Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When it rains it pours. Of course this is par for the course with Blake and Ryan. Two toxic and cruel psychopaths.

Blake Lively accused of creating ‘insane, toxic, emotionally draining’ workplace at now-defunct lifestyle brand
https://pagesix.com/2025/05/20/celebrity-news/blake-lively-accused-of-fostering-toxic-workplace-at-now-defunct-lifestyle-brand-report/

Gee what a surprise lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When it rains it pours. Of course this is par for the course with Blake and Ryan. Two toxic and cruel psychopaths.

Blake Lively accused of creating ‘insane, toxic, emotionally draining’ workplace at now-defunct lifestyle brand
https://pagesix.com/2025/05/20/celebrity-news/blake-lively-accused-of-fostering-toxic-workplace-at-now-defunct-lifestyle-brand-report/

Drip, drip pattern of behavior is leaking. Once more of the media signals their careers and reign are totally over, more victims will come forward. Only a matter of time before tipping point is reached and more bombshells drop solidifying how evil these two have been for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it rains it pours. Of course this is par for the course with Blake and Ryan. Two toxic and cruel psychopaths.

Blake Lively accused of creating ‘insane, toxic, emotionally draining’ workplace at now-defunct lifestyle brand
https://pagesix.com/2025/05/20/celebrity-news/blake-lively-accused-of-fostering-toxic-workplace-at-now-defunct-lifestyle-brand-report/

Drip, drip pattern of behavior is leaking. Once more of the media signals their careers and reign are totally over, more victims will come forward. Only a matter of time before tipping point is reached and more bombshells drop solidifying how evil these two have been for 20 years.

We're going to have to get back to the argument that they're both lying, scheming, morally devoid sacks of shit high on their own supply with a long track record of treating people terribly but it is also beyond the pale they would trump up these charges and Blake was definitely the victim of a vicious predator. Then maybe we can talk about the birth scene (again).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

[Anonymous]

Eagle-eyed swifties noticed that Taylor has been active on tik tok in the past couple days, liking Kobe’s daughter’s college graduation post and a bridgerton post. Apparently Taylor hasn’t liked a post in about a year. Swifties are taking it as a proof of life. They don’t mention Justin, but to me it’s also a clear indication that she’s not hiding out and if she wanted to make a statement she would.

[Anonymous]

Swift should STAY OUT of this to the full extent possible. If she defended Lively or promoted her work, Freedman would say Swift was acting like one of Lively's dragons and coming to her rescue, and the real danger would be Swifties standing up for Lively seemingly at Swift's/Lively's request.

I wish Lively and Swift were still friends, or maybe will be friends again someday, but Swift really doesn't want to be included in this narrative and shouldn't have to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eagle-eyed swifties noticed that Taylor has been active on tik tok in the past couple days, liking Kobe’s daughter’s college graduation post and a bridgerton post. Apparently Taylor hasn’t liked a post in about a year. Swifties are taking it as a proof of life. They don’t mention Justin, but to me it’s also a clear indication that she’s not hiding out and if she wanted to make a statement she would.

Taylor has excellent timing and she knows how to play the media. When she’s ready to make a statement, she will.

Anyone who thinks Blake and Taylor are still friends, is delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

The dynamic duo up for another days work!

How stupid to file all these motions. What a waste of their clients money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

The dynamic duo up for another days work!

How stupid to file all these motions. What a waste of their clients money

Yes, I'm sure your main concern is whether Lively and Reynolds are being overbilled. Very convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

The dynamic duo up for another days work!

How stupid to file all these motions. What a waste of their clients money

Yes, I'm sure your main concern is whether Lively and Reynolds are being overbilled. Very convincing.

Huh? Yeah, actually, it bothers me when lawyers encourage their clients to engage in pointless and often counterproductive litigation. Which this clearly is. This has not helped her, it certainly hasn’t helped other women and it’s only been an expensive shit show. I’m sure she regrets filing. And I’m sure the NYT regrets running that piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

The dynamic duo up for another days work!

How stupid to file all these motions. What a waste of their clients money

How stupid of Freedman not to amend his complaint or timeline when encouraged by the judge to do so. I guess when you have a 100M bankroll you don’t worry about waste until the damage claims that provide you any chance of reimbursement start disappearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Nah man, she's a full partner and everything. She was a board member at her last firm. Noting the prior places where attorneys have worked is totally normal in this industry. That's why firms make announcements about it. Basically every single thing I said above except for the fact that she left Venable slightly before Baldridge came on there is in the bloomberg law article that I linked where she provided an interview with quotes etc.

Ignore the PP. These are entertainment lawyers, their CVs are online. Of course it's perfectly normal to note where they worked previously or connections they may have to the other people in the case or whatever. That goes for the associates too, IMO. Being a lawyer is a public facing job, and if you rep celebrities then be prepared for to get discussed online. That goes for both sides, and the judge. It's just the reality.

As long as you're respectful, it seems fine.

Thanks! I will.

Looks like the Venable quash still hasn’t been withdrawn, now more than a week since Freedman claimed it would be “mooted in short order” and less than a week before Freedman’s response would be due.

I think Lively’s motion to compel info from Wayfarer’s unbelievably late “neutral” investigation of Lively’s SH claims is a good idea. It doesn’t seem like Wayfarer should be allowed to protect those conversations as privileged while at the same time using them as basically pro-Wayfarer pre-trial investigations for the current lawsuit.

I can’t understand how a real company like Wayfarer could decline to investigate SH allegations for two years. They are required to do this I think within 6months under California law. To try to perform some investigation now is clearly just a pretext and I don’t see how anyone could try to say this two years too late “investigation” is okay.

Also noting that more sanctions motions based on inadequate pleading may be coming from Lively, since the Garofalo response refers to 12 letters and so far we have only seen 10 as attachments in the 2 sanctions filings to date.

The dynamic duo up for another days work!

How stupid to file all these motions. What a waste of their clients money

How stupid of Freedman not to amend his complaint or timeline when encouraged by the judge to do so. I guess when you have a 100M bankroll you don’t worry about waste until the damage claims that provide you any chance of reimbursement start disappearing.

Even if Baldoni et al dont make a penny from this, their lawyer has totally changed the narrative on them to a positive one, and saved their careers.

Can you say the same of the people billing Lively? NO.

I get you make $ off this disaster, but let’s get real. All your multi paragraph posts and nonsense don’t change anything.

[Anonymous]

Candace Owens says Freedman’s source is Taylor’s dad.