Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

It might be, if it was done in retaliation for sexual harassment. There's a lot she would have to prove and a lot of legal arguments to win to get there, granted, and it wouldn't generally be actionable otherwise. And Baldoni's got lots of defenses, especially that the underlying SH claim is not credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

DP but I disagree. If they launched a smear campaign and she can prove it and that it was done in retaliation (this is a lot to prove, and I am not saying she'll be successful) then I don't think "she had bad publicity on her own anyway" defeats the case. Even Trump, who has tons of bad publicity, was about to wrangle a defamation settlement. She still has to go on to prove damages to her brand, and a jury has to agree the damages were caused by the smear campaign. That will be tough. I do recall she alleged that when she closed her personal social media accounts, the accounts believed to be paid trolls moved on to her business accounts, so that may bolster her claims.

Yes - I hope they can trace the paid trolls. It's crazy to me that suddenly Lively was getting a bunch of comments from haters on her Instagram. Who posts negative comments on the Instagram of someone they hate, in such large numbers? If you don't like them, you don't follow them in the first place. I'll be very interested to see how this astroturfing part of the case develops -- it's the main reason why I'm following this case in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Just watch some of BL’s interviews, this is the real unfiltered BL. This is an entitled individual who wants to take credit for the hard work of others. She is too inept to produce anything herself, so she weasels her way in as a mediocre nepo baby actor and then starts placing demands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

It might be, if it was done in retaliation for sexual harassment. There's a lot she would have to prove and a lot of legal arguments to win to get there, granted, and it wouldn't generally be actionable otherwise. And Baldoni's got lots of defenses, especially that the underlying SH claim is not credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

DP but I disagree. If they launched a smear campaign and she can prove it and that it was done in retaliation (this is a lot to prove, and I am not saying she'll be successful) then I don't think "she had bad publicity on her own anyway" defeats the case. Even Trump, who has tons of bad publicity, was about to wrangle a defamation settlement. She still has to go on to prove damages to her brand, and a jury has to agree the damages were caused by the smear campaign. That will be tough. I do recall she alleged that when she closed her personal social media accounts, the accounts believed to be paid trolls moved on to her business accounts, so that may bolster her claims.

Yes - I hope they can trace the paid trolls. It's crazy to me that suddenly Lively was getting a bunch of comments from haters on her Instagram. Who posts negative comments on the Instagram of someone they hate, in such large numbers? If you don't like them, you don't follow them in the first place. I'll be very interested to see how this astroturfing part of the case develops -- it's the main reason why I'm following this case in the first place.

LOL. Are you new to the internet and social media?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Just watch some of BL’s interviews, this is the real unfiltered BL. This is an entitled individual who wants to take credit for the hard work of others. She is too inept to produce anything herself, so she weasels her way in as a mediocre nepo baby actor and then starts placing demands.

Real live people are now aware of what BL did and how incredibly entitled she is. It’s the same as TS being boo’d at the SB. They live in ivory towers and apparently weren’t aware that they aren’t relatable to the vast majority. The vast majority of mature adults think they’re obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

It might be, if it was done in retaliation for sexual harassment. There's a lot she would have to prove and a lot of legal arguments to win to get there, granted, and it wouldn't generally be actionable otherwise. And Baldoni's got lots of defenses, especially that the underlying SH claim is not credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

DP but I disagree. If they launched a smear campaign and she can prove it and that it was done in retaliation (this is a lot to prove, and I am not saying she'll be successful) then I don't think "she had bad publicity on her own anyway" defeats the case. Even Trump, who has tons of bad publicity, was about to wrangle a defamation settlement. She still has to go on to prove damages to her brand, and a jury has to agree the damages were caused by the smear campaign. That will be tough. I do recall she alleged that when she closed her personal social media accounts, the accounts believed to be paid trolls moved on to her business accounts, so that may bolster her claims.

+1, she has an uphill battle but it's not an impossible case.

I think in terms of proving damages, she's greatly helped by the timing of her haircare line. Sure, Baldoni will argue that it was her own behavior that tanked it. But if she can show his team was going after her online as it debuted, it's going to be hard to separate the "organic" bad press from anything manufactured. If even some portion if the flop can be legally linked to Baldoni's PR team (like especially if they helped plant negative stories about the line specifically), that really helps her case.

I don't think anything is a done deal here but find the claims that Lively's "done" before she's even filed an amended complaint or any discovery has happened to be weird. The litigation is still very early stages. She wouldn't give up this early and I doubt her legal team is particularly surprised at much the other side has done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She probably should have made the agreement a bit more explicit and stated they would not hire PR to campaign against her, or somesuch, because as it is, he can still argue that whatever he did was not retaliation, but self-preservation. Actually, it would be interesting if celebrities started including this type of provision in their contracts!

Depends on the nature of the PR. If Lively can show his PR team was planting stories that had nothing to do with the movie or Baldoni or their conflict, that's going to be tough for him. Like a post that defends Baldoni and says Lively was difficult on set is one thing. But a post that claims Lively slept woth Harvey Weinstein, alleges negative things about her marriage or family, etc.? If that kind of post can be traced to Baldoni, he has a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She made herself look bad. She didn't have to be nasty to the "little bump" journalist or laugh about doing blackface etc. That's all her.

[Anonymous]

“I don’t wanna just be an actor, I wanna have authorship” “they tell me to look cute and stand on a pink sticker” per BL in the latest interview posted. Well, what an insult to all the hard working, talented actors out there. How whiny, she sounds like a whiny brat. If she doesn’t JUST wanna be an actor, she needs to have the credentials behind her to become a director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t wanna just be an actor, I wanna have authorship” “they tell me to look cute and stand on a pink sticker” per BL in the latest interview posted. Well, what an insult to all the hard working, talented actors out there. How whiny, she sounds like a whiny brat. If she doesn’t JUST wanna be an actor, she needs to have the credentials behind her to become a director.

Cool, then she should author something or create something (she has plenty of resources) rather than hijack somebody else's project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She probably should have made the agreement a bit more explicit and stated they would not hire PR to campaign against her, or somesuch, because as it is, he can still argue that whatever he did was not retaliation, but self-preservation. Actually, it would be interesting if celebrities started including this type of provision in their contracts!

Depends on the nature of the PR. If Lively can show his PR team was planting stories that had nothing to do with the movie or Baldoni or their conflict, that's going to be tough for him. Like a post that defends Baldoni and says Lively was difficult on set is one thing. But a post that claims Lively slept woth Harvey Weinstein, alleges negative things about her marriage or family, etc.? If that kind of post can be traced to Baldoni, he has a problem.

The bots will be interesting angle too. Part of the outline was workers going on reddit to create and stir conversations toward. Creepy.

[Anonymous]

Is this the correct chain of events?

1. Lively doesn't like certain working conditions.
2. Lively sets forth conditions for Lively to return to set.
3. Baldoni/Wayfarer agree to and meet conditions.
4. Lively/Reynolds call Baldoni a sexual predator, use the "complaint" against him to reduce his role in the movie, refuse to do press with him, mock him in Deadpool, ask him to write and apology letter, etc.).
5. Baldoni hires questionable PR reps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this the correct chain of events?

1. Lively doesn't like certain working conditions.
2. Lively sets forth conditions for Lively to return to set.
3. Baldoni/Wayfarer agree to and meet conditions.
4. Lively/Reynolds call Baldoni a sexual predator, use the "complaint" against him to reduce his role in the movie, refuse to do press with him, mock him in Deadpool, ask him to write and apology letter, etc.).
5. Baldoni hires questionable PR reps.

I'm asking because it seems like #5 was more in "retaliation" for #4 than to #2.

BUT I'm not sure if I have the chain right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She probably should have made the agreement a bit more explicit and stated they would not hire PR to campaign against her, or somesuch, because as it is, he can still argue that whatever he did was not retaliation, but self-preservation. Actually, it would be interesting if celebrities started including this type of provision in their contracts!

Depends on the nature of the PR. If Lively can show his PR team was planting stories that had nothing to do with the movie or Baldoni or their conflict, that's going to be tough for him. Like a post that defends Baldoni and says Lively was difficult on set is one thing. But a post that claims Lively slept woth Harvey Weinstein, alleges negative things about her marriage or family, etc.? If that kind of post can be traced to Baldoni, he has a problem.

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut. Here, the allegation seems to be the trolls/bots did things that would otherwise be legal - posting opinions on her and reposting old, but true, interviews. If Jed Wallace facilitated stories that alleged stories that were false, she can definitely sue him for defamation. If he facilitated stories that were otherwise opinion or based on real interviews, that's generally not illegal... except for this novel approach of "retaliation" for SH... she can certainly allege that Baldoni intended retaliation, and probably the PR people as he would have explained why he was hiring them... but much harder to hang Wallace on that, if he was never told about that strategy when they subcontracted with him (if, in fact, Lively is correct that the strategy was retaliation). And that's probably why Wallace wasn't added to the lawsuit in the end, but now he's saying she defamed him for including him as a defendant in her published draft complaint... and now she wants to sue him anyway!

That's what makes this case so fun... so many twists and turns... it's a shame this thread ends up in stan wars half the time.

[Anonymous]

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t wanna just be an actor, I wanna have authorship” “they tell me to look cute and stand on a pink sticker” per BL in the latest interview posted. Well, what an insult to all the hard working, talented actors out there. How whiny, she sounds like a whiny brat. If she doesn’t JUST wanna be an actor, she needs to have the credentials behind her to become a director.

Cool, then she should author something or create something (she has plenty of resources) rather than hijack somebody else's project.

She’s making herself look delusional in these interviews.