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.

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.

To be fair, no matter what happened in this lawsuit, she has made herself unemployable. Too much of a litigation risk plus her documented efforts to take control of the movie.

[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?

Gosh, maybe the ones in the lawsuit which is being settled?

[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.

If you want to be specific, it actually didnt acknowledge any of her concerns. It acknowledged her right to raise concerns. That is not one and the same.

[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:

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?

Unless her concerns were explicitly connected to wha she alleges in the lawsuit, the statement is meaningless. The mental gymnastics the Blake bots are going though are something. And if there is any doubt she was desperate to get out of the case, the fact that she got no money cements it.

[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.

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.

If you want to be specific, it actually didnt acknowledge any of her concerns. It acknowledged her right to raise concerns. That is not one and the same.

True

[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:

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?

Different poster. Give it up already. The statement says nothing. It is intentionally saying absolutely nothing

[Anonymous]

Come on folks, win or lose, right or wrong, the important thing here is that Lively has been forever tarnished and her career is destroyed after she brought forth her concerns, and isn't that the outcome we all love to see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean she's always been B+/A-ish. But the best thing she could have done was go to the Met gala looking gorgeous. Because that was always her appeal. All celebrities are commodities and she reminded everyone where her value lies. She'll get work as an actress, but no producing credits (no one will want to deal with her on that side of the business). It's true that Justin, with no representation and now with insurance liability, will only be able to get work far behind the scenes.

[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:

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?

Different poster. Give it up already. The statement says nothing. It is intentionally saying absolutely nothing

That is absolutely not true, as many posters on this thread have noted.

[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.

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.

If you want to be specific, it actually didnt acknowledge any of her concerns. It acknowledged her right to raise concerns. That is not one and the same.

If the concerns were lies, what right do they have to be raised?

[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:

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?

Unless her concerns were explicitly connected to wha she alleges in the lawsuit, the statement is meaningless. The mental gymnastics the Blake bots are going though are something. And if there is any doubt she was desperate to get out of the case, the fact that she got no money cements it.

Anyone who uses the term Blake bot immediately signals they're a moron. Have at it.

[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.

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.

If you want to be specific, it actually didnt acknowledge any of her concerns. It acknowledged her right to raise concerns. That is not one and the same.

If the concerns were lies, what right do they have to be raised?

Exactly. Plus the "challenges."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean she's always been B+/A-ish. But the best thing she could have done was go to the Met gala looking gorgeous. Because that was always her appeal. All celebrities are commodities and she reminded everyone where her value lies. She'll get work as an actress, but no producing credits (no one will want to deal with her on that side of the business). It's true that Justin, with no representation and now with insurance liability, will only be able to get work far behind the scenes.

We’ll have to agree to disagree that she looks gorgeous. I’ve always thought she has an unattractive face.

[Anonymous]

The lawyers milked both sides for 60 million dollars?! lol. This was so predictable. Lively and Reynolds especially were totally fleeced by every leech around them and... in the end... got NOTHING.

[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.

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.

If you want to be specific, it actually didnt acknowledge any of her concerns. It acknowledged her right to raise concerns. That is not one and the same.

If the concerns were lies, what right do they have to be raised?

They're being diplomatic. People should always feel free to raise any concerns in a workset. That says nothing about their validity.