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]Stepping back and coming at this from a big picture perspective, I think some of you are going to be surprised with how high the bar is for SH in court, and the bar is even higher for the entertainment industry.

Since this case, people have been posting past cases women have lost. one that I recall was the Friends writers room - a woman writer was subjected to a horrific work environment, shown p-rn, was the butt of horribly explicit jokes. Treated horribly. And the case was dismissed on the basis that the writers were writing a show with a lot innuendo and crass humor and so that was going to come up.

Which is insane because friends is a very family friendly show, but that gives you a sense of where the bar is. Now granted friends was a long time ago, but I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress since then. There are other cases where because it’s a Hollywood set people just don’t take it seriously.

The power of the me too movement was that we didn’t have to wait for the courts. Most men implicated in those first few years like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and many others were not caught up in civil or criminal litigation. The beauty of it was that it was finally a time when women could come together to complain about bad behavior and men were held accountable, reputations were tarnished or ruined, often they were fired (unfortunately often with multi million dollar settlements, but it was a start.) They lost their jobs and their reputation and women weren’t being told they were crazy or being punished for speaking up.

I truly think that’s what Blake‘s team saw here which was why the first strategy was to go to the New York Times . I really think that they wanted to lead with the retaliation campaign and have that be the crux of the story but of course, in order to have retaliation, you have to have an element of SH to hold over Baldoni. I do not think they expected to have a SH case in court, and you can this see in their proceedings. A lot of the SH claims has been defanged. People in this thread are still talking about incidents that are no longer being considered in the court and you will not here about if this goes to trial. A lot of it has turned to workplace hostility and they’re still trying to lean on retaliation. [/quote]

You need to brush up on the law that governs this case. You are making conclusions based on a misunderstanding of the law. [/quote]

Then why, in an industry where there’s probably a little sexual harassment on every Hollywood set, does nobody go to court? Why when there’s women like Abigail Breslin who’s reasonably successful and has the means, come forward and complain about Aaron Eckhart, causing her such physical harm out of his anger that she needed an MRI - and clearly there is a video of this because they were filming on set - but yet that never saw the inside of a court and Aaron Eckhart is still being cast in movies?

Please explain how easy it is to take these cases to court, especially in this industry because reality shows us otherwise. [/quote]

Because it usually never makes it to court. [/quote]

But when it does go to Court, no one better for your star supporting witness that a comedian known for her crass humor that is offended by the word "sexy," but only if uttered by men.  Oh, and also is very offended her bosses granted her wish for more expensive housing allowance.[/quote]

You keep presenting this case as if it will be decided on one point.  You don’t even know of that specific claim will come up at trial.

Trials are decided on the cumulative evidence presented. And then the jury will receive instructions on how the law applies to those facts. You keep cherry picking certain things, usually through an interpretation that favors the outcome you prefer, and assume that’s how it will play out in a court of law.

So many people watching this case don’t even understand depositions and why certain things are addressed while others are not.

The most interesting aspect of this case will be which claims survive to trial and how the motions on limine play out. But until then you simply cannot point to one piece of evidence and pretend it’s going to decide a case. Nor can you point to evidence that likely won’t even make it before a jury. [/quote]

Not true at all, you are the one acting like the mountains of evidence discrediting Blake and her witnesses won't be heard.

Further, I've actually litigated cases before a jury.  I can tell you have not.   [/quote]

And yet you ignore the mountains of evidence in Lively’s favor. I am not saying Justin/Wayfarer won’t be able to put on a defense (and maybe a formative one). But I cannot believe anyone with litigating experience believes they know which evidence will be presented and how it will be presented at this juncture.

But the answer to your question is yes, many. And I have done many more mock juries with professional companies, where we actually get to ask them which evidence was persuasive and why.  [/quote]

There is no such mountain.  All you have been able to come up is that she was asked to film a scene topless and Health walked in her trailer when she was partially clothed.[/quote]

Sorry you are neither a lawyer nor a litigator. Or if you are, you are akin to the ambulance chasers defending popcorn planer. [/quote]

Some more word salad nonsense from you.  I can guarantee that I have you beat on legal pedigree.  [/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