Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For everyone wondering what Jed Wallace was paid $90,000 to do, we have some insights. A voice memo that he left the Wayfarer team was published in the docket.

Apparently Wayfarer’s Wikipedia page had been tampered with and he was cautioning them not to react or do anything. He said everything is traceable and we just have to continue to let them bait themselves. It seemed like a lot of what he was doing was tracing Blake team bots.

We know that she uses them as it’s been pointed out during the Barbie campaign of who was going to get rights to the movie, Blake’s team had planted a lot of bots. And sleuths have figured that every two Saturdays or so, her team buys about 20,000 Instagram followers and they’ve captured screenshots. It’ll be 10 people with the same picture named Audrey, 10 people with the same picture named Zoe, just basic bots.

Jed is saying all this will eventually be traceable and just to let them keep going.

So there is a smear campaign, all right, just ironic that it’s going to be Blake that gets caught up in this. I continue to think this won’t go to trial because Blake’s team won’t let it but I hope it does.

This is basically what that crisis PR guru Molly McPherson guessed was happening way back in the day. She was pretty convinced Blake's side was at least as guilty of the smearing bots and projecting. What an absolute mess.

[Anonymous]

OMG noooo notorious Baldoni Bro Molly McPherson was correct??? NOOOOOOOOO think of the paragraphs of delectable stupid we’re about to see vomited up and barely formatted here.

[Anonymous]

Blake bots going through "Baldoni Bro" phase. What an entertaining phase this is as we're nearing the home stretch. It's making me reminisce all the phases:

Birth scene obsession
Misogynist cryer
Eww eww eww for imagined Baldoni transgressions
Let's meet in person
I'm impartial, really...but Baldoni is problematic
Everyone else is a bot
Multiple women complained
Pro Baldoni but evidence turned me pro-Lively
Tiny insignificant detail explained in 5 paragraphs
Attempt to shut down thread
Let the adults talk


Don't worry, the pattern and distinctive writing style are not noticeable at all.

Signed,
Baldoni Bro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake bots going through "Baldoni Bro" phase. What an entertaining phase this is as we're nearing the home stretch. It's making me reminisce all the phases:

Birth scene obsession
Misogynist cryer
Eww eww eww for imagined Baldoni transgressions
Let's meet in person
I'm impartial, really...but Baldoni is problematic
Everyone else is a bot
Multiple women complained
Pro Baldoni but evidence turned me pro-Lively
Tiny insignificant detail explained in 5 paragraphs
Attempt to shut down thread
Let the adults talk


Don't worry, the pattern and distinctive writing style are not noticeable at all.

Signed,
Baldoni Bro

You forgot the “MAGA adjacent” accusations of last week.

[Anonymous]

It’s getting increasingly harder to see any merit to the lawsuit from the documents seen so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s getting increasingly harder to see any merit to the lawsuit from the documents seen so far.

NAG has a pretty good short video on the theory that lively‘s team never thought the lawsuit would go this far. Basically in their CRD complaint, they list 10 items or whatever, the first six are relevant to the complaint, the last four are not legally relevant to that complaint at all. I’m probably getting the terminology wrong, but the way she explained it there’s no reason for them to include the last 4. She thinks they included them so that the WF team could see what they were prepared to do and essentially force a settlement.

That complaint was filed December 20 and emailed immediately to all the parties. December 31 is when Brian Freedman shot back with Wayfarer’s lawsuit. NAG is saying even with the holidays that was a long stretch where they might’ve had some sort of talks, but we will never know if they were settlement talks or what transpired in those talks if they did happen.

Then reading Taylor’s text exchange to Ryan and Blake right before New Year’s Eve after the article had been out a week, where they were all celebrating the uncanceling… It seems very much like they thought it was over and done with. It did not sound like they were gearing up for anything. There was a lot of relief and gratitude that it was over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s getting increasingly harder to see any merit to the lawsuit from the documents seen so far.

NAG has a pretty good short video on the theory that lively‘s team never thought the lawsuit would go this far. Basically in their CRD complaint, they list 10 items or whatever, the first six are relevant to the complaint, the last four are not legally relevant to that complaint at all. I’m probably getting the terminology wrong, but the way she explained it there’s no reason for them to include the last 4. She thinks they included them so that the WF team could see what they were prepared to do and essentially force a settlement.

That complaint was filed December 20 and emailed immediately to all the parties. December 31 is when Brian Freedman shot back with Wayfarer’s lawsuit. NAG is saying even with the holidays that was a long stretch where they might’ve had some sort of talks, but we will never know if they were settlement talks or what transpired in those talks if they did happen.

Then reading Taylor’s text exchange to Ryan and Blake right before New Year’s Eve after the article had been out a week, where they were all celebrating the uncanceling… It seems very much like they thought it was over and done with. It did not sound like they were gearing up for anything. There was a lot of relief and gratitude that it was over.

Blake and Ryan are really, really stupid. I don't care how much of a pushover Justin seemed. When someone's back is against the wall like that with career-ending accusations, they have nothing to lose by going scorched earth. Although in this case, it's not really Justin going scorched earth. It's just, like, sharing the actual receipts of what went down lol

[Anonymous]

Can Justin refile or do anything further with his NYTimes lawsuit? Meghan Twohey needs to be punished for what she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake bots going through "Baldoni Bro" phase. What an entertaining phase this is as we're nearing the home stretch. It's making me reminisce all the phases:

Birth scene obsession
Misogynist cryer
Eww eww eww for imagined Baldoni transgressions
Let's meet in person
I'm impartial, really...but Baldoni is problematic
Everyone else is a bot
Multiple women complained
Pro Baldoni but evidence turned me pro-Lively
Tiny insignificant detail explained in 5 paragraphs
Attempt to shut down thread
Let the adults talk


Don't worry, the pattern and distinctive writing style are not noticeable at all.

Signed,
Baldoni Bro

lmao. you should also add "i'm neutral and i think BOTH are narcissists!"

[Anonymous]

What we really need more of is zesty Ryan posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can Justin refile or do anything further with his NYTimes lawsuit? Meghan Twohey needs to be punished for what she did.

NAG is pretty clear that she thinks at least there should be a very high bar for suing journalists for reporting so she doesn’t necessarily disagree with what happened. But she did mention ethical standards.

It is interesting to me, though, if a judge or jury rules, there was no smear campaign, then New York Times still has this article inside a Hollywood smear campaign - if legally there is not one, would they retract the article or put out a clarification?

Interestingly, when they first put out the article, it was not behind a paywall and you could go to the CRD complaint too. Now that it is all locked up so it’s only for subscribers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Justin refile or do anything further with his NYTimes lawsuit? Meghan Twohey needs to be punished for what she did.

NAG is pretty clear that she thinks at least there should be a very high bar for suing journalists for reporting so she doesn’t necessarily disagree with what happened. But she did mention ethical standards.

It is interesting to me, though, if a judge or jury rules, there was no smear campaign, then New York Times still has this article inside a Hollywood smear campaign - if legally there is not one, would they retract the article or put out a clarification?

Interestingly, when they first put out the article, it was not behind a paywall and you could go to the CRD complaint too. Now that it is all locked up so it’s only for subscribers.

There should be a high bar for suing journalists, but Meghan was absolutely sloppy in her reporting. She claimed she went through troves of thousands of documents, she made allegations like "this is what really happened," and her reporting in the Instagram video (which I thought would have helped Justin's case) was worse and flat-out got things wrong. She also made allegations like this: "The effort to tarnish Ms. Lively appears to have paid off. Within days of the film’s release, the negative media coverage and commentary became an unusually high percentage of her online presence, according to a forensic review she sought from a brand marketing consultant."

This is why it really sucks that his case against the Times was dismissed.

New York Times is never issuing a retraction or putting out a clarification if they don't have to. Smear campaign is not a legal term, and I can't see Meghan Twohey and NYTmes admitting fault. Even though Blake won't have been able to prove a smear campaign, you can't necessarily disprove one either, even though it's obvious that Blake's downfall was her own doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Justin refile or do anything further with his NYTimes lawsuit? Meghan Twohey needs to be punished for what she did.

NAG is pretty clear that she thinks at least there should be a very high bar for suing journalists for reporting so she doesn’t necessarily disagree with what happened. But she did mention ethical standards.

It is interesting to me, though, if a judge or jury rules, there was no smear campaign, then New York Times still has this article inside a Hollywood smear campaign - if legally there is not one, would they retract the article or put out a clarification?

Interestingly, when they first put out the article, it was not behind a paywall and you could go to the CRD complaint too. Now that it is all locked up so it’s only for subscribers.

There should be a high bar for suing journalists, but Meghan was absolutely sloppy in her reporting. She claimed she went through troves of thousands of documents, she made allegations like "this is what really happened," and her reporting in the Instagram video (which I thought would have helped Justin's case) was worse and flat-out got things wrong. She also made allegations like this: "The effort to tarnish Ms. Lively appears to have paid off. Within days of the film’s release, the negative media coverage and commentary became an unusually high percentage of her online presence, according to a forensic review she sought from a brand marketing consultant."

This is why it really sucks that his case against the Times was dismissed.

New York Times is never issuing a retraction or putting out a clarification if they don't have to. Smear campaign is not a legal term, and I can't see Meghan Twohey and NYTmes admitting fault. Even though Blake won't have been able to prove a smear campaign, you can't necessarily disprove one either, even though it's obvious that Blake's downfall was her own doing.

That makes sense.

It’s interesting to read the Sony executives email. This the president of Sony, conversing with the CEO of Sony and I believe a chief comms person, conversing about Blake. That’s the email where they call her “epic level stupid” and say she destroyed her own career.

They weren’t responding to or influenced by bots. They were specifically mentioning things that she did, like launching and marketing her hair products in conjunction with the movie. Nobody made her do that. Any good PR person would have stopped her from doing that. Blake and Ryan just think they are smarter than everybody else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we really need more of is zesty Ryan posts.

For real. I’m not that poster but….they aren’t wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we really need more of is zesty Ryan posts.

For real. I’m not that poster but….they aren’t wrong.

Medium did a deep dive on every interaction he’s had with Joe Keery. It’s pretty disturbing. In isolation if you’re just a casual fan and you see a one or two off double entendre joke like that you’re like oh he’s being funny. But they put them all together over the course of a few months that they were working together, and shoot how uncomfortable Joe was with it and how pervasive it was.

Ryan’s not a normal dude. Something off about that. In his congratulatory email to Colleen Hoover he starts it by basically saying he has to extricate himself from the president of Sony‘s mouth or something. He can’t even just send an email without making a gay s-x joke. It’s odd.