Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

23:00 here. Yes, this is an earlier document. The way a 56.1 statement works is the parties will go back and forth submitting their "undisputed facts" and disputing them until they have actually gotten to the truly undisputed facts. It's normal for things to continually be stripped away because they are, well, disputed. So the most recent filing simply says that Lively was wearing a hospital gown, prosthetic belly, and as trip of fabric over her genitals, with no detail about how the gown was placed, the color or size of the strip, or what parts of Lively's body were visible. It also references a video that it's clear both parties will accept as valid evidence. That's as much as they are willing to agree on, and anything else is disputed and could be argued before the jury (IF deemed relevant, some of what they are quibbling over might be deemed irrelevant to whatever claims ultimately get tried, in which case the judge won't allow testimony or arguments on them).

It's clear some people in the thread are unfamiliar with how this phase of litigation works and what purpose it serves.

Weird that you are unable to read the word “black fabric” that indisputably appears in her SOF. They don’t put you in black fabric are tying to make you look naked.

Again, that's not the final SOF. The one you are referring to was filed back in December. Since then, another one was filed that does not say "black" but only "fabric strip". And that's the ACTUAL undisputed fact -- Lively was wearing a fabric strip over her genitals. Both parties agree to that.

Lively may not have been able to remember what color the fabric strip was until Baldoni finally produced the unedited footage of the scene, which it appears he produced quite late, so she may have wavered on color and been willing to concede it was black (since the other side kept insisting it was) until this footage was produced that showed, low and behold, it wasn't black.

The fact that you are CONVINCED she was wearing "black briefs" despite video footage showing it was nude and the fact that Wayfarer has already conceded to call it a "fabric strip", not briefs, just shows how effectively Wayfarer has mislead the public by simply lying in their pleadings for a year, dragging their feet on discovery, and muddying the waters on easily documented facts, like that Livley was wearing a nude colored modesty panel in the birth scene, also known as a thin strip of fabric designed to cover only one's genitals and an intimate or nude scene, just as she alleged in her original complaint.

Learn to read moron. Blake admits they were black.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

There already is a photo linked where she is wearing black bikini. Also, she ADMITS she was wearing black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

23:00 here. Yes, this is an earlier document. The way a 56.1 statement works is the parties will go back and forth submitting their "undisputed facts" and disputing them until they have actually gotten to the truly undisputed facts. It's normal for things to continually be stripped away because they are, well, disputed. So the most recent filing simply says that Lively was wearing a hospital gown, prosthetic belly, and as trip of fabric over her genitals, with no detail about how the gown was placed, the color or size of the strip, or what parts of Lively's body were visible. It also references a video that it's clear both parties will accept as valid evidence. That's as much as they are willing to agree on, and anything else is disputed and could be argued before the jury (IF deemed relevant, some of what they are quibbling over might be deemed irrelevant to whatever claims ultimately get tried, in which case the judge won't allow testimony or arguments on them).

It's clear some people in the thread are unfamiliar with how this phase of litigation works and what purpose it serves.

Weird that you are unable to read the word “black fabric” that indisputably appears in her SOF. They don’t put you in black fabric are tying to make you look naked.

Again, that's not the final SOF. The one you are referring to was filed back in December. Since then, another one was filed that does not say "black" but only "fabric strip". And that's the ACTUAL undisputed fact -- Lively was wearing a fabric strip over her genitals. Both parties agree to that.

Lively may not have been able to remember what color the fabric strip was until Baldoni finally produced the unedited footage of the scene, which it appears he produced quite late, so she may have wavered on color and been willing to concede it was black (since the other side kept insisting it was) until this footage was produced that showed, low and behold, it wasn't black.

The fact that you are CONVINCED she was wearing "black briefs" despite video footage showing it was nude and the fact that Wayfarer has already conceded to call it a "fabric strip", not briefs, just shows how effectively Wayfarer has mislead the public by simply lying in their pleadings for a year, dragging their feet on discovery, and muddying the waters on easily documented facts, like that Livley was wearing a nude colored modesty panel in the birth scene, also known as a thin strip of fabric designed to cover only one's genitals and an intimate or nude scene, just as she alleged in her original complaint.

Learn to read moron. Blake admits they were black.

Pics or it didn't happen.

It’s literally quoted in this very post chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

There already is a photo linked where she is wearing black bikini. Also, she ADMITS she was wearing black.

No, what was linked was a comment thread on r/itendswithlawsuits with a GIF of a photograb of a still of the video. And it still doesn't show "black briefs" or a "black bikini." But even if it did, that's not a piece of evidence.

None of you even understand the signficance here -- she was in a modesty panel. Do you know why modesty panels were created? As a way to preserve actor modesty *while filming nude scenes*. Hmm....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

23:00 here. Yes, this is an earlier document. The way a 56.1 statement works is the parties will go back and forth submitting their "undisputed facts" and disputing them until they have actually gotten to the truly undisputed facts. It's normal for things to continually be stripped away because they are, well, disputed. So the most recent filing simply says that Lively was wearing a hospital gown, prosthetic belly, and as trip of fabric over her genitals, with no detail about how the gown was placed, the color or size of the strip, or what parts of Lively's body were visible. It also references a video that it's clear both parties will accept as valid evidence. That's as much as they are willing to agree on, and anything else is disputed and could be argued before the jury (IF deemed relevant, some of what they are quibbling over might be deemed irrelevant to whatever claims ultimately get tried, in which case the judge won't allow testimony or arguments on them).

It's clear some people in the thread are unfamiliar with how this phase of litigation works and what purpose it serves.

Weird that you are unable to read the word “black fabric” that indisputably appears in her SOF. They don’t put you in black fabric are tying to make you look naked.

Again, that's not the final SOF. The one you are referring to was filed back in December. Since then, another one was filed that does not say "black" but only "fabric strip". And that's the ACTUAL undisputed fact -- Lively was wearing a fabric strip over her genitals. Both parties agree to that.

Lively may not have been able to remember what color the fabric strip was until Baldoni finally produced the unedited footage of the scene, which it appears he produced quite late, so she may have wavered on color and been willing to concede it was black (since the other side kept insisting it was) until this footage was produced that showed, low and behold, it wasn't black.

The fact that you are CONVINCED she was wearing "black briefs" despite video footage showing it was nude and the fact that Wayfarer has already conceded to call it a "fabric strip", not briefs, just shows how effectively Wayfarer has mislead the public by simply lying in their pleadings for a year, dragging their feet on discovery, and muddying the waters on easily documented facts, like that Livley was wearing a nude colored modesty panel in the birth scene, also known as a thin strip of fabric designed to cover only one's genitals and an intimate or nude scene, just as she alleged in her original complaint.

Learn to read moron. Blake admits they were black.

Pics or it didn't happen.

It’s literally quoted in this very post chain.

Nope. That is not evidence. It's a screen grab of a video that purports to show a still of an actual piece of evidence. Buried in a comment on a reddit thread. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

There already is a photo linked where she is wearing black bikini. Also, she ADMITS she was wearing black.

No, what was linked was a comment thread on r/itendswithlawsuits with a GIF of a photograb of a still of the video. And it still doesn't show "black briefs" or a "black bikini." But even if it did, that's not a piece of evidence.

None of you even understand the signficance here -- she was in a modesty panel. Do you know why modesty panels were created? As a way to preserve actor modesty *while filming nude scenes*. Hmm....

No one films nude scenes in the black briefs baby. Or black modesty panels or anything black. But Blake SAYs she was wearing black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

There already is a photo linked where she is wearing black bikini. Also, she ADMITS she was wearing black.

No, what was linked was a comment thread on r/itendswithlawsuits with a GIF of a photograb of a still of the video. And it still doesn't show "black briefs" or a "black bikini." But even if it did, that's not a piece of evidence.

None of you even understand the signficance here -- she was in a modesty panel. Do you know why modesty panels were created? As a way to preserve actor modesty *while filming nude scenes*. Hmm....

No one films nude scenes in the black briefs baby. Or black modesty panels or anything black. But Blake SAYs she was wearing black.

How has this black underwear debate gone on so long?

Blake was wearing black underwear. Her attorneys described it as a thin piece of fabric b/c they play fast and loose with the truth. Just like Vanzan was a “lawful” subpoena. The image is not explicit. If it was, the judge would not have released it to the public, which should tell you something. Blake is a grown adult. She could’ve said I want longer briefs or modesty shorts. She was a steamroller on that set but all of a sudden in the birthing scene she’s a damsel in distress. Not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jenny’s behavior and texts are pretty abhorrent but she thought she was just buttering up to Blake for a few weeks of filming. She had no ideas that it was going to turn into this PR disaster.

It’s easy to see how this happened with the cast and Colleen. The problem is Blake supporters will take any little thing and run with it just b/c Blake managed to get the cast to shit talk Justin. But then when you ask what he did to justify the vitriol you get:

Jenny: laughed at my jokes and gave me $15k

Isabella: told me to lick a spoon

Brandon: nothing, I’m just thirsty, um I mean supporting women.

Colleen: he didn’t like Blake so I never talked to him again.

But you're cherry picking. That's not what any of those people testified to (I don't then Brandon is relevant at all, was he even deposed?).

Jenny: testified to two occasions of Justin calling a woman "sexy" in a way that Jenny interpreted to be about their personal physical appearance, not their character. Testified to expressing her unhappiness with these comments on both occasions, and telling Justin that people don't say stuff like that anymore, that it's not appropriate. Also testified to Justin becoming "huffy" or unhappy when she objected to these comments, walking away or becoming harder to work with. Also testified to Justin recording an early rehearsal with Jenny and Blake without telling them beforehand, and finding this weird and inappropriate.

Isabella: testified two three incidents where Justin made her feel uncomfortable. The most significant was during the sex scene she filmed with young Atlas, Justin coming over afterwards to tell them that it had been "hot" which she found inappropriate because the scene was meant to be an "innocent" experience between two teenagers. The second thing was suggesting she lick the spoon during a different scene and look suggestively into her acting partner's eyes, which Isabella thought was inappropriate for the scene and character. The third thing was second-hand - Isabella's co-star told her that Justin had suggested Isabella and young Atlas "get to know each other" in a way that Isabella felt was inappropriately suggestive.

Intimacy Coordinator: testified to Justin adding kissing and other intimate contact to scenes even when not called for in the script. Testified to Justin suggesting added elements to sex scenes, like oral sex and Blake climaxing on screen, even though the IC knew from consultations with Blake that these items violated Blakes nudity/intimacy rider. Also testified that Jamey Heath had provided the IC with a list of all scenes that had ANY level of intimacy (even just kissing) or nudity, but it did not include the dancing scene or the birth scene. Confirmed that the level of undress in the birth scene as filmed constituted onscreen nudity that would require a nudity rider. Also testified that the call sheet as published for the birth scene did not indicate a closed set.

Colleen: testified to issues with Justin starting before casting had even begun, including being told he wanted her feedback on the script and then struggling to find opportunities to provide it. Testified to exchanging emails with Justin about the level of onscreen sex/intimacy in the film and explaining that the goal should not be represent all the sex in the book on screen, as women feel differently about reading a sex scene in a book that they are reading alone at home, versus watching sex on a screen in a theater full of people, and that implied sex is much more appropriate. Testified that she had never had a conversation with Blake when, in May 2024, Justin and Jamey invited Colleen to dinner with what Colleen felt was the intent to poison her against Blake. Testified to Justin blaming Blake for an issue with Lily's tattoo that had to be fixed in post, even though Justin later admitted that the error was with their own designer, who had failed to include the essential element in the first renderings. Testified to being worried Justin would not convey Colleen's feedback on the film to Blake for Blake's edit, which is what led Colleen to reach out to Blake in the first place.

Alex: testified to multiple negative interactions with Justin of her own, including him losing his temper with her on more than one occasions, and apologize by saying he'd been having trouble with interrupting and talking over women lately. Testified to informing Justin and Jamey of both Jenny's and Blake's complaints about behavior on set, and suggesting that Wayfarer open an investigation in order to clear the air and make sure things ran smoothly moving forward. Testified that Jamey told her they decided not to investigate because he felt it would be better if the details of the complaints not be written down or otherwise memorialized.

I mean, sure, if you cherry pick ONLY the stuff that you feel exonerates Justin and Jamey, it makes their accusers look petty and lame. Or like they were conspiring against these men. But when you look at the evidence in its totality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And they no one has joined the lawsuit. You have the opportunity to join 2 powerful celebs with their Rolodex of powerful friends and no one wants a thing to do with this. That speaks volumes.

And none of their “friends” are standing by them, voicing support, or are even willing to be seen with them.

Your understanding of what this lawsuit entails is laughable.

No it’s not. No one wants to revisit this or support her. They are distancing themselves. If you think this isn’t hurting Blake you are not paying attention.

On a separate note, I just saw the transcript of an interview panel Isabel and Alex (young lily and young atlas) had early on, before official promo but after their scenes were shot. They both GUSHED over Justin and his role as a director, going much further than not trying to rock the boat. They genuinely had a good experience with him.

Then all of a sudden Blake meets Isabel. Hosts sleepovers, makes promises.

We can all see it.

Of course Isabella would gush about Justin in official promotional material for the movie. Duh. In what universe would an actress on her very first film every, while filming a promo for the movie that she is contractually required to appear in and will be used to sell the movie, will the actress provide an unvarnished and totally honest assessment of her director? No one would. Actors always gush about the director and the experience in those things, even more than you'd expect them to in regular press interviews. The person who "interviewed" Isabella for that promo was hired by the movie to make the movie look good. I wouldn't be surprised if her response was at least partially scripted. It's evidence of nothing.

Oh please. Read the transcript. She absolutely didn’t have to say that about Justin. She could have been much more diplomat.

Isabel had a fine experience - even a pleasant experience with Justin. I’ve seen video footage of her, trying to hug him and him, turning it into a high five. she did not have a problem with Justin until the sleepovers, the free clothes from Blake, and Blake promising her she would get an introducing credit on the film as detailed in Blake’s PGA letter.

You’re free to keep trying, but we can also see through this nonsense. The evidence is out.

Further, there is a huge file we are waiting for that was too big to be downloaded -and apparently is all Blakes text. I look forward to reading those in the coming days.

+1 if you read her deposition she says her text to Justin thanking him for creating a safe space accurately reflected how she felt at the time. Given that, there’s no reason to think otherwise about the promo. She said she didn’t have a problem with the hot comment, and the lick spoon instructions until she reflected back on them later (i.e. after meeting Blake).

Blake dragged Isabela into this case for PR, which is a shame b/c her career has been harmed. The judge likely won’t consider her testimony at all b/c she and Blake were not on set together. The judge made a comment that if Blake wasn’t aware of the “harassment” it can’t go to hostile work environment.

This is what makes Blake so unusual as a "victim." One can scream at the top of there lungs that there is no such thing as a perfect victim, but you usually don't seem them selfishly ruining their colleagues' careers in the process. Can anyone point to a time that that's happened? It doesn't because they don't have the power to rally everyone.

Or... Isabella is an adult and was telling the truth about how she was creeped out by Baldoni because he really did and said those things. Just like Saks, Slate, Lively, Talbot, Hoover, etc.

Exactly. Complaints by TEN different women on the record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jenny’s behavior and texts are pretty abhorrent but she thought she was just buttering up to Blake for a few weeks of filming. She had no ideas that it was going to turn into this PR disaster.

It’s easy to see how this happened with the cast and Colleen. The problem is Blake supporters will take any little thing and run with it just b/c Blake managed to get the cast to shit talk Justin. But then when you ask what he did to justify the vitriol you get:

Jenny: laughed at my jokes and gave me $15k

Isabella: told me to lick a spoon

Brandon: nothing, I’m just thirsty, um I mean supporting women.

Colleen: he didn’t like Blake so I never talked to him again.

But you're cherry picking. That's not what any of those people testified to (I don't then Brandon is relevant at all, was he even deposed?).

Jenny: testified to two occasions of Justin calling a woman "sexy" in a way that Jenny interpreted to be about their personal physical appearance, not their character. Testified to expressing her unhappiness with these comments on both occasions, and telling Justin that people don't say stuff like that anymore, that it's not appropriate. Also testified to Justin becoming "huffy" or unhappy when she objected to these comments, walking away or becoming harder to work with. Also testified to Justin recording an early rehearsal with Jenny and Blake without telling them beforehand, and finding this weird and inappropriate.

Isabella: testified two three incidents where Justin made her feel uncomfortable. The most significant was during the sex scene she filmed with young Atlas, Justin coming over afterwards to tell them that it had been "hot" which she found inappropriate because the scene was meant to be an "innocent" experience between two teenagers. The second thing was suggesting she lick the spoon during a different scene and look suggestively into her acting partner's eyes, which Isabella thought was inappropriate for the scene and character. The third thing was second-hand - Isabella's co-star told her that Justin had suggested Isabella and young Atlas "get to know each other" in a way that Isabella felt was inappropriately suggestive.

Intimacy Coordinator: testified to Justin adding kissing and other intimate contact to scenes even when not called for in the script. Testified to Justin suggesting added elements to sex scenes, like oral sex and Blake climaxing on screen, even though the IC knew from consultations with Blake that these items violated Blakes nudity/intimacy rider. Also testified that Jamey Heath had provided the IC with a list of all scenes that had ANY level of intimacy (even just kissing) or nudity, but it did not include the dancing scene or the birth scene. Confirmed that the level of undress in the birth scene as filmed constituted onscreen nudity that would require a nudity rider. Also testified that the call sheet as published for the birth scene did not indicate a closed set.

Colleen: testified to issues with Justin starting before casting had even begun, including being told he wanted her feedback on the script and then struggling to find opportunities to provide it. Testified to exchanging emails with Justin about the level of onscreen sex/intimacy in the film and explaining that the goal should not be represent all the sex in the book on screen, as women feel differently about reading a sex scene in a book that they are reading alone at home, versus watching sex on a screen in a theater full of people, and that implied sex is much more appropriate. Testified that she had never had a conversation with Blake when, in May 2024, Justin and Jamey invited Colleen to dinner with what Colleen felt was the intent to poison her against Blake. Testified to Justin blaming Blake for an issue with Lily's tattoo that had to be fixed in post, even though Justin later admitted that the error was with their own designer, who had failed to include the essential element in the first renderings. Testified to being worried Justin would not convey Colleen's feedback on the film to Blake for Blake's edit, which is what led Colleen to reach out to Blake in the first place.

Alex: testified to multiple negative interactions with Justin of her own, including him losing his temper with her on more than one occasions, and apologize by saying he'd been having trouble with interrupting and talking over women lately. Testified to informing Justin and Jamey of both Jenny's and Blake's complaints about behavior on set, and suggesting that Wayfarer open an investigation in order to clear the air and make sure things ran smoothly moving forward. Testified that Jamey told her they decided not to investigate because he felt it would be better if the details of the complaints not be written down or otherwise memorialized.

I mean, sure, if you cherry pick ONLY the stuff that you feel exonerates Justin and Jamey, it makes their accusers look petty and lame. Or like they were conspiring against these men. But when you look at the evidence in its totality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And they no one has joined the lawsuit. You have the opportunity to join 2 powerful celebs with their Rolodex of powerful friends and no one wants a thing to do with this. That speaks volumes.

And none of their “friends” are standing by them, voicing support, or are even willing to be seen with them.

Your understanding of what this lawsuit entails is laughable.

No it’s not. No one wants to revisit this or support her. They are distancing themselves. If you think this isn’t hurting Blake you are not paying attention.

On a separate note, I just saw the transcript of an interview panel Isabel and Alex (young lily and young atlas) had early on, before official promo but after their scenes were shot. They both GUSHED over Justin and his role as a director, going much further than not trying to rock the boat. They genuinely had a good experience with him.

Then all of a sudden Blake meets Isabel. Hosts sleepovers, makes promises.

We can all see it.

Of course Isabella would gush about Justin in official promotional material for the movie. Duh. In what universe would an actress on her very first film every, while filming a promo for the movie that she is contractually required to appear in and will be used to sell the movie, will the actress provide an unvarnished and totally honest assessment of her director? No one would. Actors always gush about the director and the experience in those things, even more than you'd expect them to in regular press interviews. The person who "interviewed" Isabella for that promo was hired by the movie to make the movie look good. I wouldn't be surprised if her response was at least partially scripted. It's evidence of nothing.

Oh please. Read the transcript. She absolutely didn’t have to say that about Justin. She could have been much more diplomat.

Isabel had a fine experience - even a pleasant experience with Justin. I’ve seen video footage of her, trying to hug him and him, turning it into a high five. she did not have a problem with Justin until the sleepovers, the free clothes from Blake, and Blake promising her she would get an introducing credit on the film as detailed in Blake’s PGA letter.

You’re free to keep trying, but we can also see through this nonsense. The evidence is out.

Further, there is a huge file we are waiting for that was too big to be downloaded -and apparently is all Blakes text. I look forward to reading those in the coming days.

+1 if you read her deposition she says her text to Justin thanking him for creating a safe space accurately reflected how she felt at the time. Given that, there’s no reason to think otherwise about the promo. She said she didn’t have a problem with the hot comment, and the lick spoon instructions until she reflected back on them later (i.e. after meeting Blake).

Blake dragged Isabela into this case for PR, which is a shame b/c her career has been harmed. The judge likely won’t consider her testimony at all b/c she and Blake were not on set together. The judge made a comment that if Blake wasn’t aware of the “harassment” it can’t go to hostile work environment.

This is what makes Blake so unusual as a "victim." One can scream at the top of there lungs that there is no such thing as a perfect victim, but you usually don't seem them selfishly ruining their colleagues' careers in the process. Can anyone point to a time that that's happened? It doesn't because they don't have the power to rally everyone.

Or... Isabella is an adult and was telling the truth about how she was creeped out by Baldoni because he really did and said those things. Just like Saks, Slate, Lively, Talbot, Hoover, etc.

Exactly. Complaints by TEN different women on the record.

Most of the women weren’t on the set. And none of what the women were complaining of sexual harassment.

Are you saying Liz, Colleen, Hoover, and Claire and the Sony executives were claiming sexual harassment?

We’ve been through this before. Hoover claimed she didn’t like him, even though there’s tons of texting and emails showing that that was not the case. Claire had a dispute with him on another set. Liz plank did 124 podcast episodes with him about feminism, only to get a production company from Ryan before she decided to quit.

The Sony producers didn’t like him, I’m not sure that’s true, they also called Blake a effing terrorist so they were clearly playing both sides and I’m just not trusting anything that they say at this point.

These claims are really weak. Isabel was, I think the saddest one of all because she truly seemed to like him and it was only when she was promised many things by Blake that she switched her tune, and after starring in a huge film earlier her career she may never work again. That is really sad and I can’t believe Blake can sleep at night knowing that.

[Anonymous]

If anyone wants to enjoy some pictures of Justin in Costa Rica.

Ryan Reynolds was jealous as hell and you won’t convince me otherwise.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/justin-baldoni-surfing-costa-rica-203042540.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jenny’s behavior and texts are pretty abhorrent but she thought she was just buttering up to Blake for a few weeks of filming. She had no ideas that it was going to turn into this PR disaster.

It’s easy to see how this happened with the cast and Colleen. The problem is Blake supporters will take any little thing and run with it just b/c Blake managed to get the cast to shit talk Justin. But then when you ask what he did to justify the vitriol you get:

Jenny: laughed at my jokes and gave me $15k

Isabella: told me to lick a spoon

Brandon: nothing, I’m just thirsty, um I mean supporting women.

Colleen: he didn’t like Blake so I never talked to him again.

But you're cherry picking. That's not what any of those people testified to (I don't then Brandon is relevant at all, was he even deposed?).

Jenny: testified to two occasions of Justin calling a woman "sexy" in a way that Jenny interpreted to be about their personal physical appearance, not their character. Testified to expressing her unhappiness with these comments on both occasions, and telling Justin that people don't say stuff like that anymore, that it's not appropriate. Also testified to Justin becoming "huffy" or unhappy when she objected to these comments, walking away or becoming harder to work with. Also testified to Justin recording an early rehearsal with Jenny and Blake without telling them beforehand, and finding this weird and inappropriate.

Isabella: testified two three incidents where Justin made her feel uncomfortable. The most significant was during the sex scene she filmed with young Atlas, Justin coming over afterwards to tell them that it had been "hot" which she found inappropriate because the scene was meant to be an "innocent" experience between two teenagers. The second thing was suggesting she lick the spoon during a different scene and look suggestively into her acting partner's eyes, which Isabella thought was inappropriate for the scene and character. The third thing was second-hand - Isabella's co-star told her that Justin had suggested Isabella and young Atlas "get to know each other" in a way that Isabella felt was inappropriately suggestive.

Intimacy Coordinator: testified to Justin adding kissing and other intimate contact to scenes even when not called for in the script. Testified to Justin suggesting added elements to sex scenes, like oral sex and Blake climaxing on screen, even though the IC knew from consultations with Blake that these items violated Blakes nudity/intimacy rider. Also testified that Jamey Heath had provided the IC with a list of all scenes that had ANY level of intimacy (even just kissing) or nudity, but it did not include the dancing scene or the birth scene. Confirmed that the level of undress in the birth scene as filmed constituted onscreen nudity that would require a nudity rider. Also testified that the call sheet as published for the birth scene did not indicate a closed set.

Colleen: testified to issues with Justin starting before casting had even begun, including being told he wanted her feedback on the script and then struggling to find opportunities to provide it. Testified to exchanging emails with Justin about the level of onscreen sex/intimacy in the film and explaining that the goal should not be represent all the sex in the book on screen, as women feel differently about reading a sex scene in a book that they are reading alone at home, versus watching sex on a screen in a theater full of people, and that implied sex is much more appropriate. Testified that she had never had a conversation with Blake when, in May 2024, Justin and Jamey invited Colleen to dinner with what Colleen felt was the intent to poison her against Blake. Testified to Justin blaming Blake for an issue with Lily's tattoo that had to be fixed in post, even though Justin later admitted that the error was with their own designer, who had failed to include the essential element in the first renderings. Testified to being worried Justin would not convey Colleen's feedback on the film to Blake for Blake's edit, which is what led Colleen to reach out to Blake in the first place.

Alex: testified to multiple negative interactions with Justin of her own, including him losing his temper with her on more than one occasions, and apologize by saying he'd been having trouble with interrupting and talking over women lately. Testified to informing Justin and Jamey of both Jenny's and Blake's complaints about behavior on set, and suggesting that Wayfarer open an investigation in order to clear the air and make sure things ran smoothly moving forward. Testified that Jamey told her they decided not to investigate because he felt it would be better if the details of the complaints not be written down or otherwise memorialized.

I mean, sure, if you cherry pick ONLY the stuff that you feel exonerates Justin and Jamey, it makes their accusers look petty and lame. Or like they were conspiring against these men. But when you look at the evidence in its totality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And they no one has joined the lawsuit. You have the opportunity to join 2 powerful celebs with their Rolodex of powerful friends and no one wants a thing to do with this. That speaks volumes.

And none of their “friends” are standing by them, voicing support, or are even willing to be seen with them.

Your understanding of what this lawsuit entails is laughable.

No it’s not. No one wants to revisit this or support her. They are distancing themselves. If you think this isn’t hurting Blake you are not paying attention.

On a separate note, I just saw the transcript of an interview panel Isabel and Alex (young lily and young atlas) had early on, before official promo but after their scenes were shot. They both GUSHED over Justin and his role as a director, going much further than not trying to rock the boat. They genuinely had a good experience with him.

Then all of a sudden Blake meets Isabel. Hosts sleepovers, makes promises.

We can all see it.

Of course Isabella would gush about Justin in official promotional material for the movie. Duh. In what universe would an actress on her very first film every, while filming a promo for the movie that she is contractually required to appear in and will be used to sell the movie, will the actress provide an unvarnished and totally honest assessment of her director? No one would. Actors always gush about the director and the experience in those things, even more than you'd expect them to in regular press interviews. The person who "interviewed" Isabella for that promo was hired by the movie to make the movie look good. I wouldn't be surprised if her response was at least partially scripted. It's evidence of nothing.

Oh please. Read the transcript. She absolutely didn’t have to say that about Justin. She could have been much more diplomat.

Isabel had a fine experience - even a pleasant experience with Justin. I’ve seen video footage of her, trying to hug him and him, turning it into a high five. she did not have a problem with Justin until the sleepovers, the free clothes from Blake, and Blake promising her she would get an introducing credit on the film as detailed in Blake’s PGA letter.

You’re free to keep trying, but we can also see through this nonsense. The evidence is out.

Further, there is a huge file we are waiting for that was too big to be downloaded -and apparently is all Blakes text. I look forward to reading those in the coming days.

+1 if you read her deposition she says her text to Justin thanking him for creating a safe space accurately reflected how she felt at the time. Given that, there’s no reason to think otherwise about the promo. She said she didn’t have a problem with the hot comment, and the lick spoon instructions until she reflected back on them later (i.e. after meeting Blake).

Blake dragged Isabela into this case for PR, which is a shame b/c her career has been harmed. The judge likely won’t consider her testimony at all b/c she and Blake were not on set together. The judge made a comment that if Blake wasn’t aware of the “harassment” it can’t go to hostile work environment.

This is what makes Blake so unusual as a "victim." One can scream at the top of there lungs that there is no such thing as a perfect victim, but you usually don't seem them selfishly ruining their colleagues' careers in the process. Can anyone point to a time that that's happened? It doesn't because they don't have the power to rally everyone.

Or... Isabella is an adult and was telling the truth about how she was creeped out by Baldoni because he really did and said those things. Just like Saks, Slate, Lively, Talbot, Hoover, etc.

Exactly. Complaints by TEN different women on the record.

I think it's clear he can be a creep and unpleasant to work with, but I'm not sure if there is enough meat to the sexual harassment claims (to be clear, I'd never want to work with a man like that--eww). The retaliation piece does seem clear. I don't pay much attention to celebrity stories, but even I noticed the "drip drip drip" of anti-Blake news stories and video clips at exactly the time stated. And it seems the culprits are pretty clearly on the record stating their negative PR plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jenny’s behavior and texts are pretty abhorrent but she thought she was just buttering up to Blake for a few weeks of filming. She had no ideas that it was going to turn into this PR disaster.

It’s easy to see how this happened with the cast and Colleen. The problem is Blake supporters will take any little thing and run with it just b/c Blake managed to get the cast to shit talk Justin. But then when you ask what he did to justify the vitriol you get:

Jenny: laughed at my jokes and gave me $15k

Isabella: told me to lick a spoon

Brandon: nothing, I’m just thirsty, um I mean supporting women.

Colleen: he didn’t like Blake so I never talked to him again.

But you're cherry picking. That's not what any of those people testified to (I don't then Brandon is relevant at all, was he even deposed?).

Jenny: testified to two occasions of Justin calling a woman "sexy" in a way that Jenny interpreted to be about their personal physical appearance, not their character. Testified to expressing her unhappiness with these comments on both occasions, and telling Justin that people don't say stuff like that anymore, that it's not appropriate. Also testified to Justin becoming "huffy" or unhappy when she objected to these comments, walking away or becoming harder to work with. Also testified to Justin recording an early rehearsal with Jenny and Blake without telling them beforehand, and finding this weird and inappropriate.

Isabella: testified two three incidents where Justin made her feel uncomfortable. The most significant was during the sex scene she filmed with young Atlas, Justin coming over afterwards to tell them that it had been "hot" which she found inappropriate because the scene was meant to be an "innocent" experience between two teenagers. The second thing was suggesting she lick the spoon during a different scene and look suggestively into her acting partner's eyes, which Isabella thought was inappropriate for the scene and character. The third thing was second-hand - Isabella's co-star told her that Justin had suggested Isabella and young Atlas "get to know each other" in a way that Isabella felt was inappropriately suggestive.

Intimacy Coordinator: testified to Justin adding kissing and other intimate contact to scenes even when not called for in the script. Testified to Justin suggesting added elements to sex scenes, like oral sex and Blake climaxing on screen, even though the IC knew from consultations with Blake that these items violated Blakes nudity/intimacy rider. Also testified that Jamey Heath had provided the IC with a list of all scenes that had ANY level of intimacy (even just kissing) or nudity, but it did not include the dancing scene or the birth scene. Confirmed that the level of undress in the birth scene as filmed constituted onscreen nudity that would require a nudity rider. Also testified that the call sheet as published for the birth scene did not indicate a closed set.

Colleen: testified to issues with Justin starting before casting had even begun, including being told he wanted her feedback on the script and then struggling to find opportunities to provide it. Testified to exchanging emails with Justin about the level of onscreen sex/intimacy in the film and explaining that the goal should not be represent all the sex in the book on screen, as women feel differently about reading a sex scene in a book that they are reading alone at home, versus watching sex on a screen in a theater full of people, and that implied sex is much more appropriate. Testified that she had never had a conversation with Blake when, in May 2024, Justin and Jamey invited Colleen to dinner with what Colleen felt was the intent to poison her against Blake. Testified to Justin blaming Blake for an issue with Lily's tattoo that had to be fixed in post, even though Justin later admitted that the error was with their own designer, who had failed to include the essential element in the first renderings. Testified to being worried Justin would not convey Colleen's feedback on the film to Blake for Blake's edit, which is what led Colleen to reach out to Blake in the first place.

Alex: testified to multiple negative interactions with Justin of her own, including him losing his temper with her on more than one occasions, and apologize by saying he'd been having trouble with interrupting and talking over women lately. Testified to informing Justin and Jamey of both Jenny's and Blake's complaints about behavior on set, and suggesting that Wayfarer open an investigation in order to clear the air and make sure things ran smoothly moving forward. Testified that Jamey told her they decided not to investigate because he felt it would be better if the details of the complaints not be written down or otherwise memorialized.

I mean, sure, if you cherry pick ONLY the stuff that you feel exonerates Justin and Jamey, it makes their accusers look petty and lame. Or like they were conspiring against these men. But when you look at the evidence in its totality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And they no one has joined the lawsuit. You have the opportunity to join 2 powerful celebs with their Rolodex of powerful friends and no one wants a thing to do with this. That speaks volumes.

And none of their “friends” are standing by them, voicing support, or are even willing to be seen with them.

Your understanding of what this lawsuit entails is laughable.

No it’s not. No one wants to revisit this or support her. They are distancing themselves. If you think this isn’t hurting Blake you are not paying attention.

On a separate note, I just saw the transcript of an interview panel Isabel and Alex (young lily and young atlas) had early on, before official promo but after their scenes were shot. They both GUSHED over Justin and his role as a director, going much further than not trying to rock the boat. They genuinely had a good experience with him.

Then all of a sudden Blake meets Isabel. Hosts sleepovers, makes promises.

We can all see it.

Of course Isabella would gush about Justin in official promotional material for the movie. Duh. In what universe would an actress on her very first film every, while filming a promo for the movie that she is contractually required to appear in and will be used to sell the movie, will the actress provide an unvarnished and totally honest assessment of her director? No one would. Actors always gush about the director and the experience in those things, even more than you'd expect them to in regular press interviews. The person who "interviewed" Isabella for that promo was hired by the movie to make the movie look good. I wouldn't be surprised if her response was at least partially scripted. It's evidence of nothing.

Oh please. Read the transcript. She absolutely didn’t have to say that about Justin. She could have been much more diplomat.

Isabel had a fine experience - even a pleasant experience with Justin. I’ve seen video footage of her, trying to hug him and him, turning it into a high five. she did not have a problem with Justin until the sleepovers, the free clothes from Blake, and Blake promising her she would get an introducing credit on the film as detailed in Blake’s PGA letter.

You’re free to keep trying, but we can also see through this nonsense. The evidence is out.

Further, there is a huge file we are waiting for that was too big to be downloaded -and apparently is all Blakes text. I look forward to reading those in the coming days.

+1 if you read her deposition she says her text to Justin thanking him for creating a safe space accurately reflected how she felt at the time. Given that, there’s no reason to think otherwise about the promo. She said she didn’t have a problem with the hot comment, and the lick spoon instructions until she reflected back on them later (i.e. after meeting Blake).

Blake dragged Isabela into this case for PR, which is a shame b/c her career has been harmed. The judge likely won’t consider her testimony at all b/c she and Blake were not on set together. The judge made a comment that if Blake wasn’t aware of the “harassment” it can’t go to hostile work environment.

This is what makes Blake so unusual as a "victim." One can scream at the top of there lungs that there is no such thing as a perfect victim, but you usually don't seem them selfishly ruining their colleagues' careers in the process. Can anyone point to a time that that's happened? It doesn't because they don't have the power to rally everyone.

Or... Isabella is an adult and was telling the truth about how she was creeped out by Baldoni because he really did and said those things. Just like Saks, Slate, Lively, Talbot, Hoover, etc.

Exactly. Complaints by TEN different women on the record.

I think it's clear he can be a creep and unpleasant to work with, but I'm not sure if there is enough meat to the sexual harassment claims (to be clear, I'd never want to work with a man like that--eww). The retaliation piece does seem clear. I don't pay much attention to celebrity stories, but even I noticed the "drip drip drip" of anti-Blake news stories and video clips at exactly the time stated. And it seems the culprits are pretty clearly on the record stating their negative PR plan.

Thanks for checking in about 2 years in with your up to date views, ewww. Good work counselor!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jenny’s behavior and texts are pretty abhorrent but she thought she was just buttering up to Blake for a few weeks of filming. She had no ideas that it was going to turn into this PR disaster.

It’s easy to see how this happened with the cast and Colleen. The problem is Blake supporters will take any little thing and run with it just b/c Blake managed to get the cast to shit talk Justin. But then when you ask what he did to justify the vitriol you get:

Jenny: laughed at my jokes and gave me $15k

Isabella: told me to lick a spoon

Brandon: nothing, I’m just thirsty, um I mean supporting women.

Colleen: he didn’t like Blake so I never talked to him again.

But you're cherry picking. That's not what any of those people testified to (I don't then Brandon is relevant at all, was he even deposed?).

Jenny: testified to two occasions of Justin calling a woman "sexy" in a way that Jenny interpreted to be about their personal physical appearance, not their character. Testified to expressing her unhappiness with these comments on both occasions, and telling Justin that people don't say stuff like that anymore, that it's not appropriate. Also testified to Justin becoming "huffy" or unhappy when she objected to these comments, walking away or becoming harder to work with. Also testified to Justin recording an early rehearsal with Jenny and Blake without telling them beforehand, and finding this weird and inappropriate.

Isabella: testified two three incidents where Justin made her feel uncomfortable. The most significant was during the sex scene she filmed with young Atlas, Justin coming over afterwards to tell them that it had been "hot" which she found inappropriate because the scene was meant to be an "innocent" experience between two teenagers. The second thing was suggesting she lick the spoon during a different scene and look suggestively into her acting partner's eyes, which Isabella thought was inappropriate for the scene and character. The third thing was second-hand - Isabella's co-star told her that Justin had suggested Isabella and young Atlas "get to know each other" in a way that Isabella felt was inappropriately suggestive.

Intimacy Coordinator: testified to Justin adding kissing and other intimate contact to scenes even when not called for in the script. Testified to Justin suggesting added elements to sex scenes, like oral sex and Blake climaxing on screen, even though the IC knew from consultations with Blake that these items violated Blakes nudity/intimacy rider. Also testified that Jamey Heath had provided the IC with a list of all scenes that had ANY level of intimacy (even just kissing) or nudity, but it did not include the dancing scene or the birth scene. Confirmed that the level of undress in the birth scene as filmed constituted onscreen nudity that would require a nudity rider. Also testified that the call sheet as published for the birth scene did not indicate a closed set.

Colleen: testified to issues with Justin starting before casting had even begun, including being told he wanted her feedback on the script and then struggling to find opportunities to provide it. Testified to exchanging emails with Justin about the level of onscreen sex/intimacy in the film and explaining that the goal should not be represent all the sex in the book on screen, as women feel differently about reading a sex scene in a book that they are reading alone at home, versus watching sex on a screen in a theater full of people, and that implied sex is much more appropriate. Testified that she had never had a conversation with Blake when, in May 2024, Justin and Jamey invited Colleen to dinner with what Colleen felt was the intent to poison her against Blake. Testified to Justin blaming Blake for an issue with Lily's tattoo that had to be fixed in post, even though Justin later admitted that the error was with their own designer, who had failed to include the essential element in the first renderings. Testified to being worried Justin would not convey Colleen's feedback on the film to Blake for Blake's edit, which is what led Colleen to reach out to Blake in the first place.

Alex: testified to multiple negative interactions with Justin of her own, including him losing his temper with her on more than one occasions, and apologize by saying he'd been having trouble with interrupting and talking over women lately. Testified to informing Justin and Jamey of both Jenny's and Blake's complaints about behavior on set, and suggesting that Wayfarer open an investigation in order to clear the air and make sure things ran smoothly moving forward. Testified that Jamey told her they decided not to investigate because he felt it would be better if the details of the complaints not be written down or otherwise memorialized.

I mean, sure, if you cherry pick ONLY the stuff that you feel exonerates Justin and Jamey, it makes their accusers look petty and lame. Or like they were conspiring against these men. But when you look at the evidence in its totality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And they no one has joined the lawsuit. You have the opportunity to join 2 powerful celebs with their Rolodex of powerful friends and no one wants a thing to do with this. That speaks volumes.

And none of their “friends” are standing by them, voicing support, or are even willing to be seen with them.

Your understanding of what this lawsuit entails is laughable.

No it’s not. No one wants to revisit this or support her. They are distancing themselves. If you think this isn’t hurting Blake you are not paying attention.

On a separate note, I just saw the transcript of an interview panel Isabel and Alex (young lily and young atlas) had early on, before official promo but after their scenes were shot. They both GUSHED over Justin and his role as a director, going much further than not trying to rock the boat. They genuinely had a good experience with him.

Then all of a sudden Blake meets Isabel. Hosts sleepovers, makes promises.

We can all see it.

Of course Isabella would gush about Justin in official promotional material for the movie. Duh. In what universe would an actress on her very first film every, while filming a promo for the movie that she is contractually required to appear in and will be used to sell the movie, will the actress provide an unvarnished and totally honest assessment of her director? No one would. Actors always gush about the director and the experience in those things, even more than you'd expect them to in regular press interviews. The person who "interviewed" Isabella for that promo was hired by the movie to make the movie look good. I wouldn't be surprised if her response was at least partially scripted. It's evidence of nothing.

Oh please. Read the transcript. She absolutely didn’t have to say that about Justin. She could have been much more diplomat.

Isabel had a fine experience - even a pleasant experience with Justin. I’ve seen video footage of her, trying to hug him and him, turning it into a high five. she did not have a problem with Justin until the sleepovers, the free clothes from Blake, and Blake promising her she would get an introducing credit on the film as detailed in Blake’s PGA letter.

You’re free to keep trying, but we can also see through this nonsense. The evidence is out.

Further, there is a huge file we are waiting for that was too big to be downloaded -and apparently is all Blakes text. I look forward to reading those in the coming days.

+1 if you read her deposition she says her text to Justin thanking him for creating a safe space accurately reflected how she felt at the time. Given that, there’s no reason to think otherwise about the promo. She said she didn’t have a problem with the hot comment, and the lick spoon instructions until she reflected back on them later (i.e. after meeting Blake).

Blake dragged Isabela into this case for PR, which is a shame b/c her career has been harmed. The judge likely won’t consider her testimony at all b/c she and Blake were not on set together. The judge made a comment that if Blake wasn’t aware of the “harassment” it can’t go to hostile work environment.

This is what makes Blake so unusual as a "victim." One can scream at the top of there lungs that there is no such thing as a perfect victim, but you usually don't seem them selfishly ruining their colleagues' careers in the process. Can anyone point to a time that that's happened? It doesn't because they don't have the power to rally everyone.

Or... Isabella is an adult and was telling the truth about how she was creeped out by Baldoni because he really did and said those things. Just like Saks, Slate, Lively, Talbot, Hoover, etc.

Exactly. Complaints by TEN different women on the record.

I think it's clear he can be a creep and unpleasant to work with, but I'm not sure if there is enough meat to the sexual harassment claims (to be clear, I'd never want to work with a man like that--eww). The retaliation piece does seem clear. I don't pay much attention to celebrity stories, but even I noticed the "drip drip drip" of anti-Blake news stories and video clips at exactly the time stated. And it seems the culprits are pretty clearly on the record stating their negative PR plan.

Thanks for checking in about 2 years in with your up to date views, ewww. Good work counselor!

Key parts of Blake's case will move forward, so the joke's on you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the statement of facts with Lively's reply:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1236.2.pdf

Wayfarer wrote: 64. Footage of the birthing scene shows Lively covered with a hospital gown and a
prosthetic pregnancy belly. Ex. 74, WAYFARER_000140494

Lively wrote:
26
Plaintiff’s Response 64: Disputed as incomplete and misleading. While certain
footage of the birthing scene shows Lively wearing a hospital gown and a prosthetic pregnancy
belly, production blocked and filmed the scene over several hours using multiple framings and
angles, including angles that depicted Lively’s side profile fully nude from the chest down. To
obtain those shots, the hospital gown was positioned only to cover her breasts, with an exposed
prosthetic belly and a small, thin piece of flat black fabric covering her genital area. During
filming, Lively lay on her back with her legs placed in stirrups while a male actor—whom she
later learned was a personal friend of Baldoni—stood positioned between her legs for the scene.
Accordingly, the cited footage does not fully or accurately reflect the partial nudity, nudity–
simulating blocking, and filming that occurred. Exs. 16; 13, Baker Tr. 209:20–210:14; 14, Talbot
Tr. 69:13–21, 86:7–16, 143:13–25, 145:16-146:17; Lively Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Wayfarer Ex.
91, at Resp. 23

A small thin black fabric otherwise known as underwear.

If one is trying to make someone look nude, you put them in nude fabric not black.

Blame explicitly claimed nude fabric until photographic evidence was revealed.

No, it's a strip of fabric that covers the genitals only, not underwear, because it exposes the "high hip line" form of nudity or semi-nudity. It's implied nudity.

Her high hip line is cover by a prosthetic belly, moron.

DP but weird to call someone a moron while claiming a belly covers one's hip. If you don't understand basic anatomy, maybe this conversation is not for you.

It’s her black briefs, then her fake belly hanging over. Pretty clear in the picture for those of us not allergic to reality.

WHAT PICTURE?

Someone posted a video upthread that clearly shows her in a nude modesty panel (not briefs). You keep referencing a picture. Is some AI photo someone over on r/itendswithlawsuits cooked up? Link to actual evidence on the record or stop talking about it. The actual video evidence produced so far does not show that.

There already is a photo linked where she is wearing black bikini. Also, she ADMITS she was wearing black.

No, what was linked was a comment thread on r/itendswithlawsuits with a GIF of a photograb of a still of the video. And it still doesn't show "black briefs" or a "black bikini." But even if it did, that's not a piece of evidence.

None of you even understand the signficance here -- she was in a modesty panel. Do you know why modesty panels were created? As a way to preserve actor modesty *while filming nude scenes*. Hmm....

No one films nude scenes in the black briefs baby. Or black modesty panels or anything black. But Blake SAYs she was wearing black.

How has this black underwear debate gone on so long?

Blake was wearing black underwear. Her attorneys described it as a thin piece of fabric b/c they play fast and loose with the truth. Just like Vanzan was a “lawful” subpoena. The image is not explicit. If it was, the judge would not have released it to the public, which should tell you something. Blake is a grown adult. She could’ve said I want longer briefs or modesty shorts. She was a steamroller on that set but all of a sudden in the birthing scene she’s a damsel in distress. Not buying it.

It’s bizarre but they can’t come to terms with Blake’s lies. If the fabric is black, which even Blake now admits, that’s another allegation in the false pile. And another demonstrated lie by Blake.