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:

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.

Do you parents know you're out of the basement?

[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:"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.

And it appears his producing partners were willing to throw him and his "challenges" under the bus to get out of going to trial. That's got to hurt.

He was no longer a defendant in the case, and no one threw them under the bus.

10 of the 13 claims got thrown out and the judge was in the process of throwing out all but a contract dispute. Normally, you would not have the CEO in court for a contract dispute. That’s what the lawyers are for. So no, no one was throwing him under the bus, but shine on Blake bots. She should at least pay you enough to know basic facts about the case.

[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:

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.

Do you parents know you're out of the basement?

I’m 47 and in my office so I guess they do

[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.

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

He is uninsurable and unrepresentable, so she actually did win in a sense. Not without lots of damage to herself though. No real winners, but she has a bit of an edge after the statement acknowledging her 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:

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.

Do you parents know you're out of the basement?

I’m 47 and in my office so I guess they do

Have a very serious job, do you? And an active family/social life in the evenings?

[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:

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"

Right. Thank you for pointing out that concerns is not defined and could be literally anything. In fact, the statement notably does not reference her Complaint, sexual harassment or retaliation — which is why it is completely meaningless,

[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.

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

He is uninsurable and unrepresentable, so she actually did win in a sense. Not without lots of damage to herself though. No real winners, but she has a bit of an edge after the statement acknowledging her concerns.

She destroyed herself in the process. She was the one who did all this. For what?? A big fat loss

[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.

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

He is uninsurable and unrepresentable, so she actually did win in a sense. Not without lots of damage to herself though. No real winners, but she has a bit of an edge after the statement acknowledging her concerns.

You really think studios give a rip about that statement? You really think they’re going to hire Blake on a film again after all, that’s come out and now that we know how she and Ryan operate? No, it’s not happening.

[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:

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"

I'm impressed she secured a statement with that supportive language, frankly.

[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:

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"

Right. Thank you for pointing out that concerns is not defined and could be literally anything. In fact, the statement notably does not reference her Complaint, sexual harassment or retaliation — which is why it is completely meaningless,

Exactly. As a lawyer I can promise you this was negotiated and intentionally vague as to be meaningless

[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:

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"

Right. Thank you for pointing out that concerns is not defined and could be literally anything. In fact, the statement notably does not reference her Complaint, sexual harassment or retaliation — which is why it is completely meaningless,

Anyone with a brain knows exactly what it means, but you do you.

[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.

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

He is uninsurable and unrepresentable, so she actually did win in a sense. Not without lots of damage to herself though. No real winners, but she has a bit of an edge after the statement acknowledging her concerns.

He works for a the same small studio that continues to release successful projects. Seems like he is doing just fine. Meanwhile, Blake and Ryan have nothing on their plates.

[Anonymous]

Blake may be able to make a come back but first she need to go away for a while. She also needs to get her head out of her ass and stop acting she is an A-list star. She never was. A little humility on her part would go a long way

[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:

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"

Right. Thank you for pointing out that concerns is not defined and could be literally anything. In fact, the statement notably does not reference her Complaint, sexual harassment or retaliation — which is why it is completely meaningless,

Anyone with a brain knows exactly what it means, but you do you.

Yeah, it means nothing, she settled for literally nothing. No money, no acknowledgement of her allegations and no apology. One can only imagine how weak her evidence was.

[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:

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"

Right. Thank you for pointing out that concerns is not defined and could be literally anything. In fact, the statement notably does not reference her Complaint, sexual harassment or retaliation — which is why it is completely meaningless,

Anyone with a brain knows exactly what it means, but you do you.

Yeah, it means nothing, she settled for literally nothing. No money, no acknowledgement of her allegations and no apology. One can only imagine how weak her evidence was.

Then why was the statement supportive, stating her concerns deserved to be heard?