Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

I don't support them, but I do keep an open mind to either side. I try to go for the most rational, fact-supported scenario before conspiracies.

I'm not going to believe Taylor's father was the source just because Page Six and Daily Mail report an insider said that. I struggle to see what his motive would be for doing that, when I assume that Swift's main interest is in staying out of the lawsuit. Certainly if Lively and Gottlieb made those threats, Swift's camp had the right to be absolutely furious, but I assume Swift's camp is made up of rational people and their #1 step was discussing it with their lawyers. In Freedman's narrative, Gottlieb threatens her attorney and her attorney puts it in writing that he considers that an extortionate threat and IMO that is absolutely a smart thing to do to put Lively's team on notice that there is now documentation in case they go through with the threats. From there, I can't understand why Scott Swift would possibly go ahead and leak that information to Freedman who will obviously have no choice but to make Taylor an issue in the lawsuit and try to obtain those records and begin the whole media circus.

With that said, Page Six is big enough that now I do sort of wonder if Swift's people will want to come out and deny the rumor that it was her father, and if they don't, I wonder if we can read into that. I don't read anything into her lack of comment about Lively because I get she doesn't want to be drawn further into the case, but this is her dad, and I can see wanting to clarify the record on that point.

I’m not sure about her dad being the source, but TS has been sending clear signals that if she had more to say in support of Blake, she would. The weekend after she made the statement about the subpoena, TS was “spotted” out with Travis’ family for Mother’s Day. Then in the midst of BF’s witness tampering allegations, she was liking social posts for the first time in a year. Then right after the subpoena was withdrawn and the Scott Swift rumors, she’s seen in Florida at dinner with Travis. These spottings aren’t an accident. It’s Taylor’s way of letting fans know she’s not hiding out and could speak if she had more to say. Her silence is most harmful to Blake so it’s a clear signal she doesn’t have more to say in support of Blake at this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

I don't support them, but I do keep an open mind to either side. I try to go for the most rational, fact-supported scenario before conspiracies.

I'm not going to believe Taylor's father was the source just because Page Six and Daily Mail report an insider said that. I struggle to see what his motive would be for doing that, when I assume that Swift's main interest is in staying out of the lawsuit. Certainly if Lively and Gottlieb made those threats, Swift's camp had the right to be absolutely furious, but I assume Swift's camp is made up of rational people and their #1 step was discussing it with their lawyers. In Freedman's narrative, Gottlieb threatens her attorney and her attorney puts it in writing that he considers that an extortionate threat and IMO that is absolutely a smart thing to do to put Lively's team on notice that there is now documentation in case they go through with the threats. From there, I can't understand why Scott Swift would possibly go ahead and leak that information to Freedman who will obviously have no choice but to make Taylor an issue in the lawsuit and try to obtain those records and begin the whole media circus.

With that said, Page Six is big enough that now I do sort of wonder if Swift's people will want to come out and deny the rumor that it was her father, and if they don't, I wonder if we can read into that. I don't read anything into her lack of comment about Lively because I get she doesn't want to be drawn further into the case, but this is her dad, and I can see wanting to clarify the record on that point.

I’m not sure about her dad being the source, but TS has been sending clear signals that if she had more to say in support of Blake, she would. The weekend after she made the statement about the subpoena, TS was “spotted” out with Travis’ family for Mother’s Day. Then in the midst of BF’s witness tampering allegations, she was liking social posts for the first time in a year. Then right after the subpoena was withdrawn and the Scott Swift rumors, she’s seen in Florida at dinner with Travis. These spottings aren’t an accident. It’s Taylor’s way of letting fans know she’s not hiding out and could speak if she had more to say. Her silence is most harmful to Blake so it’s a clear signal she doesn’t have more to say in support of Blake at this time.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

I don't support them, but I do keep an open mind to either side. I try to go for the most rational, fact-supported scenario before conspiracies.

I'm not going to believe Taylor's father was the source just because Page Six and Daily Mail report an insider said that. I struggle to see what his motive would be for doing that, when I assume that Swift's main interest is in staying out of the lawsuit. Certainly if Lively and Gottlieb made those threats, Swift's camp had the right to be absolutely furious, but I assume Swift's camp is made up of rational people and their #1 step was discussing it with their lawyers. In Freedman's narrative, Gottlieb threatens her attorney and her attorney puts it in writing that he considers that an extortionate threat and IMO that is absolutely a smart thing to do to put Lively's team on notice that there is now documentation in case they go through with the threats. From there, I can't understand why Scott Swift would possibly go ahead and leak that information to Freedman who will obviously have no choice but to make Taylor an issue in the lawsuit and try to obtain those records and begin the whole media circus.

With that said, Page Six is big enough that now I do sort of wonder if Swift's people will want to come out and deny the rumor that it was her father, and if they don't, I wonder if we can read into that. I don't read anything into her lack of comment about Lively because I get she doesn't want to be drawn further into the case, but this is her dad, and I can see wanting to clarify the record on that point.

I’m not sure about her dad being the source, but TS has been sending clear signals that if she had more to say in support of Blake, she would. The weekend after she made the statement about the subpoena, TS was “spotted” out with Travis’ family for Mother’s Day. Then in the midst of BF’s witness tampering allegations, she was liking social posts for the first time in a year. Then right after the subpoena was withdrawn and the Scott Swift rumors, she’s seen in Florida at dinner with Travis. These spottings aren’t an accident. It’s Taylor’s way of letting fans know she’s not hiding out and could speak if she had more to say. Her silence is most harmful to Blake so it’s a clear signal she doesn’t have more to say in support of Blake at this time.

PP here. I respect your opinion, but as I am not a Swiftie (I like her music but not interested in her personal life and social media stuff) that all seems too speculative and a bridge too far for me. I would never guess that her being seen out to dinner with her boyfriend or celebrating Mother's Day has to do with Blake Lively's legal case, but I don't follow all her Easter eggs and breadcrumbs, so perhaps you are right. To a non-Swiftie it sounds really weird TBH. I do think she is pissed at Blake and that's why she made the little diss about not seeing the movie for weeks after it came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

I don't support them, but I do keep an open mind to either side. I try to go for the most rational, fact-supported scenario before conspiracies.

I'm not going to believe Taylor's father was the source just because Page Six and Daily Mail report an insider said that. I struggle to see what his motive would be for doing that, when I assume that Swift's main interest is in staying out of the lawsuit. Certainly if Lively and Gottlieb made those threats, Swift's camp had the right to be absolutely furious, but I assume Swift's camp is made up of rational people and their #1 step was discussing it with their lawyers. In Freedman's narrative, Gottlieb threatens her attorney and her attorney puts it in writing that he considers that an extortionate threat and IMO that is absolutely a smart thing to do to put Lively's team on notice that there is now documentation in case they go through with the threats. From there, I can't understand why Scott Swift would possibly go ahead and leak that information to Freedman who will obviously have no choice but to make Taylor an issue in the lawsuit and try to obtain those records and begin the whole media circus.

With that said, Page Six is big enough that now I do sort of wonder if Swift's people will want to come out and deny the rumor that it was her father, and if they don't, I wonder if we can read into that. I don't read anything into her lack of comment about Lively because I get she doesn't want to be drawn further into the case, but this is her dad, and I can see wanting to clarify the record on that point.

I’m not sure about her dad being the source, but TS has been sending clear signals that if she had more to say in support of Blake, she would. The weekend after she made the statement about the subpoena, TS was “spotted” out with Travis’ family for Mother’s Day. Then in the midst of BF’s witness tampering allegations, she was liking social posts for the first time in a year. Then right after the subpoena was withdrawn and the Scott Swift rumors, she’s seen in Florida at dinner with Travis. These spottings aren’t an accident. It’s Taylor’s way of letting fans know she’s not hiding out and could speak if she had more to say. Her silence is most harmful to Blake so it’s a clear signal she doesn’t have more to say in support of Blake at this time.

PP here. I respect your opinion, but as I am not a Swiftie (I like her music but not interested in her personal life and social media stuff) that all seems too speculative and a bridge too far for me. I would never guess that her being seen out to dinner with her boyfriend or celebrating Mother's Day has to do with Blake Lively's legal case, but I don't follow all her Easter eggs and breadcrumbs, so perhaps you are right. To a non-Swiftie it sounds really weird TBH. I do think she is pissed at Blake and that's why she made the little diss about not seeing the movie for weeks after it came out.

No. I think "pissed" is too soft of a word for the situation. I think that as most tabloids have said, the relationship has been severed by TS. Most people understand the betrayal and are on board. Being "pissed" implies that there is a chance for reconciliation, as if it is a passing thing. It is clear through her words and actions (and boyfriend's actions) that the relationship is done, and that she has moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that some of the issues from the 17 point list happened during the time that Baldoni was filming other people besides Lively, like forcing unexpected climaxing acting on Ferrer playing an underage character? And that Lively brought the list up when she did because the strike had just ended, which would mean they could expect to return to work, which she didn’t want to do without an agreement in place that would stop the same harassing behavior from continuing.

But, sure, I’m sure the fact that the Deadpool release was announced on the same day indicates there was some malevolent plan, right?

Note that this was not the first time the Deadpool movie release date had been announced — the date had moved around a few times by then due to the strikes etc. Here is what the Deadpool Wikipedia page says:

“The film was originally announced with a release date of September 6, 2024, before it was pushed back to November 8 to accommodate other MCU film delays. Its release was then moved forward to May 3 of that year when Disney adjusted its release calendar due to the WGA strike, before settling on the July 2024 date after the SAG-AFTRA strike ended.” In other words, the movie was always expected to be released within a few months of the July 2024 date finally settled on, either earlier or later, basically at Disney’s whim.

This. The 17 point list happened because the strike had ended and they were headed back to set. Blake has evidence if both how miserable she was during filming pre-strike and how much she was dreading returning to the set (texts with friends talking about all the on set behavior and how she would go home crying, texts to other actress on production discussing how much she was dreading going back). So all evidence points to Blake creating the 17 point list in an effort to protect herself and others on the set from what she viewed as inappropriate and harmful behavior.

But sure, let's invent a parallel theory based on literally nothing about how it was really about Ryan masterminding a theft of the movie so that, um, something something about Deadpool/wolverine [gestures wildly, nods emphatically, no logical points made].

Prior to the strike, Blake complained about three things: the sexy comment, the birthing video and Heath looking at her in her trailer. There was no mention of simulated nudity during the birthing scene, gratuitous kissing during the dance scene, pornography, young Lily (had they even met?) or anything else that was added later.

What happened during the strike? We know from Baldoni’s emails and texts she had been asking for access to things and even had her manager reach out, but Baldoni had said she’d have to wait. We also know the new date for Deadpool was announced.

How does Blake go from three grievances that she raised right away to an entire laundry list of grievances? The birthing scene is most suspicious, particularly since her supporters feel it’s the strongest of her claims. Why is it that she complained about heath’s video back in May but didn’t complain about the scene itself until months later. Something she’d never mentioned before ends up in her complaint as pressure to simulate nudity. She also claims she was only wearing “a thin piece of cloth” which multiple people have debunked. Could it be that her lawyers told her that her list lacked teeth and she needed more?

It’s also interesting that before the strike, her only grievance about Baldoni was the sexy comment and all the others were about Heath. Then after the strike JB became her focus. Why? Because he’s the one she needed to sideline.

This is not accurate.

- She complained about Justin asking her trainer for her weight

- She complained about Justin's behavior in her trailer when he came to talk to her about wardrobe

- She objected to Justin and Jamey about them wanting her to do the birth scene topless, to the point where Justin felt the need to ask Jamey to show her the birth video the next day, to show her an example of a woman giving birth nude (which is beside the point, but that's how hung up they were on it)

- She complained after the dance scene and alleges that Justin defended himself by saying he wasn't even attracted to her.

That's in addition to her complaining about the sexy comment, the birth video itself, and Heath coming into her trailer.

And this is over the course of just a couple weeks.

Justin/Wayfarer were very aware of Blake's objections well in advance of the 17 point list. It's just they believed their apologies were sufficient and did not think she was still upset about it.

This is an organizational/HR failure.

Had Wayfarer involved HR early on, kept track of these issues, and conducted some kind of investigation, they could have resolved the dispute and closed the door on it. By handling it in an "as hoc" way and not involving their HR team, they failed to recognize the issue was not resolved for Blake or, potentially, for other women on set. This is why companies should have procedures for handling these kinds of issues and a way to formally interview, investigate, and resolve them. This was an own goal.

Your account is not accurate according to Baldoni’s timeline.

oh boy, here we go again...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that some of the issues from the 17 point list happened during the time that Baldoni was filming other people besides Lively, like forcing unexpected climaxing acting on Ferrer playing an underage character? And that Lively brought the list up when she did because the strike had just ended, which would mean they could expect to return to work, which she didn’t want to do without an agreement in place that would stop the same harassing behavior from continuing.

But, sure, I’m sure the fact that the Deadpool release was announced on the same day indicates there was some malevolent plan, right?

Note that this was not the first time the Deadpool movie release date had been announced — the date had moved around a few times by then due to the strikes etc. Here is what the Deadpool Wikipedia page says:

“The film was originally announced with a release date of September 6, 2024, before it was pushed back to November 8 to accommodate other MCU film delays. Its release was then moved forward to May 3 of that year when Disney adjusted its release calendar due to the WGA strike, before settling on the July 2024 date after the SAG-AFTRA strike ended.” In other words, the movie was always expected to be released within a few months of the July 2024 date finally settled on, either earlier or later, basically at Disney’s whim.

This. The 17 point list happened because the strike had ended and they were headed back to set. Blake has evidence if both how miserable she was during filming pre-strike and how much she was dreading returning to the set (texts with friends talking about all the on set behavior and how she would go home crying, texts to other actress on production discussing how much she was dreading going back). So all evidence points to Blake creating the 17 point list in an effort to protect herself and others on the set from what she viewed as inappropriate and harmful behavior.

But sure, let's invent a parallel theory based on literally nothing about how it was really about Ryan masterminding a theft of the movie so that, um, something something about Deadpool/wolverine [gestures wildly, nods emphatically, no logical points made].

Prior to the strike, Blake complained about three things: the sexy comment, the birthing video and Heath looking at her in her trailer. There was no mention of simulated nudity during the birthing scene, gratuitous kissing during the dance scene, pornography, young Lily (had they even met?) or anything else that was added later.

What happened during the strike? We know from Baldoni’s emails and texts she had been asking for access to things and even had her manager reach out, but Baldoni had said she’d have to wait. We also know the new date for Deadpool was announced.

How does Blake go from three grievances that she raised right away to an entire laundry list of grievances? The birthing scene is most suspicious, particularly since her supporters feel it’s the strongest of her claims. Why is it that she complained about heath’s video back in May but didn’t complain about the scene itself until months later. Something she’d never mentioned before ends up in her complaint as pressure to simulate nudity. She also claims she was only wearing “a thin piece of cloth” which multiple people have debunked. Could it be that her lawyers told her that her list lacked teeth and she needed more?

It’s also interesting that before the strike, her only grievance about Baldoni was the sexy comment and all the others were about Heath. Then after the strike JB became her focus. Why? Because he’s the one she needed to sideline.

And all of that corresponds with the timeline Ryan gets back to New York from Australia. Maybe he saw her sort of pathetic, not funny, flirty texts and went nuts (he knows she cheats with coworkers) but I would not discount his involvement with this whole saga and him returning to NYC is when there is a noted shift in tone towards Baldoni.

There was no "shift in tone." Lively has been complaining about Baldoni's behavior since before the movie even started filming. Her texts are not "flirty" -- she was trying to keep it light to preserve on screen chemistry and their working relationship, something she notes in a text to another actress during the first few weeks of filming. But she was complaining about Justin in April of 2023, continued to complain about specific incidents throughout the first few weeks of filming, and when the 17 pt list was presented, there were only a couple things on it that Wayfarer truly had no notice of (there's no indication she'd previously complained about the discussions of porn/sexual experience on set, or that she'd raised the issue if Justin repeatedly mentioning talking to her dead father). The bulk of the allegations were not new. Wayfarer was just unaware she was still bothered by them or viewed them as escalating bad behavior, because Wayfarer had negligently failed to bring HR in to investigate the claims and resolve any issues.

No. More gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t it alleged Ryan and Blake were actually after the rights to the future movies from this same author? What’s the status of that?

Did Justin have just a one movie deal with the author?

[Anonymous]

I am kind of shocked that TS' dad is the source, because it actually seems likely to drag TS further into the quagmire irrespective of what the texts say. That said, if TS' team doesn't push back/TS' dad doesn't deny it, it's obviously true, because Page Six is not like "online rumors" it's a huge mainstream celebrity news source.

[Anonymous]

Page Six is not going to accuse a non-public person without being VERY sure of their info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t it alleged Ryan and Blake were actually after the rights to the future movies from this same author? What’s the status of that?

Did Justin have just a one movie deal with the author?

Justin also owns the rights to the sequel. Last Aug/Sept the tabloids reported that Ryan wanted to buy the rights to the second movie from Baldoni to ensure Blake’s continued involvement in the franchise as she and Baldoni had “clashed”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am kind of shocked that TS' dad is the source, because it actually seems likely to drag TS further into the quagmire irrespective of what the texts say. That said, if TS' team doesn't push back/TS' dad doesn't deny it, it's obviously true, because Page Six is not like "online rumors" it's a huge mainstream celebrity news source.

They made a deal. Hence...dropped subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolute denseness of the BL supporters is almost unbelievable. No one can be this gullible and ignorant.

This isn’t going to trial so TS won’t be called as a witness. This is headed towards settlement. For those in the back TS was always relevant to this lawsuit as BL dragged her name into it in an effort to intimidate JB. She lied many times about TS’s involvement and heavily implied that TS would have an issue with JB if he didn’t accede to her demands.

BL is cooked. It’s all over but the $$$.

Oh look it’s the Baldoni supporter obsessed with settlement dancing in again, where every new event in the case means Lively needs to settle more immediately than ever, consistent with the Freedman MO. There was a desperation for settlement four months ago. Yet here we still are with all of these outstanding MTDs of Freedman’s claims as well as motions for sanctions emphasizing the appropriateness of dismissing Baldoni’s claims with prejudice. Yet somehow this Baldoni fan thinks this means settlement will happen RIGHT NOW. lol

I think that if settlement DOES happen within the next week with all these MTDs etc pending, then Freedman likely DID get something damaging out of Swift. Otherwise, this just seems like more Freedman preening for the press.

Dp. There must be a few of us who think this way. Because you have also criticized me for thinking BL should settle. I haven’t posted on this issue for a few days though. I’m not really pro anyone, but as a lawyer who has been involved in a number of litigations, I do think settlement is the best way out, for both of them really, but yes, especially Blake.

Another lawyer and agree. Especially since, despite his claims to the contrary, Liman seems to have this case on the slow track. Blake can’t afford to have this case hanging over her for the next three years. If I was offering her advice, I’d settle soon, stay out of the spotlight entirely for 6 months to a year, and emerge with some self financed project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t it alleged Ryan and Blake were actually after the rights to the future movies from this same author? What’s the status of that?

Did Justin have just a one movie deal with the author?

Justin also owns the rights to the sequel. Last Aug/Sept the tabloids reported that Ryan wanted to buy the rights to the second movie from Baldoni to ensure Blake’s continued involvement in the franchise as she and Baldoni had “clashed”.

Gotcha. Thanks. Has it ever leaked what Justin’s estimate total take home was on the first movie?

Was the sequel already scheduled to be filmed and this scheme has postponed everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t it alleged Ryan and Blake were actually after the rights to the future movies from this same author? What’s the status of that?

Did Justin have just a one movie deal with the author?

Justin also owns the rights to the sequel. Last Aug/Sept the tabloids reported that Ryan wanted to buy the rights to the second movie from Baldoni to ensure Blake’s continued involvement in the franchise as she and Baldoni had “clashed”.

Gotcha. Thanks. Has it ever leaked what Justin’s estimate total take home was on the first movie?

Was the sequel already scheduled to be filmed and this scheme has postponed everything?

I don’t know what he made off the movie but the movie made 400m at the box office. No talk about the sequel yet with everything going on. If I were Justin, I would wait 10 years and remake the movie or use IF for the sequel instead of Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolute denseness of the BL supporters is almost unbelievable. No one can be this gullible and ignorant.

This isn’t going to trial so TS won’t be called as a witness. This is headed towards settlement. For those in the back TS was always relevant to this lawsuit as BL dragged her name into it in an effort to intimidate JB. She lied many times about TS’s involvement and heavily implied that TS would have an issue with JB if he didn’t accede to her demands.

BL is cooked. It’s all over but the $$$.

Oh look it’s the Baldoni supporter obsessed with settlement dancing in again, where every new event in the case means Lively needs to settle more immediately than ever, consistent with the Freedman MO. There was a desperation for settlement four months ago. Yet here we still are with all of these outstanding MTDs of Freedman’s claims as well as motions for sanctions emphasizing the appropriateness of dismissing Baldoni’s claims with prejudice. Yet somehow this Baldoni fan thinks this means settlement will happen RIGHT NOW. lol

I think that if settlement DOES happen within the next week with all these MTDs etc pending, then Freedman likely DID get something damaging out of Swift. Otherwise, this just seems like more Freedman preening for the press.

Dp. There must be a few of us who think this way. Because you have also criticized me for thinking BL should settle. I haven’t posted on this issue for a few days though. I’m not really pro anyone, but as a lawyer who has been involved in a number of litigations, I do think settlement is the best way out, for both of them really, but yes, especially Blake.

Another lawyer and agree. Especially since, despite his claims to the contrary, Liman seems to have this case on the slow track. Blake can’t afford to have this case hanging over her for the next three years. If I was offering her advice, I’d settle soon, stay out of the spotlight entirely for 6 months to a year, and emerge with some self financed project.

If her advisors are not giving her this advice, they should all be fired and not paid.