Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t understand this intense focus on Burke. Who cares?[/quote] I was initially very interested because it seemed significant that someone considered the "architect" of 47.1 opposed Blake's use of it. That felt relevant. But as it's gone on, I've lost interest because it now seems like that was a bit of an exaggeration (she was one of several authors and advocates) and because the argument she's making doenst' seem to be that Blake should never have filed a 47.1 motion, but that Burke thinks the motion should have been rolled into the settlement. But the settlement was an agreement between both sides, so if it wasn't included, I'm assuming it's because the sides couldn't agree on how to resolve it, and wanted the court to decide, which is what is happening? So it just seems like a non-issue at this point.[/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
