Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

They would be distressing if they were true

So all three women lied about their experiences and observations? Umkay.

Yes we know from the vast amount of evidence that she lied and coerced her coworkers

Gotta hand it to her, she's been making up lies to get coworkers on set to turn against each other since her Gossip Girl days. She's an admitted pro in that realm who has bragged about it.

Omg you are psychotic. Go take your meds.

Dp, and it’s true. She admits to turning the cast against Penn Badgley, she tells the story as if it were cute and funny. She was also horrifically mean to Leighton Meister.

She’s always been a mean girl. I think she got worse when she felt empowered by her relationships with TS and RR. She felt invincible but she wasn’t

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

Yep, whatever you say! His name is mud now.

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed 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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

Yep, whatever you say! His name is mud now.

Sure, Ryan!

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

His reputation is just fine? Does that mean WME is taking him back?

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

By acknowledging she deserved to be heard? Seems to suggest the opposite.

[Anonymous]

I am legit confused how TMZ can be sure no money was exchanged while Freedan is saying the deal isn't actually settled yet. That kind of leak, if true, could blow up the entire deal.

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

Oh my god, this. The insanity on this thread is concerning. Though I think there is one extra-strident voice responsible for most of this.

[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:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

By acknowledging she deserved to be heard? Seems to suggest the opposite.

Sure does.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

Oh my god, this. The insanity on this thread is concerning. Though I think there is one extra-strident voice responsible for most of this.

Point me to where it says what concerns?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

Oh my god, this. The insanity on this thread is concerning. Though I think there is one extra-strident voice responsible for most of this.

You are right, the Blake bots are totally delusional, and it wouldn’t be surprising if it were only 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

Oh my god, this. The insanity on this thread is concerning. Though I think there is one extra-strident voice responsible for most of this.

Point me to where it says what concerns?

Seriously? "We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard," read a joint statement from lawyers on both sides"

[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:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Dp and I don’t even know what the manosphere is.

I do know that Blake’s case fell apart, and the she walked away with no money instead of presenting what Blake bots insisted was the strongest part of her case.

Weird that Baldoni didn't stick around to win this totally winnable slam dunk case.

.




You don’t know how a lawsuit works obviously

His name will forever be tarnished and remembered for his part in this. He certainly didn't get to clear his name.

I see the Blake bots are stuck in the denial stage. He got 10 of 13 of her claims dismissed. She chose to walk away from the remainder for zero dollars. No one does that unless their case sucks.

How many of his claims were dismissed again?

It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t the one spreading lies to the NY Times. The fact that her claims were dismissed are what he cares about. His reputation is just fine, she’s the one exposed as a liar.

She didn't lie. The NY Times is substantiated by text messages. Wayfarer acknowledged her concerns deserved to be brought to light.

Oh my god, this. The insanity on this thread is concerning. Though I think there is one extra-strident voice responsible for most of this.

No, there are a lot of us. Blake lied and lied and lied. And the statement is meaningless and not even from WF