Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is incredibly offensive, PP.

DP - which part? Plantations were work/death camps for people being held against their will.

[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.

I think if Baldoni’s PR agents had trolls planted on her shampoo promo social media posts, that’s a quite strong claim for her of retaliation, tortious interference & significant damages.

You’re not understanding- there are no damages if no was going to buy her shampoo anyway.

This is going right over your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think if Baldoni’s PR agents had trolls planted on her shampoo promo social media posts, that’s a quite strong claim for her of retaliation, tortious interference & significant damages.

Someone from Baldoni's PR team posted in a private PR group on FB. Here's her side of the story. It's long and covers a couple of different things so I can't TL;DR but she supports Justin, says their was no coordinated effort, the internet took over on it's own
https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1hk3wi6/jennifer_abel_a_member_of_justin_baldonis_crisis/

She's been a PR agent for how long yet doesn't know to keep her trap shut when facing a lawsuit?

[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.

I think if Baldoni’s PR agents had trolls planted on her shampoo promo social media posts, that’s a quite strong claim for her of retaliation, tortious interference & significant damages.

You’re not understanding- there are no damages if no was going to buy her shampoo anyway.

This is going right over your head.

Are you getting paid or are you a superfan? Maybe both?

[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.

before the case is filed? In a fishing expedition?

Yes it happens all the time

No, pre suit discovery does not happen all the time. Who are you people? This is DCUM - board full of lawyers, we know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is incredibly offensive, PP.

People on the West Coast don’t get Civil War/Southern Culture. I grew up out West and none of this history was part of my world until I moved to the East Coast.

Slavery built America. All of America. And there was a ton of systemic racism and other jim crow laws on the west coast too

No where near what they were here. It’s just isn’t the same out West. It is not the thing that it is on the East Coast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. Wasn’t she also an alleged serial home-wrecker? She also can’t act. She’s also been shoved down our throats as this alleged fashionista “it” girl for like 15 years when she’s nothing special and has an insufferable, stupid, and smug personality. She’s a middle aged nepo baby D list actress married to the most annoying man in Hollywood, it’s really not surprising the masses instinctively don’t care for her.

+1

Plus her speech about how her husband keeps coming home to her was gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think if Baldoni’s PR agents had trolls planted on her shampoo promo social media posts, that’s a quite strong claim for her of retaliation, tortious interference & significant damages.

You’re not understanding- there are no damages if no was going to buy her shampoo anyway.

This is going right over your head.

Are you getting paid or are you a superfan? Maybe both?

You fundamentally just don't seem to understand what any of this is about. It's bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is incredibly offensive, PP.

People on the West Coast don’t get Civil War/Southern Culture. I grew up out West and none of this history was part of my world until I moved to the East Coast.

It’s not culture. It’s history. She chose to marry on a plantation that beat people and kept people enslaved against their will.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think if Baldoni’s PR agents had trolls planted on her shampoo promo social media posts, that’s a quite strong claim for her of retaliation, tortious interference & significant damages.

Someone from Baldoni's PR team posted in a private PR group on FB. Here's her side of the story. It's long and covers a couple of different things so I can't TL;DR but she supports Justin, says their was no coordinated effort, the internet took over on it's own
https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1hk3wi6/jennifer_abel_a_member_of_justin_baldonis_crisis/

She's been a PR agent for how long yet doesn't know to keep her trap shut when facing a lawsuit?

They thought their texts would never be read because they're actually saying what they can't say. But it was so clearly a smear campaign targeting specific sites. It's not a coincidence because some people don't like her. Even look at this thread, it blew up at exactly the same time.

[Anonymous]

There was also the video of Blake ignoring an interviewer, who asked a question about costumes that offended Blake. She has zero class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is incredibly offensive, PP.

People on the West Coast don’t get Civil War/Southern Culture. I grew up out West and none of this history was part of my world until I moved to the East Coast.

It’s not culture. It’s history. She chose to marry on a plantation that beat people and kept people enslaved against their will.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Agree. Not excusing but explaining. It just isn’t a thing out West. It doesn’t seem like a shared history. It seems like the history of NE and SE states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 was also curious about this so I looked into it. Apparently the first step in a workplace sexual harassment case in CA is lodging a complaint against with the California Civil Rights Commission, which is has investigative (including subpoena) authority. The Commission then tries to get the parties to settle. If they can’t, then it goes on to a lawsuit.

The complaint is the commencement of the lawsuit. My understanding is that the subpoenaed communications are from the California Civil Rights Commission proceeding.

If she just lodged the complaint, then wouldn’t the CCCC just have subpoena power now? How did the texts show up in the Complaint since it is a precursor. (Not following the timing).

PP again. I think the CCCC proceeding is closed because the parties wouldn’t settle. There was some sort of discovery process that occurred in the CCCC proceeding, which is how they were able to subpoena the texts. Since that proceeding went nowhere, Lively’s legal team moved to the next step of the legal process, which is filing this complaint in court. They were able to use the subpoenaed texts from the CCCC proceeding in the court filing.

Not sure how that works procedurally (not a CA lawyer!) but that’s my understanding of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was also the video of Blake ignoring an interviewer, who asked a question about costumes that offended Blake. She has zero class.

Meh I'll take that over a nasty perv harassing women thinking he should punish them for speaking out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 was also curious about this so I looked into it. Apparently the first step in a workplace sexual harassment case in CA is lodging a complaint against with the California Civil Rights Commission, which is has investigative (including subpoena) authority. The Commission then tries to get the parties to settle. If they can’t, then it goes on to a lawsuit.

The complaint is the commencement of the lawsuit. My understanding is that the subpoenaed communications are from the California Civil Rights Commission proceeding.

If she just lodged the complaint, then wouldn’t the CCCC just have subpoena power now? How did the texts show up in the Complaint since it is a precursor. (Not following the timing).

PP again. I think the CCCC proceeding is closed because the parties wouldn’t settle. There was some sort of discovery process that occurred in the CCCC proceeding, which is how they were able to subpoena the texts. Since that proceeding went nowhere, Lively’s legal team moved to the next step of the legal process, which is filing this complaint in court. They were able to use the subpoenaed texts from the CCCC proceeding in the court filing.

Not sure how that works procedurally (not a CA lawyer!) but that’s my understanding of the process.

That sounds about right to me. Workplace discrimination complaints can or must go through a state admin process which can include investigation.