Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake is trying to subpoena content creators. Yikes.

Reddit ItEndsWithLawsuits has been going nuts on that. Apparently some content creators got notices from google that someone was trying to get their account information. People thought the notices were spam, but google confirmed that they are real emails from their legal department, stating that Esra Hudson of Manatt served the subpoena. But then one of the content creators claimed that someone told someone who called Hudson's office and was told the subpoenas are fake? Apologies if I'm getting it wrong, this is from scrolling around and people there tend to post dramatic headlines. I think by "fake" they mean the subpoenas exist per google's legal department, but someone is impersonating Hudson. I'm inclined to think they are really from Hudson as it would go along with them serving Candace, Perez, etc.

It's definitely uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf

Well his comments are definitely coming back to bite him. I don't know how much of this is honest concerns about her security vs just creating a victim narrative, but I guess it's fair enough if the other side is talking about streaming your deposition that you'd want it on home turf. He was obviously joking and I don't think he'd really do some of the stuff they are suggesting in the letter but I think that's where the Vin Diesel stuff comes in because you can argue maybe he is just crazy enough to do something . Like, I don't know, have a group of people with signs outside or invite content creators to wait outside and shout questions at her (although, who cares, I'm sure she has security and I don't believe her physical safety is at risk).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf

Well his comments are definitely coming back to bite him. I don't know how much of this is honest concerns about her security vs just creating a victim narrative, but I guess it's fair enough if the other side is talking about streaming your deposition that you'd want it on home turf. He was obviously joking and I don't think he'd really do some of the stuff they are suggesting in the letter but I think that's where the Vin Diesel stuff comes in because you can argue maybe he is just crazy enough to do something . Like, I don't know, have a group of people with signs outside or invite content creators to wait outside and shout questions at her (although, who cares, I'm sure she has security and I don't believe her physical safety is at risk).

Honestly I think Lively’s attorneys make an excellent point in this filing that if Freedman can get his client Vin Diesel’s deposition moved to his home turf, due to his security concerns, than Lively should be able to do this as well. There is no need for a circus. I’d be surprised if Liman did not grant this, and if he doesn’t grant this I expect he will impose conditions re security and related issues on Freedman’s firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe Justin sexually harassed Blake. I believe the "smear" campaign was 95% organic. But I still have yet to see a good explanation for this:

''We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spot light on Blake and Ryan."

I can't stop thinking about this quote, and I do think it's one of the main things pro-BLers are hanging onto, and I can't blame them. People will say shifting the narrative can entail positive press about Justin, and it doesn't have to be anything disparaging toward Ryan and Blake, but right there, in that quote, it says they shifted the narrative by "shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

I'm on the same wavelength as you (i don't know if I'd say 95% though). The most unsatisfying result for all parties would be if the jury does find some retaliation occurred, but not enought to show any kind of damages. Basically saying WF did it but BL also sucks.

PP curious what percentage you do think it is and the extent of wallace's involvement? i actually think i went too low and would put the amount of organic posts at maybe 98%. there was just so much organic discussion of blake derailing the movie and bad press about her on sites like ONTD where membership is closed off and no bad actors can get in and post whatever they want. ppl who pay attention to celeb gossip just don't like her and were primed to go after her

PP. I honestly couldn't say. Could be more, could be less. I feel like the stuff feeds off itself... let's say they seeded content about her, that activates the people who already didn't like her legitimately, and then they post more actively, and other creators (organically) create more negative BL content (but it might not have happened if it hadn't been for the initial inorganic activity)... it's really hard to say. I definitely do think there was some kind of boost that happened, because I don't follow celebrity gossip at all, have not really known anything BL has done since Gossip Girl, and was not aware of the movie, but even I heard all about that stupid Flaa interview, and I remember thinking "why is this old ass interview everywhere all the time?" So for me if it reached me that suggests it was something inorganic, and the NYT article completely clicked for me and I really bought into it. And since then, I've learned more about BL's bad reputation in general and have accepted a lot of this was also organic. It's just going to be impossible to untangle her history from whatever bot activity occurred (and I think some did). I mean imagine being BL at the trial. First she puts on her case in front of the jury showing whatever she found that Wallace did, then the defense mounts evidence of how people have hated you for years!

DP but on a similar page as both of you. My thinking is influenced by a similar experience to yours from last August, though not for me -- for my husband. At some point last August, my husband, who does not follow celeb news, could not possibly care less about Blake Lively, has never seen her in anything (not even Gossip Girl), was not actually aware she was married to Ryan Reynolds, etc... turned to me one evening and asked me to please explain why his Twitter feed was full of talk about Blake Lively and the Flaa interview, as well as comments about her wedding from years prior. He was very confused.

I was fully on the Blake Lively hate wagon at that time, as I do actually follow celebrity news. I also do work in advocacy for survivors of DV and sexual violence, so I was aware of the movie (never saw it but heard about it) and also hear about some of her weird comments and behavior in promoting it. So I knew what he was talking about and could fill him in.

Then months passed, we both forgot about it, and then the lawsuits. I'm an attorney and, as I said, DV and sexual violence are areas of interest for me. So I read the complaints and started following the case.

And when I consider the retaliation case, I keep coming back to that night last August when my husband and I, who had no reason to discuss Black Lively or this movie neither of us ever saw, had an hour long conversation about this interview she did years ago, whether or not her wedding was racist, etc. In retrospect, it's weird, and reading about Jed Wallace, Melissa Nathan and her possible involvement in Depp/Heard, and the texts from Abel, Baldoni, and Nathan around this time, it really raises questions for me about how "organic" it all was. I am still open to the idea that it was organic, but it certainly seems like there's enough here to raise a question for a jury about whether what Wayfarer and their PR team did constituted a retaliatory smear campaign.

Basically, I'm following at this point to learn, for myself, how much of my feelings about Lively last August (and those of my husband) may have been influenced by a PR campaign without me knowing it. I'd like to know how susceptible I am to something like this. I didn't follow Depp/Heard at all but having read about it later, it seems like a lot of people got taken in by the PR. Maybe I got taken in here. I'd like to know.

I think you can probably seek damages from Baldoni at this point. I have mourned for you, quietly from the sidelines, for nigh over 7 months now, since you are an important DV advocate and clearly conversant in the harms caused by manipulative fake people like Baldoni. Do you have the ducats to file, or will it have to be pro hac vice? 🙏

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf

Well his comments are definitely coming back to bite him. I don't know how much of this is honest concerns about her security vs just creating a victim narrative, but I guess it's fair enough if the other side is talking about streaming your deposition that you'd want it on home turf. He was obviously joking and I don't think he'd really do some of the stuff they are suggesting in the letter but I think that's where the Vin Diesel stuff comes in because you can argue maybe he is just crazy enough to do something . Like, I don't know, have a group of people with signs outside or invite content creators to wait outside and shout questions at her (although, who cares, I'm sure she has security and I don't believe her physical safety is at risk).

Honestly I think Lively’s attorneys make an excellent point in this filing that if Freedman can get his client Vin Diesel’s deposition moved to his home turf, due to his security concerns, than Lively should be able to do this as well. There is no need for a circus. I’d be surprised if Liman did not grant this, and if he doesn’t grant this I expect he will impose conditions re security and related issues on Freedman’s firm.

If Freedman wants to set depo location for media show, does Lively’s team lose any strength to that argument if argue Ryan was using case for $ by including it in Deadpool, jokes on SNL, etc. Or is that something court wouldn’t even entertain to hear and would just tell the “kids” to stop bickering and work it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf

Well his comments are definitely coming back to bite him. I don't know how much of this is honest concerns about her security vs just creating a victim narrative, but I guess it's fair enough if the other side is talking about streaming your deposition that you'd want it on home turf. He was obviously joking and I don't think he'd really do some of the stuff they are suggesting in the letter but I think that's where the Vin Diesel stuff comes in because you can argue maybe he is just crazy enough to do something . Like, I don't know, have a group of people with signs outside or invite content creators to wait outside and shout questions at her (although, who cares, I'm sure she has security and I don't believe her physical safety is at risk).

Honestly I think Lively’s attorneys make an excellent point in this filing that if Freedman can get his client Vin Diesel’s deposition moved to his home turf, due to his security concerns, than Lively should be able to do this as well. There is no need for a circus. I’d be surprised if Liman did not grant this, and if he doesn’t grant this I expect he will impose conditions re security and related issues on Freedman’s firm.

If Freedman wants to set depo location for media show, does Lively’s team lose any strength to that argument if argue Ryan was using case for $ by including it in Deadpool, jokes on SNL, etc. Or is that something court wouldn’t even entertain to hear and would just tell the “kids” to stop bickering and work it out?

Well, this totally sounds like exactly the sort of petty and juvenile argument that Freedman would put in one of his letter briefs, and if he wants to do that, he’ll need to write that up by 5 pm Sunday, as Liman sent out an order this morning requiring an expedited response from Freedman and signaling he’d be ruling on the issue on Monday. (Gottlieb had requested this expedited response.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Gottlieb filing on where the deposition will take place and I am here for this, as it rubs Bryan Freedman’s nose in all of his prior unprofessional conduct and shows how petty Freedman is being about the location. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.415.0.pdf

Well his comments are definitely coming back to bite him. I don't know how much of this is honest concerns about her security vs just creating a victim narrative, but I guess it's fair enough if the other side is talking about streaming your deposition that you'd want it on home turf. He was obviously joking and I don't think he'd really do some of the stuff they are suggesting in the letter but I think that's where the Vin Diesel stuff comes in because you can argue maybe he is just crazy enough to do something . Like, I don't know, have a group of people with signs outside or invite content creators to wait outside and shout questions at her (although, who cares, I'm sure she has security and I don't believe her physical safety is at risk).

Honestly I think Lively’s attorneys make an excellent point in this filing that if Freedman can get his client Vin Diesel’s deposition moved to his home turf, due to his security concerns, than Lively should be able to do this as well. There is no need for a circus. I’d be surprised if Liman did not grant this, and if he doesn’t grant this I expect he will impose conditions re security and related issues on Freedman’s firm.

If Freedman wants to set depo location for media show, does Lively’s team lose any strength to that argument if argue Ryan was using case for $ by including it in Deadpool, jokes on SNL, etc. Or is that something court wouldn’t even entertain to hear and would just tell the “kids” to stop bickering and work it out?

That's different. That would be Reynolds bringing the case into his "art" and this would be bringing drama into the case. The judge only has control over the case. I could only see the judge getting involved if they did like an SNL skit using materials they got from discovery that they could have only gotten through the case. As of right now there is no gag order so the parties are free to do interviews, make jokes, post on social media regarding the case as long as they do not leak information covered by the protective order.

Anyway Liman posted an order taking Gottlieb's request under advisement and asking for a response by July 13 (which is weird because it's a Sunday). So I guess he is going to end up granting Lively’s request depending how Wayfarer reaponds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe Justin sexually harassed Blake. I believe the "smear" campaign was 95% organic. But I still have yet to see a good explanation for this:

''We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spot light on Blake and Ryan."

I can't stop thinking about this quote, and I do think it's one of the main things pro-BLers are hanging onto, and I can't blame them. People will say shifting the narrative can entail positive press about Justin, and it doesn't have to be anything disparaging toward Ryan and Blake, but right there, in that quote, it says they shifted the narrative by "shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

I'm on the same wavelength as you (i don't know if I'd say 95% though). The most unsatisfying result for all parties would be if the jury does find some retaliation occurred, but not enought to show any kind of damages. Basically saying WF did it but BL also sucks.

PP curious what percentage you do think it is and the extent of wallace's involvement? i actually think i went too low and would put the amount of organic posts at maybe 98%. there was just so much organic discussion of blake derailing the movie and bad press about her on sites like ONTD where membership is closed off and no bad actors can get in and post whatever they want. ppl who pay attention to celeb gossip just don't like her and were primed to go after her

PP. I honestly couldn't say. Could be more, could be less. I feel like the stuff feeds off itself... let's say they seeded content about her, that activates the people who already didn't like her legitimately, and then they post more actively, and other creators (organically) create more negative BL content (but it might not have happened if it hadn't been for the initial inorganic activity)... it's really hard to say. I definitely do think there was some kind of boost that happened, because I don't follow celebrity gossip at all, have not really known anything BL has done since Gossip Girl, and was not aware of the movie, but even I heard all about that stupid Flaa interview, and I remember thinking "why is this old ass interview everywhere all the time?" So for me if it reached me that suggests it was something inorganic, and the NYT article completely clicked for me and I really bought into it. And since then, I've learned more about BL's bad reputation in general and have accepted a lot of this was also organic. It's just going to be impossible to untangle her history from whatever bot activity occurred (and I think some did). I mean imagine being BL at the trial. First she puts on her case in front of the jury showing whatever she found that Wallace did, then the defense mounts evidence of how people have hated you for years!

DP but on a similar page as both of you. My thinking is influenced by a similar experience to yours from last August, though not for me -- for my husband. At some point last August, my husband, who does not follow celeb news, could not possibly care less about Blake Lively, has never seen her in anything (not even Gossip Girl), was not actually aware she was married to Ryan Reynolds, etc... turned to me one evening and asked me to please explain why his Twitter feed was full of talk about Blake Lively and the Flaa interview, as well as comments about her wedding from years prior. He was very confused.

I was fully on the Blake Lively hate wagon at that time, as I do actually follow celebrity news. I also do work in advocacy for survivors of DV and sexual violence, so I was aware of the movie (never saw it but heard about it) and also hear about some of her weird comments and behavior in promoting it. So I knew what he was talking about and could fill him in.

Then months passed, we both forgot about it, and then the lawsuits. I'm an attorney and, as I said, DV and sexual violence are areas of interest for me. So I read the complaints and started following the case.

And when I consider the retaliation case, I keep coming back to that night last August when my husband and I, who had no reason to discuss Black Lively or this movie neither of us ever saw, had an hour long conversation about this interview she did years ago, whether or not her wedding was racist, etc. In retrospect, it's weird, and reading about Jed Wallace, Melissa Nathan and her possible involvement in Depp/Heard, and the texts from Abel, Baldoni, and Nathan around this time, it really raises questions for me about how "organic" it all was. I am still open to the idea that it was organic, but it certainly seems like there's enough here to raise a question for a jury about whether what Wayfarer and their PR team did constituted a retaliatory smear campaign.

Basically, I'm following at this point to learn, for myself, how much of my feelings about Lively last August (and those of my husband) may have been influenced by a PR campaign without me knowing it. I'd like to know how susceptible I am to something like this. I didn't follow Depp/Heard at all but having read about it later, it seems like a lot of people got taken in by the PR. Maybe I got taken in here. I'd like to know.

I think you can probably seek damages from Baldoni at this point. I have mourned for you, quietly from the sidelines, for nigh over 7 months now, since you are an important DV advocate and clearly conversant in the harms caused by manipulative fake people like Baldoni. Do you have the ducats to file, or will it have to be pro hac vice? 🙏

DP to who you are responding to, but this response to someone who actually works in DV law is also petty and juvenile and completely non-substantive, so I guess I begin to understand why you like Freedman so much lol.

[Anonymous]

Is this the right general impression of where this all started and has now moved to: seemed a majority with Lively when this all started, but then started swinging more toward Baldoni, based on what was coming out about the persons Lively and Baldoni, but now is moving back to Lively but not bc of who Lively is but bc of who Freedman is?

[Anonymous]

I don't like Freedman, but I'm not *the* vocal anti-Freedman poster, and it's difficult to discuss Wayfarer's strategy without discussing Freedman, IMO. I imagine he is difficult to defend if you are a Baldoni supporter. NAG posted a video today pointing out that Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss Lively's defamation claims, because the existence of those claims opens up a lot of discovery on content creators and different media strategies employed by Freedman, his law firm, and Wayfarer, especially because she claims it's ongoing. I hadn't thought about that but it's a great point. Lively is a public figure and Freedman accusing her of lying is probably either an opinion or lacks actual malice because he believes his clients. If one considers Liman a fair judge, those claims could have gotten dismissed going by the logic he used to dismiss Sloane and Reynolds. Lively's defamation claim is arguably even weaker than Lively's SH claim and I generally forget it even exists.

I've always thought Lively was strong on the law and Baldoni on the facts. His complaint listed a lot of strong factual basis for his defense but basically they were not actionable legal claims (extortion, false light, shaky defamation claims, contract claims without the contracts attached to support). So at this stage of the litigation it's understandable Lively is winning but when it gets into Motions for Summary Judgment and the trial, it will become more about the facts, and then it will feel like Baldoni is winning and his supporters will probably be more vocal here, that's my guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like Freedman, but I'm not *the* vocal anti-Freedman poster, and it's difficult to discuss Wayfarer's strategy without discussing Freedman, IMO. I imagine he is difficult to defend if you are a Baldoni supporter. NAG posted a video today pointing out that Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss Lively's defamation claims, because the existence of those claims opens up a lot of discovery on content creators and different media strategies employed by Freedman, his law firm, and Wayfarer, especially because she claims it's ongoing. I hadn't thought about that but it's a great point. Lively is a public figure and Freedman accusing her of lying is probably either an opinion or lacks actual malice because he believes his clients. If one considers Liman a fair judge, those claims could have gotten dismissed going by the logic he used to dismiss Sloane and Reynolds. Lively's defamation claim is arguably even weaker than Lively's SH claim and I generally forget it even exists.

I've always thought Lively was strong on the law and Baldoni on the facts. His complaint listed a lot of strong factual basis for his defense but basically they were not actionable legal claims (extortion, false light, shaky defamation claims, contract claims without the contracts attached to support). So at this stage of the litigation it's understandable Lively is winning but when it gets into Motions for Summary Judgment and the trial, it will become more about the facts, and then it will feel like Baldoni is winning and his supporters will probably be more vocal here, that's my guess.

I am the poster right before yours- thanks for this post. Helpful for me as looked away for 1000 posts so just catching up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe Justin sexually harassed Blake. I believe the "smear" campaign was 95% organic. But I still have yet to see a good explanation for this:

''We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spot light on Blake and Ryan."

I can't stop thinking about this quote, and I do think it's one of the main things pro-BLers are hanging onto, and I can't blame them. People will say shifting the narrative can entail positive press about Justin, and it doesn't have to be anything disparaging toward Ryan and Blake, but right there, in that quote, it says they shifted the narrative by "shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

I'm on the same wavelength as you (i don't know if I'd say 95% though). The most unsatisfying result for all parties would be if the jury does find some retaliation occurred, but not enought to show any kind of damages. Basically saying WF did it but BL also sucks.

PP curious what percentage you do think it is and the extent of wallace's involvement? i actually think i went too low and would put the amount of organic posts at maybe 98%. there was just so much organic discussion of blake derailing the movie and bad press about her on sites like ONTD where membership is closed off and no bad actors can get in and post whatever they want. ppl who pay attention to celeb gossip just don't like her and were primed to go after her

PP. I honestly couldn't say. Could be more, could be less. I feel like the stuff feeds off itself... let's say they seeded content about her, that activates the people who already didn't like her legitimately, and then they post more actively, and other creators (organically) create more negative BL content (but it might not have happened if it hadn't been for the initial inorganic activity)... it's really hard to say. I definitely do think there was some kind of boost that happened, because I don't follow celebrity gossip at all, have not really known anything BL has done since Gossip Girl, and was not aware of the movie, but even I heard all about that stupid Flaa interview, and I remember thinking "why is this old ass interview everywhere all the time?" So for me if it reached me that suggests it was something inorganic, and the NYT article completely clicked for me and I really bought into it. And since then, I've learned more about BL's bad reputation in general and have accepted a lot of this was also organic. It's just going to be impossible to untangle her history from whatever bot activity occurred (and I think some did). I mean imagine being BL at the trial. First she puts on her case in front of the jury showing whatever she found that Wallace did, then the defense mounts evidence of how people have hated you for years!

DP but on a similar page as both of you. My thinking is influenced by a similar experience to yours from last August, though not for me -- for my husband. At some point last August, my husband, who does not follow celeb news, could not possibly care less about Blake Lively, has never seen her in anything (not even Gossip Girl), was not actually aware she was married to Ryan Reynolds, etc... turned to me one evening and asked me to please explain why his Twitter feed was full of talk about Blake Lively and the Flaa interview, as well as comments about her wedding from years prior. He was very confused.

I was fully on the Blake Lively hate wagon at that time, as I do actually follow celebrity news. I also do work in advocacy for survivors of DV and sexual violence, so I was aware of the movie (never saw it but heard about it) and also hear about some of her weird comments and behavior in promoting it. So I knew what he was talking about and could fill him in.

Then months passed, we both forgot about it, and then the lawsuits. I'm an attorney and, as I said, DV and sexual violence are areas of interest for me. So I read the complaints and started following the case.

And when I consider the retaliation case, I keep coming back to that night last August when my husband and I, who had no reason to discuss Black Lively or this movie neither of us ever saw, had an hour long conversation about this interview she did years ago, whether or not her wedding was racist, etc. In retrospect, it's weird, and reading about Jed Wallace, Melissa Nathan and her possible involvement in Depp/Heard, and the texts from Abel, Baldoni, and Nathan around this time, it really raises questions for me about how "organic" it all was. I am still open to the idea that it was organic, but it certainly seems like there's enough here to raise a question for a jury about whether what Wayfarer and their PR team did constituted a retaliatory smear campaign.

Basically, I'm following at this point to learn, for myself, how much of my feelings about Lively last August (and those of my husband) may have been influenced by a PR campaign without me knowing it. I'd like to know how susceptible I am to something like this. I didn't follow Depp/Heard at all but having read about it later, it seems like a lot of people got taken in by the PR. Maybe I got taken in here. I'd like to know.

I think you can probably seek damages from Baldoni at this point. I have mourned for you, quietly from the sidelines, for nigh over 7 months now, since you are an important DV advocate and clearly conversant in the harms caused by manipulative fake people like Baldoni. Do you have the ducats to file, or will it have to be pro hac vice? 🙏

Lol. Does this poster not think we can all recognize her at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this the right general impression of where this all started and has now moved to: seemed a majority with Lively when this all started, but then started swinging more toward Baldoni, based on what was coming out about the persons Lively and Baldoni, but now is moving back to Lively but not bc of who Lively is but bc of who Freedman is?

Dp

No, it’s just one or maybe two pro lively posters, who are probably paid to seem organic, who post over and over and claim to be different people


95 percent of people are anti Blake

[Anonymous]

^ and one of them is a woman who has been identified off here but I won’t dox anyone. She spends time on Reddit too. She is obsessed with freedman. No one else cares much about lawyers but she drools over him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and one of them is a woman who has been identified off here but I won’t dox anyone. She spends time on Reddit too. She is obsessed with freedman. No one else cares much about lawyers but she drools over him.

She has ruined this thread.