Gwyneth Paltrow court case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like this. People who read People get lulled into this false sense of familiarity. They identify with the celebrity. It’s vet strange.

No, it's like this. I don't like people suing someone when they are lying and at fault. I don't follow Gwyneth or care about her.

In real llife my dh was sued with major fabrications. He won but it was very stressful and expensive.

[Anonymous]

I don't know gp, but I'm glad she won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s like this. People who read People get lulled into this false sense of familiarity. They identify with the celebrity. It’s vet strange.

No, it's like this. I don't like people suing someone when they are lying and at fault. I don't follow Gwyneth or care about her.

In real llife my dh was sued with major fabrications. He won but it was very stressful and expensive.

Same. I actually quite dislike GP. If the facts had been against her I probably would have enjoyed the schadenfreude. But that’s just not how it stacked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were on her shoes. I’d never ever have gone to court. She did not to defend herself but to promote herself and stop a slew of (some apparently v warranted) Goop suits

Oh, BS. She didn't settle because *she hadn't done anything wrong*. Sanderson is a nut who clearly thought he could cash in on a wealthy celebrity by making up a stupid story. If no one had told him that it was Gwyneth Paltrow he skied into that day, he would have simply gone on with the rest of his life. He is a money-grubbing, 15-minutes-of-fame-seeking nut. So glad he lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else watch the verdict? She leaned over and said something to Sanderson on her way out of court. Kinda wonder what she said.

Seemed a little inappropriate and risky.

Two narcissists going at each other.

Except that this is what she said. Classy.

According to Mail Online, she touched his shoulder I told him: “I wish you well.” Mr. Sanderson reportedly responded: “Thank you, dear.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300k is nothing. I do believe his injuries and all the fracas is worth it. He’ll get at best 60% of that if his lawyers are working on contingency. He may get taxed.

If she wins he’s ruined and his children won’t inherit either. I think it’s a tragedy in which a rich person shows just how easily steered our judicial system is when money is mismatched.

Something many of our neighbors have known for far too long

She won already and he sued her, she had to defend herself and only requested $1 to make the point. If he's ruined, he can only blame himself.

Her legal fees would bankrupt him

He calculated badly then.

+1
Maybe this will be a lesson to other opportunists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the outcome, her derisive, mocking facial expressions were obnoxious.

Will add that I think she showed her true self.

How should one look while being sued in a frivolous lawsuit?

She skied into him. Fact.

She got away with it. American justice system.

No surprises here.

Oh, I get it. You're the usual troll who regularly gets your posts deleted. FACT: a jury found that she did not ski into in and that in FACT, he skied into her. He brought all of this on himself. Good for the American justice system.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300k is nothing. I do believe his injuries and all the fracas is worth it. He’ll get at best 60% of that if his lawyers are working on contingency. He may get taxed.

If she wins he’s ruined and his children won’t inherit either. I think it’s a tragedy in which a rich person shows just how easily steered our judicial system is when money is mismatched.

Something many of our neighbors have known for far too long

She won already and he sued her, she had to defend herself and only requested $1 to make the point. If he's ruined, he can only blame himself.

Her legal fees would bankrupt him

So she shouldn't have lawyers defend her in this bad faith case?? He can quickly go bankrupt and might get away with not paying her legal fees.

Hope you eyeroll when you face bankruptcy at 76. What this tells everyone is that the new class system is here to stay and rebellion is futile

You are as ridiculous as this case

+100
Just the usual troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s like this. People who read People get lulled into this false sense of familiarity. They identify with the celebrity. It’s vet strange.

No, it's like this. I don't like people suing someone when they are lying and at fault. I don't follow Gwyneth or care about her.

In real llife my dh was sued with major fabrications. He won but it was very stressful and expensive.

+1
Exactly. Frivolous lawsuits deserve to backfire on the fraudsters suing. And this one did, big time.

[Anonymous]

Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where does your desire to please the celebrity come from?

What are you even talking about? If you ski, you know how ignorant this guy is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

I think they thought they’re in America. What were the jury instructions with respect to attorney’s fees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

No, it is a separate hearing at a later date to discuss legal fees. She might be kind enough to not pursue, but if her insurance is involved, she may have to continue on to be paid back legal fees for this bad faith case.

Finding him 100% responsible says a lot of what the jury thought. She only sued for $1 to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

I think they thought they’re in America. What were the jury instructions with respect to attorney’s fees?

I think the jury had sympathy for Terry. If paltrow wasn't rich and could afford the attorney fees they would have given them to her. They didn't want to potentially bankrupt him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait she got a 1 and didn’t get $$ for attorney fees. That says a lot of what the jury thought.

No, it is a separate hearing at a later date to discuss legal fees. She might be kind enough to not pursue, but if her insurance is involved, she may have to continue on to be paid back legal fees for this bad faith case.

Finding him 100% responsible says a lot of what the jury thought. She only sued for $1 to make a point.

THIS. She was definitely not after any money. She had to countersue though.