Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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?

NP, but I would guess the opening quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

NP, but I would guess the opening quote.

Much of it, way too much quoting without sourcing. It’s worse than the first one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes according to her complaint. And although there is no requirement to source, given how was proven false the first go around, I credit none of it based on allegation alone, particularly without naming names. It’s a joke. She wanted more time, hoping she’d get something via her subpoenas. She didn’t get that so we get this garbage.

[Anonymous]

The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

[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.

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.

Well, when you hire Johnny Depp’s PR firm you are going to get comparisons to the Amber Heard treatment. Pretty sure that’s on them, not me.

[Anonymous]

This is the only board I have seen that has such a staunch pro Justin position that he did nothing wrong and that all of this was solely a plot from Blake from before the movie even began to steal the movie.

Lots of boards have far more nuanced discussions and its curious that this one is almost entirely pro Justin with vicious attacks at Blake and at anyone who says anything that isn't pro Justin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

Good.

As for the complaints, both are overwrought and seem to be drafted more for the media. Lively files a Complaint, and then Baldoni sues her on a Complaint that reads more as an answer to her Complaint, complete with blurry annotated texts full of arrows and highlighting, extraneous details (she didn't even read the book!) and a movie-worthy plotline of Blake taking over the film along with the tearful account of the PR person losing her work phone. It reads like a trashy novel. Then Lively "amends" her Complaint in a way that is mostly just responding to the points reads in Baldoni's complaint, adding in nonsense like quotes from his Ted Talk and a t-shirt that Sarowitz was wearing. And Baldoni's next amended Complaint will respond to all her points. Meanwhile neither of them has actually filed an Answer. Not a litigator but I don't think it's meant to work this way.

Meanwhile Blake was all about the screenshots in her original complaint when it came to the PR person's texts (at least hers are more legible!) but when it comes to her own texts, simply quotes herself at length and says other actresses expressed agreement. That's questionable. It's probably 99% her and one word answers from the actresses like "I know" "So sorry" "scary" etc. Then she includes random asides like how one of her employees was scared because a process server followed her with their lights off and filed a police report.

It's all very silly but entertaining to read.

[Anonymous]

For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

[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.

“Evil” oh grow up, damn. Evil is blackface and getting married on a plantation and fqin every married costar for a leg-up, and faking a MeToo complaint. F her. There is no evidence he did ANYTHING wrong in tough circumstances.

Jed? it's time to go home. Take a breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

I don't think it proves anything especially considering she was already trashing him during the shoot. If anything it shows he was about to defend himself, not attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

Which means the motions are quashed temporarily until the parties can agree how to narrow or the Court will decide on the 24 th. Not weird at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

I don't think it proves anything especially considering she was already trashing him during the shoot. If anything it shows he was about to defend himself, not attack.

Except there are plenty of texts about him wanting to attack?

[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.

I know you are afraid of TikTok, but if you spent some time on there, you might get a sense of how much of the Blake hate is indeed related to her own actions.

This is a woman who alleges Justin is responsible for damage to her reputation in 2025 and then, all on her own, went on a nationally televised show just this past weekend, and let this very lawsuit be the butt of a joke. Absolutely no self awareness, none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

Not enforcible means quashed. Don’t play dumb.