Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

The Court has to assume everything she alleges is true. The summary judgment standard requires Court to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to her. Even under that standard, the Court found half her sexual harassment claims were deficient as a matter of law.

That is different than saying she lied.

Also, yes, some of her SH claims were dismissed as deficient as a matter of law. That was inevitable, it's one of the reasons that in a hostile work environment claim, you list everything that could possibly have contributed to HWE because there is always an expectation that the court is going to streamline. But the judge identified multiple SH claims that he found, as a matter law, could have proceeded but for the independent contractor issue.

The court's decision in no way shows Lively lied. So it's not clear to me why someone would conclude from that decision that "she lied." It's just not what the court said.

Most of the facts Lively has alleged have been admitted by the other side, they are arguing over the impact or contextual meaning. That's different than "she lied" (though Wayfarer is happy to use that as a PR attack even though it is not one of their legal arguments since it's not true), it's "she misunderstood" or "her offense was not reasonable." That's a totally different conversation.

"She lied" is simply not true at this point. She didn't lie. I don't understand why it is repeated over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

The Court has to assume everything she alleges is true. The summary judgment standard requires Court to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to her. Even under that standard, the Court found half her sexual harassment claims were deficient as a matter of law.

That is different than saying she lied.

Also, yes, some of her SH claims were dismissed as deficient as a matter of law. That was inevitable, it's one of the reasons that in a hostile work environment claim, you list everything that could possibly have contributed to HWE because there is always an expectation that the court is going to streamline. But the judge identified multiple SH claims that he found, as a matter law, could have proceeded but for the independent contractor issue.

The court's decision in no way shows Lively lied. So it's not clear to me why someone would conclude from that decision that "she lied." It's just not what the court said.

Most of the facts Lively has alleged have been admitted by the other side, they are arguing over the impact or contextual meaning. That's different than "she lied" (though Wayfarer is happy to use that as a PR attack even though it is not one of their legal arguments since it's not true), it's "she misunderstood" or "her offense was not reasonable." That's a totally different conversation.

"She lied" is simply not true at this point. She didn't lie. I don't understand why it is repeated over and over.

I mean, she’s been caught lying and changed her amended complaint accordingly. Further, many believe that her account of the birthing scene, the birthing video and her being insulted by the use of the word sexy, among other things, are lies.m I could go on but have better things to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

The Court has to assume everything she alleges is true. The summary judgment standard requires Court to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to her. Even under that standard, the Court found half her sexual harassment claims were deficient as a matter of law.

That is different than saying she lied.

Also, yes, some of her SH claims were dismissed as deficient as a matter of law. That was inevitable, it's one of the reasons that in a hostile work environment claim, you list everything that could possibly have contributed to HWE because there is always an expectation that the court is going to streamline. But the judge identified multiple SH claims that he found, as a matter law, could have proceeded but for the independent contractor issue.

The court's decision in no way shows Lively lied. So it's not clear to me why someone would conclude from that decision that "she lied." It's just not what the court said.

Most of the facts Lively has alleged have been admitted by the other side, they are arguing over the impact or contextual meaning. That's different than "she lied" (though Wayfarer is happy to use that as a PR attack even though it is not one of their legal arguments since it's not true), it's "she misunderstood" or "her offense was not reasonable." That's a totally different conversation.

"She lied" is simply not true at this point. She didn't lie. I don't understand why it is repeated over and over.

I mean, she’s been caught lying and changed her amended complaint accordingly. Further, many believe that her account of the birthing scene, the birthing video and her being insulted by the use of the word sexy, among other things, are lies.m I could go on but have better things to do.

What you believe is irrelevant. And kind of dumb since you weren't there. Weren't involved. You coming to say this-and clearly following the news about it- contraindicates that you have better things to do.

The above poster is 100% correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

Yes, I read the docket, that's how I was able to mention what was said in a deposition and text messages.

[Anonymous]

She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

Yes, I read the docket, that's how I was able to mention what was said in a deposition and text messages.

Perhaps he didn’t read the report. I don’t know what to tell you. There’s definitely reports and people saying there are no reports haven’t read the docket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

Yes, I read the docket, that's how I was able to mention what was said in a deposition and text messages.

Perhaps he didn’t read the report. I don’t know what to tell you. There’s definitely reports and people saying there are no reports haven’t read the docket.

I am familiar with the message you are citing from Jed but I recall it as a quick text or email. Not what I consider a report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

.

I’ve read a letter from Jed detailing activity around Justin and wayfarer in fall of 2024. I assume that was an example of a report. I assume that was official business he was being paid for and not something he did for kicks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

TLDR but it’s over for Blake. It was actually over a long time ago but she’s insisted on letting this drag out.

They are moving to London - it’s over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

This is really a reach. If someone does a really crappy interview and looks bad and it goes viral, they can’t just blame the internet. it’s Blake’s words. Again I will point out the difference here between what happened with Taylor Swift. People were boosting false content about her, twisting things like the jewelry and other things that she was putting out around her album were Nazi symbols and things. That was just patently false.

But circulating various interviews of you sucking is not the same thing. And I’ll point out It was not just the baby bump video. It was videos of her promoting the movie which correct me if I’m wrong, but as the star of the movie she would want those circulating. there are multiple videos of her promoting her hairline, promoting her alcohol line, and being really sarcastic when people are asking her about domestic violence. None of that is Wayfares fault, all of that significantly harmed her reputation.

I also have not seen one shred of proof that tag or Jed actually did anything. $90,000 is not a lot for three months of activity and we saw some of the reports that he did. He was monitoring things just like he said. there’s no evidence of a bunch of bots boosting content two years later - there’s no evidence of content creators being contacted by the team. Despite over 100 subpoenas.

What reports? Either Baldoni or Heath was asked in a depo and they had no reports. It's clear from the real-time texts that TAG was in charge of monitoring. TAG employees or interns would identify and send links to Katie Case who would flag to Jed for "action."

OK, but I read reports in the docket. I read a lengthy letter from Jed Wallace to the team saying what he was finding when he was monitoring. And saying that they shouldn’t do anything because “everything is traceable.” he actually was finding evidence of bots from Lively’s team.

Do you just go off vibes on Reddit or if you actually been through the official documents in the docket?

If there are actual Jed Wallace "monitoring" reports on the docket why haven't they been unsealed? Hard to see what the privacy concern or trade secret would be of reports just monitoring how the movie or Wayfarer or Baldoni were being covered in the press or discussed online. And I don't recall any discussion of Wallace claiming privacy or trade secrets to keep these "reports" sealed, like we've seen with his client lists.

I have not gone through every docket entry on this case but it seems odd we have yet to see a single one of these so called monitoring reports publicly. If they produced them, that would be a pretty convincing defense. So..... Where are they? The trial is in like two weeks.

.

I’ve read a letter from Jed detailing activity around Justin and wayfarer in fall of 2024. I assume that was an example of a report. I assume that was official business he was being paid for and not something he did for kicks.

That's a short email, not a report. A report would have actual data, charts, tracking figures, etc. Also that's ONE email. They paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the work product? This is a major issue for their defense, especially because if there is no written evidence of substantial work product, they need Wallace to testify to what he did and that guy is not going to play well in front of a jury. They have a similar problem with Nathan, especially because both Nathan and Wallace need to testify to rebut Katie Case (where they will be criss examined with the evidence they lied under oath in their depositions, as shown by Case's depo and emails).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s been caught in a million lies.

He never said you smell soooo good, he didnt improvise one kissing scene yet she improvised 2 and he was clearly caught off guard. She was not shown porn on set.

She said in her deposition that things started out amicably, and that it was only overtime that she realized how small things were making her uncomfortable. Yet we saw from the texts to Taylor that even before the movie started, she was talking horribly about Justin, scheming against him and calling him a doofus and a clown. She didn’t slowly start to become uncomfortable with him. She was out to get him from the start.

She told Matt Damon and his wife that he had complained about low bone density and they mocked him for that. That’s just mocking menopausal women but actually he never claimed that. He had a long standing back injury that’s been verified.

She went all over town saying that he was in a cult. He is not in fact in a cult.

So tiresome.

- She quoted his "you smell good line" fairly accurately from her own memory and corrected her complaint when a video was produced showing the exact phrasing. Do you remember everything someone said to you 18 months ago with perfect accuracy? Not a lie.

- He did improvise kissing, it's just she did as well. We literally see him improvising nuzzling/kissing in the dancing scene. She clearly thought her improvised kissing was more professional and didn't cross a line. Different interpretation but not a lie.

- She never alleged she was shown porn on set. She alleged she was shown a video of a naked woman with legs played with no warning and thought it was porn. Which is what happened. She also says porn, including Justin's porn addiction, were discussed on set, which he has admitted. Not a lie.

- You can be amicable while disliking a person privately. There is no allegation that Lively was unkind or rude to Justin before shooting or when it started. The fact that she mentioned not really liking him to a close friend at the time actually demonstrates that she was capable of setting those feelings aside, because she continued to work amicably with him despite her misgivings. Have you never made a negative comment about a boss it colleague to a friend and then gone to work and gotten along fine? I've done this plenty of times. Not a lie.

- He absolutely claimed that the reason he needed to know her weight is that he had low bone density leading to his back issues. Not a lie (just an incredibly stupid thing Justin once said). Also I'm menopausal and this doesn't offend me in the least, but Justin asking her trainer for her weight does offend me.

- I think he is in a cult. I'm not talking about his religion, but Wayfarer. Multiple people on that set referenced the cult-like vibes around how they conducted business, not just Blake. I happen to agree. Anyway, that's an opinion, not a lie.

TLDR but it’s over for Blake. It was actually over a long time ago but she’s insisted on letting this drag out.

They are moving to London - it’s over.

Of course you won't read it, you ignore anything that doesn't confirm your existing view.

Unfortunately the jury will be required to listen to the evidence, not just bathe in Reddit drivel. Darn.