Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

DP. More flooding as per Nick Shapiro style…

To Pp focused on the NYT, what do you think of Lively using Nick Shapiro for her PR team? Any thoughts on that?

I was the 20% NYT person if I recall, and I think almost the only poster who thought the MTD could survive (but be limited). I still think liman’s decision wasn’t quite right and there were aspects of the NYTs coverage that went beyond fair report, and Baldoni should have been permitted discovery to find out more… although liman did give freedman the chance to amend and he didn’t. Not sure if that was a huge mistake or not, and I’m not sure how focused wayfarer et al were on the lawsuit to begin with. Most people thought it was for PR and to get their side out, and well, it worked. They shifted the narrative.

I’m not sure why this obsessed poster above wants to find old posts from people (who she’s not necessarily responding to now, although that never seems to occur to her) to gloat. It’s juvenile and bizarre, especially for a law firm lawyer, as she claims. As a lawyer, she should be more mature and she should also know that litigation is a long road. And as a firm lawyer, I can’t imagine her billable hours aren’t totally blown.

The lecturing continues! If what you say above is true and if memory serves, then you must be the same smug media lawyer who was previously lecturing a Lively defender that they didn’t understand first amendment law and must not know anything if they were throwing around the term 1A. Is that you? And now you’re cushioning your previous response saying you only ever said a 20% chance of surviving a MTD and anyway the judge is wrong (but conveniently leaving out your prior rants)?

Pretty sure you also claimed that Baldoni would definitely be given the opportunity to amend even after the April deadline passed because amendment was freely granted.

Here’s a little lecture for you, from me. Litigation is hard. On many issues, the law is uncertain and you can’t necessarily predict what a judge will do. So when lawyers here do their best to perform legal analysis and make an educated guess on what will happen, maybe don’t insult them as a knee jerk reaction when their opinion differs from yours. Maybe try not insulting anyone here generally, for a while, as you continue to do to me, above. People are different and contain multitudes, and you don’t know what anyone else’s life is like. Maybe try that. Jmho.

It’s been a whole day and media attorney hasn’t responded to this, but is back to her old insult tricks, oh well.

Just noting again how conveniently your memory served you in going back through your old posts to recount how they really weren’t all that wrong (they were) but to leave out how you insulted and mocked the “1A” attorney (who called it better than you) and also said Baldoni would be given leave to amend (wrong).

Let me know if you want me to find those comments of yours and repost them here, to jog your memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I mean, I understand why you want to see it that way. Maybe. Or, they might be saving it. We already know that Gottlieb knew since May 22 that Freedman got no docs from Venable through a production, but held that fact close to his chest. What other stuff is he sitting on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

I think this is going to trial, so we'll eventually know more either way, if we don't get it sooner via the docket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

I often wonder if anyone here is actually a lawyer. That would not be a reason to cut off a document, o it would just be redacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I mean, I understand why you want to see it that way. Maybe. Or, they might be saving it. We already know that Gottlieb knew since May 22 that Freedman got no docs from Venable through a production, but held that fact close to his chest. What other stuff is he sitting on?

For a whole two and a half weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Vogue mistakenly left comments open on their Instagram when they posted a pic of Blake. Oops.

Can’t control everything, PR folks

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l89ytn/vogue_comments_are_lit_after_featuring_blake/

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

From the vogue insta comments. Someone posted something along these lines…

‘Blake and Ryan have made a mockery of domestic violence and sexual harassment. They are an insult to REAL victims… we are watching’

Wow. They have really upset people!

Wait. "Someone" wrote that? Whoa. I always defer to the judgment of someone. And they have an Instagram account? Sounds very legit. Thanks for posting this important source.

I really hate it when I upset "someone." Oh noes!

Lol dynamic PR duo at it again!

Yes, a person wrote that. Unlike you two, I’m not interested in stalking or doxing people or asking them to meet up in DC area parking lots to ‘prove’ they’re real.

Wow, your billable hours must be really low this month!! Aren’t you worried about your bonus??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Vogue mistakenly left comments open on their Instagram when they posted a pic of Blake. Oops.

Can’t control everything, PR folks

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l89ytn/vogue_comments_are_lit_after_featuring_blake/

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

From the vogue insta comments. Someone posted something along these lines…

‘Blake and Ryan have made a mockery of domestic violence and sexual harassment. They are an insult to REAL victims… we are watching’

Wow. They have really upset people!

Wait. "Someone" wrote that? Whoa. I always defer to the judgment of someone. And they have an Instagram account? Sounds very legit. Thanks for posting this important source.

I really hate it when I upset "someone." Oh noes!

Lol dynamic PR duo at it again!

Yes, a person wrote that. Unlike you two, I’m not interested in stalking or doxing people or asking them to meet up in DC area parking lots to ‘prove’ they’re real.

Wow, your billable hours must be really low this month!! Aren’t you worried about your bonus??

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

[Anonymous]

Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

I often wonder if anyone here is actually a lawyer. That would not be a reason to cut off a document, o it would just be redacted.

PP could have meant that this info was redacted for AEO on this “confidential” level doc so producing it would reveal no further info, but kudos for once again insulting first rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, even if redacted in this confidential doc as AEO, this info should exist on a lawyers only version somewhere with Lively’s lawyers (so *they* will know what it says), though I haven’t read the PO closely enough and could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Speaking of Vogue, they report her wedding dress was Marchesa?!

https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/blake-lively-wedding-dress-marchesa-bridal-gown-married-ryan-reynolds

Yet, if you go to Marchesa's wikipedia, no mention of Blake Lively as one of the famous actresses who wore Harvey's wife's fashion label. Weird!

I guess shes just toxic right now. Do you think her current campaign is helping or hurting her? I think it’s only hurting her because it comes across as so phony and people notice and it only makes them madder

Wondering what you guys would make of it if Lively supporters started leaving negative comments on Baldoni’s or his wife’s posts talking about his harassment and smear campaign? I don’t ever and wouldn’t ever, but it sounds like you guys delight in this kind of “truth-telling” online meanness.

Also wonder at what point you feel a celebrity has an obligation to step in and asking their fans NOT to leave negative online comments? I would think with Baldoni’s feminist schtick, he would be against fans doing this sort of thing. But I guess he is okay with it. I suspect it feeds his ego tbh. I believe other celebs have done this like Swift.

I’m not sure negative comments like these are really hurting Lively at this point tbh. Her people can investigate whether they’re actually organic, for one. And two, if they are, I think Lively could point at them to show how her rep has been damaged by Baldoni’s earlier smear (assuming she can prove that). So it could help prove damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

It’s not in my head, the pro Lively posts I reported for sock puppeting were removed. And they were “in the style” of “two”prolific Lively posters here.