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][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]

What about Jenny Slate and Alex Saks? I am actually confused why the PP chose to list Hoover and Ferrer, who I agree don't seem to have had problems with him until promotion of the movie. But Jenny and Alex both worked on the movie and it appears their issues with Baldoni pre-date Blake's, and that Jenny may even have been the one who encouraged Blake to report her issues, in part because Jenny was unhappy with the culture on set and wanted someone to back up her complaints. And Saks was so concerned about potential HR problems on set, based on her dealings with Jamey and Justin during pre-production, that she argued in favor of having Sony's HR rules and procedures apply to the production (also it appeared Wayfarer had no HR infrastructure to speak of, which was also a concern for her -- again, before filming even started).

This totally undermines the assertion that Blake is the "one" who had problems with Jamey and Justin or that her claims are just BS taken out of context. That is a story Wayfarer sought to sell you on starting last December, but remember they *had* all the context when they started selling that story. And yet their timeline and public arguments make no mention of Jenny Slate's complaints or the incidents of Justin yelling at Saks. But they knew that had happened. It's almost as if they concealed that information, knowing it undermined their narrative, and now we are learning their narrative was not accurate.[/quote]

I am confused why Jenny Slate would be playing such a major role in this harassment claim. It is my understanding that she had a conversation with Jamie Heath, where she felt offended by his take on motherhood. She complained which she should’ve, but I really find that hard to conflate with sexual harassment or the other claims.

I believe there was one more claim. Did she have a problem with Justin hugging her? It was something like that, and I don’t think that women should feel uncomfortable at the workplace, and I’m sorry that happened to her. Agree that warrant an HR complaint.

What muddies the water is that it seems like in some cases this cast was close and then in others they were clearly not. The fact that Robin lively also said she did not want a hug from him just muddies the water for me. It is really not out of the ordinary to hug coworkers. I completely understand that some women feel uncomfortable and can’t stress enough that this shouldn’t be the case. But it’s really hard to tell from all that they’ve put together if this is a pattern or just people rewriting history.

Justin at one point was relatively close to the family, he says there are pictures of him holding Blakes daughters. They had him over when Hugh and Taylor were at the apartment before the movie started when they were trying to get to know each other, sounds like it was before Blake had even officially signed, which means they were mixing a little bit of social with business. There was that email exchange with he and Ryan that was very sweet about how they were glad they were becoming friends and it was exciting for Blake to be working on this project and so on and that they were mutual fans of each other.

He’d been over to the penthouse several times, she invited him on her private plane. I’m in no way saying that gives him excuses to touch people inappropriately, but it’s really easy to think, it’s OK to go in for a hug with a costar (Robin) after getting to know her family and then later when you’re putting together a list, say add in that hug I was uncomfortable.

It just does seem a lot of of their allegations conflict with other actions. They seem to have this rather innocent flirty joke thing going on and then all of a sudden it’s not OK for him to use the word sexy. She’s inviting him into her social circle, and letting him hold her kids, all of a sudden he tried to hug her sister, and it was inappropriate.

And I just really have a problem with the whole Natasha element of it. I just in no way think that Jamie Heath was ever trying to make her uncomfortable and show her anything related to p—n. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that there is a still of Natasha splayed out with her legs open. It seems like she had a water birth and that was just not even something that would be filmed. If we find other evidence to the contrary, that is fine, but that is just such a weird take and just makes me really uncomfortable that she would twist that into something and demand to see the full birthing video. It seems like an invasion of privacy and it seems like a fishing expedition. [/quote]

According to Alex Saks' deposition, Jenny Slate complained to her early in the production about several things:

1) Justin calling her "sexy" on set in reference to how she looked in a pair of leather pants that were part of her costuming for a scene. Slate's character is not a romantic interest in the film (she plays Justin's sister) and her character is portrayed as kind of goofy and offbeat, not sexy.

2) Justin recording a call with Jenny during pre-production without her knowledge.

3) Heath telling Jenny that the reason they were giving her more money for her housing allowance was specifically because they felt it was important to support mothers of young children in their role as mothers. Jenny was bothered by the focus on her "role as mother" which she felt should have no impact on professional obligation like her housing allowance.

Additionally, Jenny had complained on set about:

4) Justin and Jamey and maybe other Wayfarer members hugging and touching her more than she was comfortable with. This was a well known objection, as it became customary for people to "high five" Jenny before or after scenes, at her request, in order to avoid the hugs.

So we've got unwanted sexual comments, unwanted touching, recording without consent, and a complaint about focusing unnecessarily on a woman's maternal status in reference to financial/professional compensation.

Jenny Slate is going to be a key witness in this case, her experience is directly relevant to Blake's SH claims and will be central to Blake's argument that Wayfarer had created a "hostile work environment" that was "severe and pervasive" (these are legal definitions, not my words).[/quote]

I can’t believe you actually typed out this nonsense and posted in trying to prove why Jenny is instrumental to this case.

This is a whole bunch of nothing and absolutely not worth clogging up America’s court systems. This is such a slap in the face to survivors. [/quote]

It’s all she has.  Same poster who literally spent days writing about the birthing scene as if Blake was actually pregnant and fully naked.

I don’t even think they can call Slate, her complaint about the increase in housing money is jury poison.[/quote]

DP, but yeah, you guys get totes confused by facts and evidence and stuff. Much more comfortable just insulting Lively and other women who agreed with her all day.  Your whole schtick is boring and pointless.[/quote]

Your friends at It Ends with Courts are waiting. . . [/quote]

Lame to repeat something you’ve said 5 times already instead of making a real point of substance. Boring. [/quote]

It’s hard to talk substance in this case because Blake has literally got nothing of substance. This is an incredibly overprivileged actress with a history of racism who did not like that Colleen Hoover fans were upset that she was cast and were complaining that she was too old  for the role. It hurt her ego, and she took it out on Baldoni. She thought the article in the New York Times would make all of this go away and instead this is all she’s going to be known for the rest of her life. [/quote]

Pretty much this.[/quote]

You guys like to repeat nonsense back and forth to one another all day long, but in the legal case whose details you eschew, your boy is losing and his little team is coming apart bit by bit. Wallace and Nathan lied under oath.  Let’s see how much longer they stay a united front.

🍿 I am here for it 🍿 [/quote]

How are they winning? I’m reading that it’s coming to light that Blake is an independent contractor which could affect the case. It looks like she’s in a little bit of a bind because if she wants to be in considered an employee, there’s going to be some major tax implications for her.

Just doesn’t seem smart to have bought this case this far. Seems like they thought it was going to end with the article but it is just getting dragged out. [/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