Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Wayfarer’s lawyering bad or is the judge just corrupt?

Maybe both. It was stupid for Wayfarer to write that they didn't pull her address out of thin air and they would be willing to explain, instead of just doing that in their response. But also thought the judge would say her attorney responding to their motion proves she is on notice and she can be served through him. This makes me want to go back and look at all of Lively's motions because I feel like there were others where no one confirmed the person lived at that address, but Liman still granted it.

Those motions weren't challenged. This motion was challenged. Hey, if those motions had been challenged, I bet you one million dollars that Lively's attorneys wouldn't have responded to the challenge by saying "we promise we didn't pull the addresses out of thin air, let us know later if you want to see our proof" lol.

But!shit, her attorney has entered an appearance before the Court. This is not a case where poor Isabel didn’t have notice.

Liman can't make him accept service. If he doesn't want to accept service for Ferrer, that is his prerogative and there is no legal way to compel him to do so.

Isn't that what this motion was for? Seems more reasonable to serve through her attorney, who is appearing on her behalf, in this very case, than LinkedIn and voicemails.

But the judge can't force it. It has to do with the attorney-client relationship. A client has to consent to any disclosure by the attorney, so if Ferrer won't grant her attorney permission to disclose, he can't.

I know it sounds weird that he can file motions in the case itself but not be told to just accept service, but that's the law. Liman is not permitted to order it, only Ferrer could allow it and she's chosen not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: Does the psychology of workplace harassment operate the same as domestic abuse?

I often see people conflating the two when it comes to the case. Like on r/IEWU, someone who was abused said she also texted her abuser after the fact. Obviously victims go back to their abusers all the time and text them like nothing happened, which means a positive text doesn't prove an abuser's innocence.

But does that dynamic map onto workplace relationships?

Anyways, what struck me about Isabela's text is ... I don't know, she sent it randomly after seeing something that reminded her of JB. And she was very specific about how safe she felt. It wasn't just like a "Let's work again" text or generic in anyway, which makes the belief that she was uncomfortable on set harder to buy.

I know nothing about this case but I was sexually harassed by a supervisor (repeated sexual comments plus two incidents where I was touched inappropriately in a private area at work without consent) and because I was young, new on the job, and there was a cult of worship around the supervisor,I continued to be very pleasant to them the entire time I worked there and even wound up inviting them to an important personal event. It was 100% because I was afraid of them and thought if they sensed I was upset about their behavior, they would go nuclear on me and badmouth me not just within the company but elsewhere too.

And I was right because when I finally left that job (took me a year to find another position from the date of the physical harassment), I was honest in my exit interview and told them what had happened, and the supervisor that of everyone I was a vindictive liar who was just bitter/jealous.

Again, only talking about my own experience here, but yes, workplace harassment can look like an abusive relationship. In my case, I needed the job and truly did not feel I could just walk away, and my youth was also a huge factor because I was really scared of getting labeled as a problem employee or complainer of I came forward. I know I'd handle that situation differently now, but I also think I'm way less likely to be harassed in that way now -- I now know that supervisor has a history of doing the same thing to new/young employees.

Sorry for your experience but couldn’t be any more irrelevant. She would be a secondary witness under the protection of Blake and Ryan.

Wow, this answer is so rude. PP was explaining why someone who actually was a victim of SH wouldn't speak up at the time and how that's similar to the dynamics of domestic abuse where someone wouldn't feel comfortable trying to leave right away, or speaking the truth to their abuser etc. And you're totally rolling over everything they're saying with some BS about the protection of Blake and Ryan. That's a whole other question, not the question that was asked, and you're assuming a lot anyway.

So weird and rude. Throwing up in my mouth at you.

Could not care less.

That PP is delusional. “Actually a victim of SH” as if it’s rare. Most women have been SH harassed at some point and many work. Nobody gets to speak for all women who have been victims. If used to be par for the course in an office setting.

[Anonymous]

Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

[Anonymous]

I saw the Crystal Ball stuff on reddit, with screencaps, but they all just looked like a typed document (which she claims JV sent her) not screencaps of actual emails and texts, so I'm skeptical.

I can't make sense of the Ferrer thing and the Vituscka thing makes even less sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the Crystal Ball stuff on reddit, with screencaps, but they all just looked like a typed document (which she claims JV sent her) not screencaps of actual emails and texts, so I'm skeptical.

I can't make sense of the Ferrer thing and the Vituscka thing makes even less sense.

There are several posts on her insta. Some definitely look like emails from him to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the Crystal Ball stuff on reddit, with screencaps, but they all just looked like a typed document (which she claims JV sent her) not screencaps of actual emails and texts, so I'm skeptical.

I can't make sense of the Ferrer thing and the Vituscka thing makes even less sense.

It all seems very coordinated. Can’t imagine by whom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is weird. A cc known as Without a Crystal Ball posted this on instagram today (I don’t know how to link to Instagram but can be found by searching for her handle):

James Vituscka just filed a declaration in court - the declaration is yet another lie told by Vituscka to the court about the details of his communications with Leslie Sloane about Blake Lively.

Vituscka reached out to me in late May 2025. Quickly, James began unloading all kinds of information in my email and DMs which included his emails with attorneys, former employer Daily Mail and the Wayfarer Parties - along with full email strings between Leslie Sloane’s attorneys and his attorneys at Daily Mail.

In his declaration signed today, Vituscka blames Melissa Nathan and Bryan Freedman for misleading the court and for him losing his job.

But Vituscka told Wayfarer in June 2025 that Leslie Sloane is the reason he lost his job and he went as far as to declare that Leslie Sloane & Daily Mail started the smear campaign against Baldoni in August 2024. Vituscka emailed me dozens of emails and correspondence with his editors about the stories they ran in August 2024.

The post includes a photo of an email sent to her by Vituscka.

That post is very weird though. It includes what are clearly some emails from JV (with his name and dates on them) which actually back up what he's saying in today's declaration. Then it also contains a bunch of all-caps text (in turquoise highlighter) that has no context but that WACB claims JV sent her, that does in fact make it sound like he totally changed his story. But the all-caps-turquoise-highlighter stuff has no context -- not signed by JV, no time stamps, etc. Plus the style of writing doesn't seem to match the other emails or the other examples we have of JV's writing style (there are tons his texts in the case, in exchanges with Melissa Nathan, Freedman, and Leslie Sloane, and none look like this or have this tone). Also why would JV be info-dumping on WACB at a time when he had already been subpoenaed in this case plus was in the process of lawyering up to take on Daily Mail who had just fired him? No lawyer would approve of that move and I tend to think JV is not that dumb. Also I don't think he'd choose WACB, who doesn't have a great rep for accuracy.

WACB has multiple pending defamation actions against her in unrelated matters. She seems to play very fast and loose with the truth and doesn't appear to vet her sources at all.

I think she either got scammed by someone who convinced her this stuff was written by JV, or she made it up herself. Doesn't mean JV is telling the truth about everything, but like a lot of WACB's "scoops" this sounds too good to be true, so probably is.

One of the emails, not the text, says Leslie is the actual “smearer,’ so disagree they support today’s declaration.

Moreover, they were forwarded to her around the time his lawyer filed his withdrawal.

I think it possible Vitsucka is just crazy or going through something, which would explain his firing from the Daily Mail.

I don’t believe he was fired for being quoted in a Complaint.

Yeah but the email labels Sloane a "smearer" for telling him that the whole cast disliked Justin and that he was unpleasant on set out of his depth. Which yes is negative but is NOT Sloane alleging Justin sexually harassed Blake and certainly not that he sexually assaulted her. If you read the emails, it sounds like very standard spin of a negative relationship on set between a director and actor or between costars. Nothing that would ruin anyone's career or even be particularly memorable. So yes a PR smear in the sense that it's negative info about Justin being sent to a gossip rag, but not a smear in the sense that it's defamation or disseminated with the intent to destroy anyone.

There are also numerous bullet points in those emails that are favorable to Baldoni -- praising his performance in the movie, even implying that any difficulties between Justin and the rest of the cast may have just been due to him playing a dark character and everyone having some trouble shifting between Justin-as-director and Justin-as-Ryle. Yes there are also comments about the cast not liking Justin or the problem being him not handling his multiple roles well, but overall it's not even THAT negative towards Justin. Again, it just sounds like spin to get people to stop talking about the whole thing as Blake v. Justin and just write it all off to personality mismatch and move on. Obviously the narrative favors Blake more than Justin -- it's coming from her PR team. But nothing in the emails screams "defamation" to me. It's all really mild and doesn't appear to be lies so much as a carefully crafted version of the truth, omitting stuff that could be damaging to BOTH Lively and Justin.