Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Greg Doll is not an expert in sexual harassment. He's a litigator but not a sexual harassment specialist -- his areas of expertise are entertainment law, IP disputes, and Prop 65 defense.

Also, while he predicts the case will settle (not really going out on a limb there -- over 90% of cases like this settle) he also says there's virtually no chance for a no-cash settlement, and that any settlement would involve a payout to Lively. He says the payout would likely be paid by insurance, but it's not clear to me if he's aware of the ongoing dispute between Wayfarer and their insurance companies -- the insurers are refusing coverage for Lively's claims because Wayfarer was aware of SH complaints on set but failed to inform their insurance company, as is required. If Doll doesn't know about that aspect of the case (and there's no indication he does), his assumptions about settlement are kind of worthless.

I don’t know who Greg Doll is, I just found it interesting that People who has been somewhat kind with Blake headlines and stories until this latest dump (they did do a lot with the Sony executives calling her stupid and a terrorist and seemed to lap up the Taylor little B texts), is choosing to interview someone who made this criticism of the case.

Most people are not going to know doll’s background or take even one second to look into his area of expertise. They’re just going to skim the article and move on, but it’s not good messaging for her.

Eh, the headline is neutral and the expert's predictions are actually split -- he thinks it will settle because he thinks Lively's claims are flawed (note he doesn't say they are false, just that the case is flawed, which is true -- her biggest risks here are actually around choice of law and other technical issues) and then goes on to say that he thinks a settlement would involve a payout to Lively. That's actually a middle ground assessment of the case that doesn't really take sides.

It won't matter because it will be drown out by pap photos of Lively and Baldoni arriving at court and speculation on what it means that Emily Baldoni arrived with Justin but that Ryan Reynolds did not arrive with Blake. People are much, much more interested in the celebrity gossip angle of this case than the legal minutia.

.

On the one hand Ryan being there would have made it even more of a circus though to be fair it is going to be a huge circus regardless. So I’m a little surprised he is not with her. His messaging around the harsh texts and emails that came out were he was furious on behalf of his wife, so it’s weird he wouldn’t want to hammer that home and be by her side. They are in this together and so on.

But on the other hand I can see them not wanting the public to focus on the fact that she has a powerful a lister helping her with the movie strategy. So it’s a mixed bag. And have her show up as a lone woman who was a victim (the designer bag doesn’t help with that though).

It’s kind of a lose lose for them though because people are going to speculate he’s leaving her and he’s done etc. which I don’t believe is true, but I do think will get good headlines for people wanting clicks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Greg Doll is not an expert in sexual harassment. He's a litigator but not a sexual harassment specialist -- his areas of expertise are entertainment law, IP disputes, and Prop 65 defense.

Also, while he predicts the case will settle (not really going out on a limb there -- over 90% of cases like this settle) he also says there's virtually no chance for a no-cash settlement, and that any settlement would involve a payout to Lively. He says the payout would likely be paid by insurance, but it's not clear to me if he's aware of the ongoing dispute between Wayfarer and their insurance companies -- the insurers are refusing coverage for Lively's claims because Wayfarer was aware of SH complaints on set but failed to inform their insurance company, as is required. If Doll doesn't know about that aspect of the case (and there's no indication he does), his assumptions about settlement are kind of worthless.

I don’t know who Greg Doll is, I just found it interesting that People who has been somewhat kind with Blake headlines and stories until this latest dump (they did do a lot with the Sony executives calling her stupid and a terrorist and seemed to lap up the Taylor little B texts), is choosing to interview someone who made this criticism of the case.

Most people are not going to know doll’s background or take even one second to look into his area of expertise. They’re just going to skim the article and move on, but it’s not good messaging for her.

Eh, the headline is neutral and the expert's predictions are actually split -- he thinks it will settle because he thinks Lively's claims are flawed (note he doesn't say they are false, just that the case is flawed, which is true -- her biggest risks here are actually around choice of law and other technical issues) and then goes on to say that he thinks a settlement would involve a payout to Lively. That's actually a middle ground assessment of the case that doesn't really take sides.

It won't matter because it will be drown out by pap photos of Lively and Baldoni arriving at court and speculation on what it means that Emily Baldoni arrived with Justin but that Ryan Reynolds did not arrive with Blake. People are much, much more interested in the celebrity gossip angle of this case than the legal minutia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Greg Doll is not an expert in sexual harassment. He's a litigator but not a sexual harassment specialist -- his areas of expertise are entertainment law, IP disputes, and Prop 65 defense.

Also, while he predicts the case will settle (not really going out on a limb there -- over 90% of cases like this settle) he also says there's virtually no chance for a no-cash settlement, and that any settlement would involve a payout to Lively. He says the payout would likely be paid by insurance, but it's not clear to me if he's aware of the ongoing dispute between Wayfarer and their insurance companies -- the insurers are refusing coverage for Lively's claims because Wayfarer was aware of SH complaints on set but failed to inform their insurance company, as is required. If Doll doesn't know about that aspect of the case (and there's no indication he does), his assumptions about settlement are kind of worthless.

I don’t know who Greg Doll is, I just found it interesting that People who has been somewhat kind with Blake headlines and stories until this latest dump (they did do a lot with the Sony executives calling her stupid and a terrorist and seemed to lap up the Taylor little B texts), is choosing to interview someone who made this criticism of the case.

Most people are not going to know doll’s background or take even one second to look into his area of expertise. They’re just going to skim the article and move on, but it’s not good messaging for her.

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Greg Doll is not an expert in sexual harassment. He's a litigator but not a sexual harassment specialist -- his areas of expertise are entertainment law, IP disputes, and Prop 65 defense.

Also, while he predicts the case will settle (not really going out on a limb there -- over 90% of cases like this settle) he also says there's virtually no chance for a no-cash settlement, and that any settlement would involve a payout to Lively. He says the payout would likely be paid by insurance, but it's not clear to me if he's aware of the ongoing dispute between Wayfarer and their insurance companies -- the insurers are refusing coverage for Lively's claims because Wayfarer was aware of SH complaints on set but failed to inform their insurance company, as is required. If Doll doesn't know about that aspect of the case (and there's no indication he does), his assumptions about settlement are kind of worthless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

So why would you settle a case you think you can win? Guess the case isn't as seriously flawed then.

.

I read something like 90 percent of these cases settle. Seems both parties might be tired of wracking up legal bills and headlines that aren’t helping either one at this point.

I’m not sure if WF would settle without fully absolving themselves which I don’t see lively doing but if they can all go quietly and keep it sealed, agree never to mention it, then lively can say the system failed again and let women down but move on?

I don’t know. I’d want to spare myself 3 more months of this deluge but who knows.

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

So why would you settle a case you think you can win? Guess the case isn't as seriously flawed then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amused at the thought that the fan group who is bombarding random actors' comment sections is the one that's NOT spiraling.

Falsely accusing someone of SH is SO amusing!

Baldoni did the things he is accused of doing -- he admits them, but says they weren't SH. So even if you disagree with Blake, claiming she is "falsely accusing" him makes no sense. He said he did it! If the court or the jury determines it wasn't SH, she will lose. But shes' not lying about anything he did.

Oh, come on. The reason Blake’s support cratered is because nobody thinks that this is worth tying up the courts. The timeline has been clearly laid out. She and Jenny Slate had some complaints during the first phase of filming in May 2023and they were addressed. Then the set broke for several months for the strike and in mid November she came back with a 17 point list she demanded that they signed before she would come back to set. They were clearly told by her lawyers this is not a negotiation and they signed.

They were all set to come back on January 5 when she bombarded them with a meeting where Ryan Reynolds screamed at them for five hours. I am still not clear why if on June 5 and on November 15, things have been resolved and there had been no further incidents given that nobody was on set or even had had much contact with each other, why people were being screamed at for five hours.

But regardless, they then went on to shoot the rest of the movie and no further incident were reported

There is no reason to bring up sexual harassment a year later, except that she wanted to prove this smear campaign because she had gotten canceled, but what we have clearly seen she had canceled herself by her tone deaf interviews, offensive product launches, and targeting Justin who was very popular with the fans of the book who had been looking forward to him directing and starring in the movie.

As the Sony executives said, she brought this on herself. She thought that the times article would un cancel her and it did for about 10 days. But once Justin got his side of the story out, here we are. she’s lost 7 million followers, doesn’t have a movie in sight, her hair line has not recovered, and she appears to have lost her best friend.

Facts you skipped:

- Lively did not leave the June 1 meeting with the feeling that the problems had been addressed, and felt Jamey and Justin has simply tried to justify their behavior without realizing why it was problematic.
- Alex Sachs encouraged Jamey Heath to open an HR investigation in Lively's and Slate's concerns, which would have provided both resolution and helped identify actions the set could take to address them, and he chose not to do so.
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, Justin continued to say inappropriate things on set, including asking Isabella and her costar if they had "practiced" for their sex scene because it was so "hot"
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, the intimacy coordinator Justin had hired continued to express concerns, privately, about Justin's behavior, and insisted on being present for a non-intimate scene with Isabella and Young Atlas in case he tried to insert intimacy into the scene
- During the hiatus, Lively became stressed that she still had to film all her love scenes with Justin, including a rape scene. Because no action had been taken to address concerns after the June 1 meeting, she expressed concerns privately, including to a costar, that she was dreading returning to set and was concerned specifically about filming intimate scenes with Justin.
- The November 15th communication via Lively's lawyers included a request for a meeting before returning to set, in which they would discuss set safety. Wayfarer took no action to schedule this meeting, which is why Lively requested they come to her apartment to have it on Jan. 4th.
- The November 15th communication, which according to Ange Giannetti was read allowed at the January 4th meeting (Jamey Heath denies it was read allowed, so this is a factual discrepancy that would have to be resolved) included a provision saying that Lively would not be retaliated against for raising these issues. Wayfarer agreed to that provision.
- In August 2024, right before the film came out, Wayfarer hired Melissa Nathan and TAG. According to contemporaneous text messages between Melissa, Jennifer Abel, and Baldoni, they were specifically looking to create an offensive against Blake Lively to discredit anything she might say about what happened on set. Additional textual evidence show the hiring of Jed Wallace, who Abel reports has successfully getting social media to focus on negative news about Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
- It is only after Lively becomes aware of these texts, in fall of 2024, and realizes they are evidence of a retaliation claim in violation of federal employment law and the agreement Wayfarer signed prior to her return to filming, that she initiated the lawsuit.

You can skip over the facts that are inconvenient for Baldoni if it makes you feel better, but should this case go to trial, Lively's lawyers will not skip over them.

Blah blah blah this never would’ve gone to trial if Blake hadn’t used her unsigned contract for leverage to get control of the movie and then just missed out on $37 million after the film did better than anyone expected.

This is what this case is about pure and simple. Blake signed her loan out agreement, which entitled her to have 1.75 million immediately deposited in her account. Then she was eligible for a series of $250,000 bonuses based on metrics from box office revenue targets. Financial documents are coming out to show that she was paid the full amount of those bonuses so total for the film she got $3 million.

But it was her unsigned contract that entitled her to a percent of the gross of the $350 million the film ultimately earned. She did not get that and boo-hoo and that’s why we’re here.

The only thing that she was concerned about in shooting intimate scenes was how she looked as she was obsessed with her postpartum body as we’ve now seen from multiple texts and emails of her complaining to anyone who would listen, including her agent about how she was working out four hours a day and so on and so forth. Her obsession was exhausting. May 2023 stills that were coming out had fans criticizing how old she looked for lily and how her hair was unkempt and why was she wearing four pairs of pants at one time? That weighed on her heavily.

It’s just so crystal clear what this whole thing was about. Ego and money.

It's always fascinating how, when confronted with actual facts supported by evidence that support Lively's claims, Baldoni Bro always stop reading and just regurgitate talking points from Reddit. Because if he (she??) actually has to engage the facts and argue Baldoni's side, they don't have much more to say than "blah blah blah." So persuasive!

Anonymous wrote:This people magazine article is interesting because they are usually seen as a very positive mouthpiece for Blake. They interviewed a legal expert in sexual harassment, and he thinks that the case is likely to settle and “I’m convinced lively’s case is seriously flawed—particularly the SH claims.”

https://people.com/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-to-meet-for-settlement-conference-here-s-what-could-happen-11903815

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amused at the thought that the fan group who is bombarding random actors' comment sections is the one that's NOT spiraling.

Falsely accusing someone of SH is SO amusing!

Baldoni did the things he is accused of doing -- he admits them, but says they weren't SH. So even if you disagree with Blake, claiming she is "falsely accusing" him makes no sense. He said he did it! If the court or the jury determines it wasn't SH, she will lose. But shes' not lying about anything he did.

Oh, come on. The reason Blake’s support cratered is because nobody thinks that this is worth tying up the courts. The timeline has been clearly laid out. She and Jenny Slate had some complaints during the first phase of filming in May 2023and they were addressed. Then the set broke for several months for the strike and in mid November she came back with a 17 point list she demanded that they signed before she would come back to set. They were clearly told by her lawyers this is not a negotiation and they signed.

They were all set to come back on January 5 when she bombarded them with a meeting where Ryan Reynolds screamed at them for five hours. I am still not clear why if on June 5 and on November 15, things have been resolved and there had been no further incidents given that nobody was on set or even had had much contact with each other, why people were being screamed at for five hours.

But regardless, they then went on to shoot the rest of the movie and no further incident were reported

There is no reason to bring up sexual harassment a year later, except that she wanted to prove this smear campaign because she had gotten canceled, but what we have clearly seen she had canceled herself by her tone deaf interviews, offensive product launches, and targeting Justin who was very popular with the fans of the book who had been looking forward to him directing and starring in the movie.

As the Sony executives said, she brought this on herself. She thought that the times article would un cancel her and it did for about 10 days. But once Justin got his side of the story out, here we are. she’s lost 7 million followers, doesn’t have a movie in sight, her hair line has not recovered, and she appears to have lost her best friend.

Facts you skipped:

- Lively did not leave the June 1 meeting with the feeling that the problems had been addressed, and felt Jamey and Justin has simply tried to justify their behavior without realizing why it was problematic.
- Alex Sachs encouraged Jamey Heath to open an HR investigation in Lively's and Slate's concerns, which would have provided both resolution and helped identify actions the set could take to address them, and he chose not to do so.
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, Justin continued to say inappropriate things on set, including asking Isabella and her costar if they had "practiced" for their sex scene because it was so "hot"
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, the intimacy coordinator Justin had hired continued to express concerns, privately, about Justin's behavior, and insisted on being present for a non-intimate scene with Isabella and Young Atlas in case he tried to insert intimacy into the scene
- During the hiatus, Lively became stressed that she still had to film all her love scenes with Justin, including a rape scene. Because no action had been taken to address concerns after the June 1 meeting, she expressed concerns privately, including to a costar, that she was dreading returning to set and was concerned specifically about filming intimate scenes with Justin.
- The November 15th communication via Lively's lawyers included a request for a meeting before returning to set, in which they would discuss set safety. Wayfarer took no action to schedule this meeting, which is why Lively requested they come to her apartment to have it on Jan. 4th.
- The November 15th communication, which according to Ange Giannetti was read allowed at the January 4th meeting (Jamey Heath denies it was read allowed, so this is a factual discrepancy that would have to be resolved) included a provision saying that Lively would not be retaliated against for raising these issues. Wayfarer agreed to that provision.
- In August 2024, right before the film came out, Wayfarer hired Melissa Nathan and TAG. According to contemporaneous text messages between Melissa, Jennifer Abel, and Baldoni, they were specifically looking to create an offensive against Blake Lively to discredit anything she might say about what happened on set. Additional textual evidence show the hiring of Jed Wallace, who Abel reports has successfully getting social media to focus on negative news about Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
- It is only after Lively becomes aware of these texts, in fall of 2024, and realizes they are evidence of a retaliation claim in violation of federal employment law and the agreement Wayfarer signed prior to her return to filming, that she initiated the lawsuit.

You can skip over the facts that are inconvenient for Baldoni if it makes you feel better, but should this case go to trial, Lively's lawyers will not skip over them.

Blah blah blah this never would’ve gone to trial if Blake hadn’t used her unsigned contract for leverage to get control of the movie and then just missed out on $37 million after the film did better than anyone expected.

This is what this case is about pure and simple. Blake signed her loan out agreement, which entitled her to have 1.75 million immediately deposited in her account. Then she was eligible for a series of $250,000 bonuses based on metrics from box office revenue targets. Financial documents are coming out to show that she was paid the full amount of those bonuses so total for the film she got $3 million.

But it was her unsigned contract that entitled her to a percent of the gross of the $350 million the film ultimately earned. She did not get that and boo-hoo and that’s why we’re here.

The only thing that she was concerned about in shooting intimate scenes was how she looked as she was obsessed with her postpartum body as we’ve now seen from multiple texts and emails of her complaining to anyone who would listen, including her agent about how she was working out four hours a day and so on and so forth. Her obsession was exhausting. May 2023 stills that were coming out had fans criticizing how old she looked for lily and how her hair was unkempt and why was she wearing four pairs of pants at one time? That weighed on her heavily.

It’s just so crystal clear what this whole thing was about. Ego and money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amused at the thought that the fan group who is bombarding random actors' comment sections is the one that's NOT spiraling.

Falsely accusing someone of SH is SO amusing!

Baldoni did the things he is accused of doing -- he admits them, but says they weren't SH. So even if you disagree with Blake, claiming she is "falsely accusing" him makes no sense. He said he did it! If the court or the jury determines it wasn't SH, she will lose. But shes' not lying about anything he did.

Oh, come on. The reason Blake’s support cratered is because nobody thinks that this is worth tying up the courts. The timeline has been clearly laid out. She and Jenny Slate had some complaints during the first phase of filming in May 2023and they were addressed. Then the set broke for several months for the strike and in mid November she came back with a 17 point list she demanded that they signed before she would come back to set. They were clearly told by her lawyers this is not a negotiation and they signed.

They were all set to come back on January 5 when she bombarded them with a meeting where Ryan Reynolds screamed at them for five hours. I am still not clear why if on June 5 and on November 15, things have been resolved and there had been no further incidents given that nobody was on set or even had had much contact with each other, why people were being screamed at for five hours.

But regardless, they then went on to shoot the rest of the movie and no further incident were reported

There is no reason to bring up sexual harassment a year later, except that she wanted to prove this smear campaign because she had gotten canceled, but what we have clearly seen she had canceled herself by her tone deaf interviews, offensive product launches, and targeting Justin who was very popular with the fans of the book who had been looking forward to him directing and starring in the movie.

As the Sony executives said, she brought this on herself. She thought that the times article would un cancel her and it did for about 10 days. But once Justin got his side of the story out, here we are. she’s lost 7 million followers, doesn’t have a movie in sight, her hair line has not recovered, and she appears to have lost her best friend.

Facts you skipped:

- Lively did not leave the June 1 meeting with the feeling that the problems had been addressed, and felt Jamey and Justin has simply tried to justify their behavior without realizing why it was problematic.
- Alex Sachs encouraged Jamey Heath to open an HR investigation in Lively's and Slate's concerns, which would have provided both resolution and helped identify actions the set could take to address them, and he chose not to do so.
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, Justin continued to say inappropriate things on set, including asking Isabella and her costar if they had "practiced" for their sex scene because it was so "hot"
- AFTER the June 1 meeting, the intimacy coordinator Justin had hired continued to express concerns, privately, about Justin's behavior, and insisted on being present for a non-intimate scene with Isabella and Young Atlas in case he tried to insert intimacy into the scene
- During the hiatus, Lively became stressed that she still had to film all her love scenes with Justin, including a rape scene. Because no action had been taken to address concerns after the June 1 meeting, she expressed concerns privately, including to a costar, that she was dreading returning to set and was concerned specifically about filming intimate scenes with Justin.
- The November 15th communication via Lively's lawyers included a request for a meeting before returning to set, in which they would discuss set safety. Wayfarer took no action to schedule this meeting, which is why Lively requested they come to her apartment to have it on Jan. 4th.
- The November 15th communication, which according to Ange Giannetti was read allowed at the January 4th meeting (Jamey Heath denies it was read allowed, so this is a factual discrepancy that would have to be resolved) included a provision saying that Lively would not be retaliated against for raising these issues. Wayfarer agreed to that provision.
- In August 2024, right before the film came out, Wayfarer hired Melissa Nathan and TAG. According to contemporaneous text messages between Melissa, Jennifer Abel, and Baldoni, they were specifically looking to create an offensive against Blake Lively to discredit anything she might say about what happened on set. Additional textual evidence show the hiring of Jed Wallace, who Abel reports has successfully getting social media to focus on negative news about Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
- It is only after Lively becomes aware of these texts, in fall of 2024, and realizes they are evidence of a retaliation claim in violation of federal employment law and the agreement Wayfarer signed prior to her return to filming, that she initiated the lawsuit.

You can skip over the facts that are inconvenient for Baldoni if it makes you feel better, but should this case go to trial, Lively's lawyers will not skip over them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm amused at the thought that the fan group who is bombarding random actors' comment sections is the one that's NOT spiraling.

Falsely accusing someone of SH is SO amusing!

Baldoni did the things he is accused of doing -- he admits them, but says they weren't SH. So even if you disagree with Blake, claiming she is "falsely accusing" him makes no sense. He said he did it! If the court or the jury determines it wasn't SH, she will lose. But shes' not lying about anything he did.

Oh, come on. The reason Blake’s support cratered is because nobody thinks that this is worth tying up the courts. The timeline has been clearly laid out. She and Jenny Slate had some complaints during the first phase of filming in May 2023and they were addressed. Then the set broke for several months for the strike and in mid November she came back with a 17 point list she demanded that they signed before she would come back to set. They were clearly told by her lawyers this is not a negotiation and they signed.

They were all set to come back on January 5 when she bombarded them with a meeting where Ryan Reynolds screamed at them for five hours. I am still not clear why if on June 5 and on November 15, things have been resolved and there had been no further incidents given that nobody was on set or even had had much contact with each other, why people were being screamed at for five hours.

But regardless, they then went on to shoot the rest of the movie and no further incident were reported

There is no reason to bring up sexual harassment a year later, except that she wanted to prove this smear campaign because she had gotten canceled, but what we have clearly seen she had canceled herself by her tone deaf interviews, offensive product launches, and targeting Justin who was very popular with the fans of the book who had been looking forward to him directing and starring in the movie.

As the Sony executives said, she brought this on herself. She thought that the times article would un cancel her and it did for about 10 days. But once Justin got his side of the story out, here we are. she’s lost 7 million followers, doesn’t have a movie in sight, her hair line has not recovered, and she appears to have lost her best friend.