Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I don’t buy either side. If it was really so bad why didn’t she quit during filming? Why didn’t she call the cops? She’s filthy rich with a powerful husband and was raised by connected parents, this is not some desperate 19 year old from Kansas.

She threatened to quit, demanded an HR summit that listed his misbehavior and forced him to agree to terms before continuing. He agreed to terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.deuxmoi.world/latest/publicist-jennifer-abel-allegedly-breaks-silence-on-explosive-text-messages-in-baldoni-lawsuitist

Dummy. She doesn't need to be subpoenaed since these are work communications. They either subpoenaed the previous company or the company agreed to hand them over. Either way her permission is not needed. There is a message of her saying "I am having reckless thoughts about planting pieces over how're awful Blake is this week" so this "i would NEVER" is BS

I’m confused about when they subpoenaed the documents since the complaint was just filed this week?

You can subpoena to preserve evidence before a complaint is filed.

That’s different than forcing production. What was the mechanism to get the PR people’s emails and texts?

No it isn't. If a court signs a subpoena then they have to produce it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the outrage against her this summer. It seemed so manufactured or trollish. Well.

This thread was started in 2018. Folks have disliked Lively for a long time.

She can be a b$%h and have grounds for a sexual harassment suit at the same time.

For the zillionth time, that’s not all she is alleging. She thinks the social medial comparing tanked her shampoo but people haven’t liked her for years and weren’t going to buy her shampoo anyway.

You're focusing on the least part of what she's alleging. Just skipping all the other stuff. Why is that?

1. That’s the part that seems to be in all headlines, the focus on the times article, and the press releases. (And yes I read the complaint).

2. It’s a huge part of damages and without that piece, it’s questionable whether she would have brought her case.

She has like 8 counts. Strange that you don’t focus on the other 7.

Because most people are too stupid to understand what's really going on. Like you.

You’re right - I don’t know what’s “really going on” or care much about it. As a lawyer, though, I am interested in seeing what’s a cognizable injury and how much you get paid for it. Blake (and her minions like you) will need to be interested in it too if she plans to win and have a payday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her and her husband are sooooooo annoying.

People who mangle the English language are far more annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.deuxmoi.world/latest/publicist-jennifer-abel-allegedly-breaks-silence-on-explosive-text-messages-in-baldoni-lawsuitist

Dummy. She doesn't need to be subpoenaed since these are work communications. They either subpoenaed the previous company or the company agreed to hand them over. Either way her permission is not needed. There is a message of her saying "I am having reckless thoughts about planting pieces over how're awful Blake is this week" so this "i would NEVER" is BS

I’m confused about when they subpoenaed the documents since the complaint was just filed this week?

You can subpoena to preserve evidence before a complaint is filed.

That’s different than forcing production. What was the mechanism to get the PR people’s emails and texts?

No it isn't. If a court signs a subpoena then they have to produce it.

You said preserve evidence that’s not the same as produce evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the outrage against her this summer. It seemed so manufactured or trollish. Well.

This thread was started in 2018. Folks have disliked Lively for a long time.

She can be a b$%h and have grounds for a sexual harassment suit at the same time.

For the zillionth time, that’s not all she is alleging. She thinks the social medial comparing tanked her shampoo but people haven’t liked her for years and weren’t going to buy her shampoo anyway.

You're focusing on the least part of what she's alleging. Just skipping all the other stuff. Why is that?

1. That’s the part that seems to be in all headlines, the focus on the times article, and the press releases. (And yes I read the complaint).

2. It’s a huge part of damages and without that piece, it’s questionable whether she would have brought her case.

She has like 8 counts. Strange that you don’t focus on the other 7.

Because most people are too stupid to understand what's really going on. Like you.

You’re right - I don’t know what’s “really going on” or care much about it. As a lawyer, though, I am interested in seeing what’s a cognizable injury and how much you get paid for it. Blake (and her minions like you) will need to be interested in it too if she plans to win and have a payday.

Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Completely unimpressed, especially since you seem completely clueless as to what this is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the outrage against her this summer. It seemed so manufactured or trollish. Well.

This thread was started in 2018. Folks have disliked Lively for a long time.

She can be a b$%h and have grounds for a sexual harassment suit at the same time.

For the zillionth time, that’s not all she is alleging. She thinks the social medial comparing tanked her shampoo but people haven’t liked her for years and weren’t going to buy her shampoo anyway.

You're focusing on the least part of what she's alleging. Just skipping all the other stuff. Why is that?

1. That’s the part that seems to be in all headlines, the focus on the times article, and the press releases. (And yes I read the complaint).

2. It’s a huge part of damages and without that piece, it’s questionable whether she would have brought her case.

She has like 8 counts. Strange that you don’t focus on the other 7.

I've seen headlines about it all as it's all connected. She didn't go back and time to report him to HR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.deuxmoi.world/latest/publicist-jennifer-abel-allegedly-breaks-silence-on-explosive-text-messages-in-baldoni-lawsuitist

Dummy. She doesn't need to be subpoenaed since these are work communications. They either subpoenaed the previous company or the company agreed to hand them over. Either way her permission is not needed. There is a message of her saying "I am having reckless thoughts about planting pieces over how're awful Blake is this week" so this "i would NEVER" is BS

I’m confused about when they subpoenaed the documents since the complaint was just filed this week?

You can subpoena to preserve evidence before a complaint is filed.

That’s different than forcing production. What was the mechanism to get the PR people’s emails and texts?

No it isn't. If a court signs a subpoena then they have to produce it.

You said preserve evidence that’s not the same as produce evidence.

I thought the part that would have been obvious since Blake's team obvious have the messages. You do not have to have a complaint filed to have a subpoena done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how the marketing plan was to focus on the reslience of the character and not on the domestic violence and to have Blake wear a flowered theme to reflect the character's work as a florist and then they used their own marketing plan against her to make her look shallow by not being serious and focused on the domestic violence themes.

This guy and the team he hired seem pretty sociopathic.

I also saw that the women who reposted the baby bump video where Blake made a comment was paid to repost it on a specific date by the crisis team Baldoni hired.

Right except my read on the timeline is that this marketing was failing before Baldoni started his PR campaign.

The marketing campaign was Sony. They directed her to talk about florals, not Justin.

Whoever did that, was really dumb. Stuff like that helped cause the anti Blake sentiment this summer.

colleen hoovers son had some harassment thrown at him. I guess Sony didn't want to take a chance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.deuxmoi.world/latest/publicist-jennifer-abel-allegedly-breaks-silence-on-explosive-text-messages-in-baldoni-lawsuitist

Dummy. She doesn't need to be subpoenaed since these are work communications. They either subpoenaed the previous company or the company agreed to hand them over. Either way her permission is not needed. There is a message of her saying "I am having reckless thoughts about planting pieces over how're awful Blake is this week" so this "i would NEVER" is BS

I’m confused about when they subpoenaed the documents since the complaint was just filed this week?

You can subpoena to preserve evidence before a complaint is filed.

That’s different than forcing production. What was the mechanism to get the PR people’s emails and texts?

No it isn't. If a court signs a subpoena then they have to produce it.

You said preserve evidence that’s not the same as produce evidence.

I thought the part that would have been obvious since Blake's team obvious have the messages. You do not have to have a complaint filed to have a subpoena done

No, sometimes whistleblowers get access to documents and send them in these types of cases.

[Anonymous]

All sides of this feel inorganic and astroturfed by PR and bots. This is some very inside baseball nonsense normal regular people couldn’t care less about. She’s probably pissed she didn’t get a cut of the film’s $300 million gross. She and hubby act like shameless money grabbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All sides of this feel inorganic and astroturfed by PR and bots. This is some very inside baseball nonsense normal regular people couldn’t care less about. She’s probably pissed she didn’t get a cut of the film’s $300 million gross. She and hubby act like shameless money grabbers.

The only people who say things like this are those who are just about to come down on Blake. It's predictable at this point. Like I don't really care about this but let me tell you how much I can't stand Blake. Yeah, real organic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the outrage against her this summer. It seemed so manufactured or trollish. Well.

This thread was started in 2018. Folks have disliked Lively for a long time.

She can be a b$%h and have grounds for a sexual harassment suit at the same time.

For the zillionth time, that’s not all she is alleging. She thinks the social medial comparing tanked her shampoo but people haven’t liked her for years and weren’t going to buy her shampoo anyway.

You're focusing on the least part of what she's alleging. Just skipping all the other stuff. Why is that?

1. That’s the part that seems to be in all headlines, the focus on the times article, and the press releases. (And yes I read the complaint).

2. It’s a huge part of damages and without that piece, it’s questionable whether she would have brought her case.

She has like 8 counts. Strange that you don’t focus on the other 7.

Because most people are too stupid to understand what's really going on. Like you.

You’re right - I don’t know what’s “really going on” or care much about it. As a lawyer, though, I am interested in seeing what’s a cognizable injury and how much you get paid for it. Blake (and her minions like you) will need to be interested in it too if she plans to win and have a payday.

Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Completely unimpressed, especially since you seem completely clueless as to what this is about.

So you have no substantive response, I see. Maybe AI can help you guys generate better responses.

[Anonymous]

People who don't understand the Blake dislike crack me up. This is a woman who got married on a plantation. That's like getting married at Auschwitz. Maybe she was sexually harassed, if it happened I hope it comes out in court and the guy faces consequences. But to me this is a woman who has shown time and again that she's a self involved ahole who is incapable of accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All sides of this feel inorganic and astroturfed by PR and bots. This is some very inside baseball nonsense normal regular people couldn’t care less about. She’s probably pissed she didn’t get a cut of the film’s $300 million gross. She and hubby act like shameless money grabbers.

The only people who say things like this are those who are just about to come down on Blake. It's predictable at this point. Like I don't really care about this but let me tell you how much I can't stand Blake. Yeah, real organic!

Right? Her likability isn't an excuse for Justin and his teams horrid behavior