Anonymous wrote:I wonder when we say that there were times when Justin lost his temper or acted unprofessionally, does it matter to anyone that Blake and Ryan were really pushing way beyond the boundaries of a professional relationship?

It seemed like fairly early on in production, Blake and Ryan liked to have meetings with Baldoni in their Tribeca penthouse. I find that pretty unprofessional of them, and also unprofessional to have other celebrity friends there as well.

It’s kind of absurd to me that more people haven’t questioned that.

Then to push the opinions of high-powered celebrity friends when wanting to say change the rooftop scene or something seems really unprofessional. It also seems insane to me that Ryan berated Justin I believe according to the timeline at least twice, both times in the penthouse, one time leading to a Sony exec to quit the movie because he had never seen such bad behavior.

I also don’t see people questioning Ryan’s involvement in this movie enough. Is it because he’s just such a huge celebrity and power player that we take for granted that of course he’s going to be super involved in a film that he has nothing to do with?? But isn’t that really out of the norm and also super unprofessional? I actually think that is why Blake is having trouble getting roles because now people if they didn’t realize before, see that they’re getting a package deal.

We have to ask ourselves if Blake wasn’t married to Ryan Reynolds would a lot of these scenarios have happened. I just have been really surprised that more people haven’t pushed back… Why the F was Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman in a meeting about it ends with us with Justin? Why in the hell were these meetings taking place in Ryan Reynolds penthouse and not at a studio or onset? Why was Ryan allowed to berate Justin?

I just don’t see people questioning that enough probably because these are celebrities so they seem benign, but in any other workplace setting, this would be so totally out of the ordinary.

It seems like Justin was put in some really challenging and totally unprofessional scenarios and the power imbalance was really off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

You realize this “us versus them” mentality that you keep putting forward is really strange for a case where you are just a bystander. Most of us truly are not that wedded to these proceedings and just pick up on pleadings or updates here and there when something interesting hits the news. That’s why our minds change as the case progresses. And yes, believe it or not, some of us do not see this as a war where one side just has to win and anyone that does not agree is a bot/whatever.

+1, the Team Justin/Team Blake nature of a lot of the commentary is very tiresome to me. Also people trying to twist every development to look good for their "team" and never being willing to acknowledge when the person they are supporting does or says something boneheaded. I also don't get it when people are clearly falling 100% for the spin that lawyers or PR people are putting out and then regurgitating it all over the internet.

If there is one thing people should learn from this case, it's to not buy into the projected image of any celeb. Everyone involved in this case is deeply flawed, there are no heroes. I have my thoughts about who is right on the law, as well as who is more morally/ethically correct, but I don't think anyone is an innocent victim and it just strikes me as so naive to have that perception.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

You realize this “us versus them” mentality that you keep putting forward is really strange for a case where you are just a bystander. Most of us truly are not that wedded to these proceedings and just pick up on pleadings or updates here and there when something interesting hits the news. That’s why our minds change as the case progresses. And yes, believe it or not, some of us do not see this as a war where one side just has to win and anyone that does not agree is a bot/whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

They are back again doing the whole, "I was kind of on the edge about this and neutral...but oh boy, these last few filings have really changed my mind."

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Are you the poster claiming to be a (litigation?) attorney?

Also you realize many of the exhibits, many of the affidavits and a portions filings themselves are sealed, right?

I do. I also realize that much of the deposition testimony would NOT be admissible for trial.
A lot of it is inadmissible hearsay. A lot of it is propensity evidence that is generally not admissible. Unlikely testimony about yelling coming in since that isn’t what Blake complains about, certain it will be subject to pretrial briefing if it gets that far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Are you the poster claiming to be a (litigation?) attorney?

Also you realize many of the exhibits, many of the affidavits and a portions filings themselves are sealed, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

To the contrary, at the summary judgment stage, you see the best evidence on either side. Baldoni will have some more coming in his reply but that’s it. It’s win or go home for Blake so no holding back.

Having a work environment with some degree of mismanagement or discomfort just isn’t actionable. If so, ninety percent of the workplaces in America would be challenged.

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird that the Blake bots are convinced that there is so much compelling evidence in the depositions and yet have been unable to relate any of it in this thread despite pages of posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.

If you are a litigation attorney then you know we haven’t seen most of the evidence, much less the best evidence. I may not be an attorney but I have participated in over 60 trials on the federal level, and I have a fairly decent grasp on discovery. In other words, I know enough to realize I probably don’t have even half in evidence available on either side. Which is why I say I was neutral but leaning more towards Lively given the recent disclosures. I fully recognize, however, that there may be unreleased evidence that would back Baldoni’s defenses.

But I am curious why you don’t think anything we know so far doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for a claim of SH under federal law. Or, more importantly, a claim of retaliation. Would you be willing to walk us through the elements and outlining why her claims (not evidence, because as I said above, we really don’t have most of the evidence) don’t meet the threshold?

Also you keep posting about people’s writing style but I assure you I only posted on this thread once (maybe twice?) before. You can ask Jeff to check. Others have suggested that.

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am a lawyer as well and think her case has got many multiple times weaker. This is not a class action. This is a case of sexual harassment against Blake only.
There really, however, isn’t any sexual harassment of any one here just people with different working styles and inevitable conflict. That isn’t actionable as sexual harassment.

Clearly the Blake pr bots have ratcheted up over the past week. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen the same two, maybe three posters, posting on her behalf for almost a year now. Your writing style is recognizable as I’m sure mine is. Please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending to not have been an ardent Blake supporter from the get go.