Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.[/quote]

This is almost verbatim how I interpreted as well. [/quote]

Here’s my prediction on Blake’s lawyers legal strategy, especially after that people magazine interview where Gottlieb called the retaliation the core of the case. If this thing goes all the way to trial, they’re going to start pivoting away from focusing on the harassment. [b]They’re going to tell the jury “it doesn’t matter” whether or not Blake’s claims meet the legal threshold of harassment (because they clearly don’t) and they’re going to say Blake gets protection just for making the claims regardless of the validity of the claims. If they can prove a smear campaign (which I don’t think they’ll be able to but let’s just assume for the moment) this may actually be true under the law (i.e. no retaliation for making a complaint regardless of the validity of the complaint). [/b]

The problem is juries are human and it’s going to be pretty hard to convince them to punish Justin for “retaliation” if they see the harassment claims as bogus. This legal strategy will also play into Justin’s defense and countersuit, which is that the SH claims were made in bad faith to extort the WF parties.

You heard it here first lol. Mark my words. Even though Blake’s PR strategy is all about SH and giving women a voice, in court her lawyers are going to say “look elsewhere, don’t focus on the SH”. [/quote]

Good analysis.

This has always been what makes this case so interesting. Blake has a pretty good argument on the law, if you accept the complaint as true, but she doesn't seem to have the facts to back up the complaint and could be ripped apart at trial. Baldoni's issues are more with the legal arguments but he has strong factual arguments. [/quote]

PP again. Exactly, and I think BF’s counter to the jury would be that to rule in Blake’s favor on retaliation regardless of the validity of the SH claims will send a dangerous message that anyone can make false accusations against a coworker and then use those accusations at every turn to both harm the coworker (removing Justin’s film credit, putting him in the basement, defaming him in the NYT) and gain special privileges for themselves (Blake’s PGA credit, Blake’s face on the poster, Blake takes over marketing events JB was supposed to do, Blake takes over editing).

He’ll ask the jury to forget about the Hollywood element and think about if this had happened in their workplace and their colleague lied on them and then used that lie to get them kicked off of projects and promote themselves. Then he’ll say imagine they then start smearing you to the public and you defend yourself only to be told there’s nothing you can do because she’s immune from consequences the moment she makes a complaint against you no matter how baseless. Most regular people would find this scenario horrifying. [/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