Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Another question: Wallace's deposition seems so obviously to be loaded with falsehoods that it seems crazy to me. Like just for instance, here is a conversation from October 2024 between Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and a redacted entity (a client of TAG and Wallace) discussing work TAG and Wallace are doing for the client: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1043.10.pdf

The conversation clearly shows TAG and Wallace discussing, in some detail, manipulating algorithms on behalf of the client in order to suppress certain info and promote other info. In his deposition, Wallace denies this is something he does, or is even capable of doing, and claims this was entirely "puffery."

If Wallace is telling the truth in his deposition, then he was lying to this client and, as well as Wayfarer, about his abilities and his actual work, while collecting large payments. That's fraud. On the other hand, if he's lying in his deposition, that's perjury. If he's committing perjury, you have to ask why, which raises the strong likelihood that if he is lying, the behavior he is lying to conceal is worse than fraud.

No matter how you slice it, Wallace seems like a bad actor here. And then it's just a multiple choice quiz as to which unethical, illegal activity he engaged in.

Wild.[/quote]

I’m sure this will turn out to be as accurate as the 1000 bot army that one or more of you claimed Wallace  employed and would easily be proven after discovery.[/quote]

You're sure *what* will be that accurate? Wallace either lied to his clients or he lied in his deposition. There is no other option, as there is multiple documented instances of Wallace telling clients that he employed a team of people who could manipulate algorithms to boost certain content and suppress other content, and there is documentation that he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to do this. But in his deposition, he says he employed no team, that he is the only employee of Street Relations, and that the only work he has ever done for clients is to monitor online activity on their behalf.

So: fraud or perjury? Which do you think it is?[/quote]

Since he said under penalty of perjury it was puffery, I’m going with that.  I suspect most pr people oversell their services,

[b]He wasn’t really paid very much[/b], probably the equivalent of the legal fees generated for Gottlieb et al for one motion for sanctions.

[/quote]

[b]Wallace was paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of work[/b].  As a yearly salary that would be $360,000 per year, more than most people here make I would wager.  Whoever is just straight out lying on this board to benefit Baldoni for some weird reason should give it a rest, it's just silly and not believable.  $90K in 3 months as "not really paid very much" lolol.[/quote]

$90,000 for professional services is not very much, I strongly disagree.  It’s in line with the other pr firm was paid here, amd like I said earlier, about what Lively would spend to fully brief one motion for sanctions.  Professional fees are not the equivalent as salary.

Would really love to see how much Blake is paying for the former CIA operative she hired to help her with social media pr.  That would provide a good basis for comparison.[/quote]

Au contraire, $90K for three months of work to one person (Wallace says he worked alone and didn't have a team) is a crazy amount of money.  That you're trying to posture this as "not really ... very much" is bananas to most people here on dcum.  I'm a lawyer and I make less than this when it's worked out per diem.  Nice try, Baldoni ass kisser.[/quote]

Not a very successful one if you think $90,000 is a significant amount of professional billings.

Again, Blake’s guy, Nick Shapiro  spent $50 million a year to run a similar pr effort at Airbnb.[/quote]

I'm a lawyer who makes less than $360,000 per year, my work includes pro bono projects for domestic violence victims and immigrants, and I'm pretty sure I'm a better human being than Jed Effing Wallace.[/quote]

Well, that’s a laudable job , but not one that gives you a lot of insight how much professional services cost.  $90,000 is about two weeks of a Big Law junior associate’s time.[/quote]

Nope.  Big law second year associates make about $235K/year, so you are way, way off dude.  Here, for example, is a Skadden salary grid:  https://www.skadden.com/careers/associate-salary-information#:~:text=Table_title:%20Associate%20Base%20Salary%20Table_content:%20header:%20%7C,Year:%202022%20%7C%20Annual%20Salary:%20$260%2C000%20%7C

Two weeks!  Even if you were thinking about fifth year salaries (I would not consider a fifth year a junior associate), $90K is STILL at least a fifth of their salary, much more than two weeks, dude.  You're in a dream world, as per usual.  Why must the Baldoni ass kissers lie so much, is it programmed into their DNA or something?[/quote]

You obviously never worked in Big Law, I did.   Associates  bill out at significantly more than they are paid.  A third year associate in NYC Big Law bills out at $1000 an hour.

Maybe google before posting about something that you don’t have personal experience with if you are going to try to call someone out.[/quote]

Who's talking about what associates bill out at?  I'm talking about what Wallace is making for three months of work and I said that the annualized version of that -- $360,000 -- is more than I make as an attorney.  If you're talking about client bills that's apples and oranges and has no bearing here.  Maybe try to keep up.[/quote]

Well, you never learn.  You are the one who is not making sense.  $90,000 in professional fees is peanuts.  You don’t have the background to understand that which is fine.  It has zero to do with salary.  Since you apparently have never billed for your time you have zero sense of how much things cost.[/quote]

Whenever you say something boneheaded you just double down and repeat it lol.  Hey, I started off in big law so I fully understand how billing works, but what attorneys bill out at has nothing to do with the $90K that Jed Wallace made for three months of "work" that he later lied about under oath.  Jed Wallace made a sh!tton of money off the Lively scandal, and he's apparently lying under oath about his help on the Jones websites, which Case said he helped in creating.

You keep minimizing the clear misdeeds of Nathan and Wallace because you don't have anything to refute them with, and nothing Lively has done matches up to that in terribleness.  Moreover, it's become very clear that Baldoni's story from the beginning -- that Lively was the only woman on set (on any set, or any woman ever!) that Baldoni had had a problem with.  But now we have not just Lively, but also:
Slate (who complained about Baldoni even before Lively did!),
Saks (who also complained about Baldoni before Lively ever did and who punched a chair next to her in anger because she disagreed with him over something minor -- THE HORROR!!!),
Ferrer,
Hoover,
Ayoub, etc.

It's looking less and less like Lively was an isolated incident and more like Baldoni was a man with a temper who constantly said inappropriate things to women and couldn't handle it when women disagreed with him.  Sad.[/quote]

DP but this list of women is laughable. Isabel did not have a problem with him until she felt unhappy about the way she was subpoenaed. That was well after the experience on set. I have followed this case really closely, and there’s no documentation that she ever complained. In fact, the only documentation was that she sent him a note saying how comfortable and safe the set was. It is a ridiculous reach to conflate her being unhappy about being subpoenaed with problems on set.

Hoover also did not have a problem with him until well after filming. They had a good working relationship for years and she trusted him with the film and asked him to direct and play the lead role. There is no evidence that she had a problem with him other than that email that she sent during the promotion drama saying they both needed to work it out. That was the same email that he responded that he wasn’t allowed to do illegal tax fraud for her donation to the DV nonprofit by the way.

There’s no evidence that she had issues with him during the making of this movie. It was only during the promotion when she didn’t like the focus being taken off the movie, but that was as much Blake‘s fault as his.

And that Claire woman had nothing to do with this movie, had a disagreement with him on a prior sack that was not SH and is now working on a film with Alex Sacks, which I find highly suspect.

This list is an absolute joke. Blake is the one who had problems with him. Most of her claims have shown to be either blatant lies or taken out of context. [/quote]

"Most of her claims" lol. Just ignore the things that don't work and hype focus on the minutia most of which has nothing to do with the case. Deflect, deflect.[/quote]

I’m not ignoring any claims by saying most - I do think she might have had legitimate issues, I just don’t think they rose to the level of sexual harassment. For example, perhaps she wasn’t given adequate time to breast-feed - worth bringing up and correcting - not worth a $400 million lawsuit.

I do think she was uncomfortable that Justin asked about her weight. Fair enough, again I think that was a misunderstanding, he did it sloppily and could’ve gone about it better, but it’s not harassment and do not think it is worth running to the New York Times being screamed at in her penthouse by her husband

Don’t twist my words. I’m saying she did not experience SH, but I can acknowledge that she felt uncomfortable, that Wayfair could’ve handled things better, and that they had a workplace dispute.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics