Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Sorry, meant Blake, everyone loves Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

In fact, as a lawyer, I am wondering if Blake and Ryan insisted that they draft parts of the Complaint. Either that or her lawyers hate her too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

Blake started this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

Hot felon became famous. Lu-whatever his name is kills a dad in cold blood and groups support him. It’s a weird world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

How can this be proved considering there are many atrocious Blake Lively interviews out there (much worse than the Swedish journalist) dating back a decade +, and continuing during the movie promotion? Baldoni didn't force her to mock DV victims and make herself look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

This is also over wrought, and the constant Amber Heard refrains are too much. This isn’t about how many dramatic accusations she can allege, she needs facts and there really isn’t much of that. I’m confident discovery will bear that out.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively is now claiming her children are traumatized by this and struggles to leave home.

Right after the SNL appearance? Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

It’s not, but it set Justin Baldoni up a bit - you can’t deny that. He was forced to relay handwritten notes to Blake and she use them against him.

Also, I don’t understand why people don’t get that in a movie of this budget, really any budget but especially one with a budget of 25 million which is not big for a Hollywood movie, you just don’t have an IC constantly waiting in the wings to come out and meet with people. She is a contracted position and they probably had her contracted for a few meetings. If Blake missed those meetings, there’s no guarantee that she can come back again. She’s probably contracted on other movies. So yes, it is a problem that Blake missed meetings and people keep dismissing that as if it is nothing, but it actually is really relevant.

Just like many things, it seems like Blake constantly set people up. Inviting people into the trailer while she was breast-feeding or pumping and then later, turning around as if people did something inappropriate.

Refusing to follow directions in scenes that the director wanted, and then claiming things were unscripted. She has a pattern of doing this.

This. So confusing. On May 24, 2023, Blake sent a text to a woman who was a mutual friend of Baldoni and Heath describing them as "creeps... Like keep your hormones to yourselves. This is not mine. I don’t want it. I don’t want you [sic] gaze or words or tongue or videos of your naked wife. Yeah. It’s shocking. Clowns.”

But just the following week on June 2, 2023, Blake was comfortable inviting Baldoni into her trailer to rehearse their lines together while pumping.

This sounds like it was maybe Liz Plank that she was texting, since we know Plank was friends with Baldoni and Heath. As someone who used to listen to Plank’s podcast, Synced, this trial is going to be fascinating. The Synced drama is the whole reason I ever started following this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

Hot felon became famous. Lu-whatever his name is kills a dad in cold blood and groups support him. It’s a weird world.

Hit felon turned the tables on gun violence by actually attacking (arguably) bad people who were literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people instead of attacking innocent children.

Here, Lively wasn’t killing anyone, whether you believe her SH complaints or not. According to her complaint, she and other women in the set did have complaints about Baldoni, and talked about them, and raised them under the understanding (and specific agreement from Baldoni and the production company) that there would be no retaliation. Maybe Baldoni looks back now and says hey those issues were not so bad. But he signed the doc saying they wouldn’t happen any more and there would be no retaliation. But the PR scheme cooked up by Abel and Wallace was vile. Maybe that part is so old that it doesn’t hit you anymore, or maybe because you only see Lively as a bad person who people would obviously say bad things about you think it was fine, but that deliberate campaign to encourage the public to focus on all of the worst parts of someone and all the gleeful commentary that accompanied it, is wrong and, yes, evil. Worse than anything Lively did, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

In fact, as a lawyer, I am wondering if Blake and Ryan insisted that they draft parts of the Complaint. Either that or her lawyers hate her too.

I’m a lawyer and I don’t get that impression at all. What paragraphs do you think Lively or Reynolds’s drafted?