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]Now Burke is on Billy Bush, hah. [/quote]

Ok so Billy asked her why she celebrated when Justin’s case was dismissed. She said she hadn’t read the ruling, had only read the media story, and made the incorrect assumption that the judged ruled based on 47.1, including the question of malice. She said it wasn’t until she read the entire 100+ page ruling that she realized that wasn’t the case.

So just as we’ve suspected all along with Blake’s supporters, it was ignorance lol.[/quote]

This just makes her sound dumb though.

If she celebrated when Justin's case was dismissed under the assumption that 47.1 had been applied and contributed to its dismissal, then she clearly believed at the time that Blake was bringing her 47.1 motion appropriately and deserved to prevail. Now she claims that since the judge didn't use 47.1 in the dismissal, Blake can no longer use it, but she also says she hasn't changed her opinion on the original facts of the case. But on top of that she says the law isn't really for someone wealthy like Blake, but Blake was wealthy when Burke was supporting Blake's motion and celebrating the dismissal of Justin's case. It's not like Burke just found out for the first time that Blake Lively is a wealthy actress.

It just gets weirder with ever word out of her mouth.[/quote]

I think you’re twisting what she said. Did you watch the BB interview? She also said she tried to refrain from speaking on the facts of the case b/c you didn’t really know more than the rest of the public. She said her focus was only on defending the constitutionality of the law. She kept emphasizing Blake’s SH claims were dismissed and she settled the rest. She seems to strongly imply she questions the merit of Blake’s claims which goes to malice. [/quote]

I've seen clips and read some of her comments. I'm not going to watch a Billy Bush interview at work, people will think I'm insane.

Did she read the dismissal of Blake's SH claims? Judge Liman stated that as to three of her SH claims (I think Heath walking in on her, the comments on set about her being hot, and the issue of nudity in the birth scene), it was possible that but for the independent contractor issue, a jury could find that Blake reasonably believed she had been harassed. Sorry for the tortured description but I'm being careful so people don't yell at me. This was legally important because a major reason her retaliation claims were allowed to proceed is because the judge found that her original complaints about these three SH allegations could form the basis of a retaliation claim. The judge couldn't say they *do* form the basis of a retaliation claim -- it's an issue of fact for a jury. But by saying they could form the basis of a retaliation claim, he had to find there was no indication she brought those claims in bad faith.

I sincerely wish they had taken the retaliation claims to trial. I'll never quite get why they didn't. Maybe PR reasons, maybe some of their witnesses didn't want to testify because they were sick of it, maybe they just didn't feel they could persuade a jury. I don't know. But if you read that decision that dismissed the SH claims and retained her retaliation claims, there is no way to conclude that Blake's SH complaints were brought with malice and the decision clearly leans heavily in the other direction, or the judge wouldn't have dismissed the retaliation claims too.[/quote]

Liman said at the hearing that he hasn’t addressed malice  and has yet to address whether Blake is entitled to Rule 47.1 privilege, but he made abundantly clear that due process concerns were his primary concern.[/quote]

He hasn't address malice either way. The PP said that Burke is "strongly implying" that she questions the merit of Blake's claims (suddenly! despite supporting Blakes claims for over a year prior to this) and that "goes to malice." That's not how it works and Burke, being a lawyer, knows that.[/quote]

That’s not how it works but it looks bad. Blake voluntarily dropped her retaliation claims at the 11th hr for no money. It doesn’t make sense b/c she had nothing to lose. The trial was a gamble to wayfarer only. It makes it look like she had no legitimate case (which a lot of us felt anyway).[/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