. We are all here because of Justin's public image.

Honestly his public image has only been bolstered by all of this. Ironic. People know him and LOVE him now.

I agree with this, never heard of him before December but now he’s known as the guy Blake and Ryan attacked. TikTok is rabidly in his corner, and that’s the age demographic that Hollywood cares about.

[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:

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’.

I’m no fragile flower and I hold my own here, but I do find it laughable when Baldoni supporters keep insisting how measured and reasonable they’ve been over the last several hundred pages when I’ve been right here. Lie all you want but don’t be shocked by the call outs.

(Remember the days before Lively supporters started insulting back? And the thread was a one way conduit of insults by Baldoni supporters? I think you miss those days.).

NP. I have only seen Lively supporters being immature.

Ditto. Very immature postings. It’s embarrassing for her and for them.

[Anonymous]

When Diddy is found not guilty it will mean he's a totally innocent man and all the charges were fabricated, right? He'll immediately be an A-lister again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The statement that Justin doesn't depend on his public image is bizarre. Justin's career is fully dependent on his public image. That's why he hired crisis PR in the first place, because he knew that allegations from Blake had the potential to destroy his entire career as a director, author, podcast host, and thought leader on masculinity and feminism issues.

If Justin's public image didn't matter, none of this would be happening because he never would have hired Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace and those texts between Jen Abel and Nathan and Baldoni wouldn't exist, and Leslie Sloane never would have found out about them from Steph Jones, and there would never have been the VanZan subpoena, and probably never have been the CRD or the NYT article. We are all here because of Justin's public image.

I am new here and just reading the end but can you be serious!? Of course Blake lively depends on her public image in a way that this director didn’t. She’s been all over my social trying to sell crap and doing obvious pap walks. OMG!!! LOLZ

DP. The crap she tries to sell is so embarrassing and cringe too. Is she not rich enough??

[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.

How are her options different now?

Any settlement negotiation now flows financially in her direction -- she has no potential legal liability towards Baldoni now so any settlement will involve him paying her, not the other way around. This gives her the upper hand in settlement negotiations.

Since she's no longer defending claims against her, her legal team no longer has to balance her priorities as a defendant against her priorities as a plaintiff. They can make decisions about discovery, how to approach her deposition, even what witnesses to call without having to worry about it potentially impacting her defense against his claims.

With Sloane and Reynolds now out of the litigation altogether, it simplifies her approach to PR. She can focus PR on just portraying herself in a sympathetic life, and it's not longer so much about her and Ryan as an embattled couple. That streamlining seems like no big deal but look how well it's worked for Baldoni, out in Hawaii with his family. It's easier for Lively to look sympathetic if she's standing alone (or potentially with other women, depending on how things shake out with the rest of the cast and testifying) than if she's always linked to Ryan as co-defendants.

Whatever they've budgeted for this litigation, it now all gets pushed toward her case. This has a bunch of benefits, both financial and practical. Every motion and response her team has to produce costs money and a lot of man hours from her legal team -- with Justin's claims gone, this either cuts their workload down or allows them to invest more time and money in Lively's claims. This is especially critical as discovery proceeds and they will need to go through everything that has been produced plus start to prep all their witnesses for depositions.

There are probably others, but it really cannot be understated how beneficial this decision is, coming at this time. It's not some pyrrhic victory -- this meaningfully changes the landscape for Lively for the better in pretty much every way.

I think it highly unlikely he doesn’t either amend his complaint and/or appeal some or all of f the dismissal. But yes, she has a reprieve for a week or two, and will be facing fewer counter claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Diddy is found not guilty it will mean he's a totally innocent man and all the charges were fabricated, right? He'll immediately be an A-lister again.

Who is diddy in this scenario? Blake?? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end result of this has been telegraphed for months: Blake and Ryan will settle once they wise up and realize all the grifters around them and attorneys are just bleeding them for millions of dollars. Only in the minds of her deluded shut-in "fans" are any of these legal "wins" actually helping her. The public at large knows she and her evil husband cooked this hoax up to ruin a man's life and nothing will change that.

This is the Sad part. The grifting

[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.

How many millions in legal fees do you think Blake and Ryan have incurred so far? My guess is $2 to 3 million and maybe 75 percent of the fees to get to trial still to come.

[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.

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?

She isn't winning a dime nor would he ever pay her a dime. She and her husband were forced to blow millions the last 6 months because they never predicted Justin would fight back and online sleuths would expose their scam. The two hoax bullies figured he'd lay down and take it and they're casually destroy his life and move on with their life like Daisy and Tom Buchanan -- "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness."

The settlement will be $0 as both parties realize this is futile and just bleeding money for no reason. As usual, billable hours win in the end.